Talk:Socialist Party (England and Wales)

Name

are they called SPEW? Adam 14:03, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Usually by detractors, yes. Warofdreams 15:29, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In fact the organisation is not called the Socialist Party in England and Wales or the Socialist Party (England and Wales). Its name is simply "Socialist Party".

• But we can't have the article at "Socialist Party" as this is a disambiguation page, so "(England and Wales)" to distinguish it from other parties of the same name. Warofdreams 11:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes (officially) referred to as "Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales)" though. HoboBen (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article to remove "SPEW". If it's used by detractors, but not by the party itself, it shouldn't be there. 108.171.128.180 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The party's name is the Socialist Party of England and Wales. That spells SPEW. This is to distinguish them from the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Membership figures

Does anyone know the membership figures, compared with Socialist Workers Party, RESPECT, Socialist Labour Party, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.228.126 (talk • contribs)

• One of their members told me a year ago that their membership was around 1,300. This is likely to include everyone who has any claim to membership; their active membership is certainly less. The SWP has a higher membership than the SP, although it's difficult to determine exactly what it is. RESPECT includes pretty well all SWP members, plus a fair few other people. I've got no idea what the SLP membership figure is, but their active membership is very small indeed. The best place to get estimates of membership figures for UK left organisations is the Weekly Worker, although of course these are often disputed. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Party member Martin Powell-Davies gained 6,482 first-preference votes when he stood for General Secretary of the Teachers Union in the UK, Roger Bannister 41,406 in the local government union UNISON. This suggests that membership figures are not an accurate measure of influence. Derekmcmillan 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The membership of the Socialist Party is predominantly active and you are not considered a member unless you regularly pay subs. This is in contrast to the SWP, many of whose members are not active and do not pay subs, but are still considered members by the SWP. jimbobalina2005 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On last count the SP's membership is around 1,800, but are aiming for 2000 by mid next year. I would say they rival the SWP's membership, especially active members. Saying this however, the SWP do appear to have more members in London. (RedJim 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

jimbobalina's comment is both partisan and suspect: I've been a member of both organizations and the SWP used to have an annual re-registration process in which all members must be renewed or removed from membership. That meant that peripheral members were paying subs and saw themselves as members. The SP (which I was in for much longer) had no such process and often had nominal members on the books who we'd lost contact with or might not have identified themselves as members. The result was that the SWP's idea of its membership was probably more accurate. This was before the reversal in both groups fortunes; since that time the SWP markedly declined and the SP experienced a period of steady growth (or so it would appear if attendances at their showcase events - Socialism and Marxism - are to be compared).

The SWP claim that 4,100 attended their Marxism 2006 event(see [1]. How many attended the Socialist parties event?--JK the unwise 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:: Hi - Afaik Marxism, and possibly Socialism, have people from all over the left attending them and not just party members, so I'm not sure if attendence figures would shed any light on membership numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.137.134 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generally the case that in times of great activity, for example in the run-up to elections, national conferences or demonstrations, and during major local campaigns on public services, Socialist Party membership that may be sometimes inactive participate far more. It is rare in most cases for members of the Socialist Party to be inactive throughout the year. Subs are paid by all members and paper subscriptions are taken out by the vast majority. It is also possible that figures of membership on paper may in fact be higher than those cited here, so that the distinction between active and inactive membership is made, though I can't verify that. Ellen 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

At SWP National Conference, the delegates were informed that the SWP's membership stands at around 8,000 active members (either active members or sub-payers) and around 2,000 ambiguous members. Or so I think I remember...

A couple of years ago SP claimed 5000 members, I think this is rather a number due to wishfull thinking than actual membership. If we look at their big campaign on building a new workers party they have only gotten 2500 signatures and considering a large part of those arent' SP members I think the membership is far lower. A pessimistic estimate would be 500 a positive one would be around 1000. Nevertheless the influence seems to have diminished when they stood in elections, this should maybe be written in the article? 80.167.85.23 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For something contentious such as membership figures, we could really do with references. Perhaps the membership figure they claim, and one given by another source (perhaps the Weekly Worker) might suffice. Warofdreams talk 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some anonymous speaker for the Socialist Party told me on Facebook today that the party has 2000 members but that's an obvious lie. The Facebook Group for Socialist Party doesn't even have 400 members as of today's date.. How many members of the party are not on Facebook? And also people could be members of the Facebook group without being members of the party. So probably around 500 active members now. Only the Socialist Party membership secretary could give the precise figure but won't despite claiming that the Socialist Party is open and democratic. SmokeyTheCat 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the facebook group for the Socialist Party has over 1600 members - see [2]. I assume you mean the fan page which has only recently been created.Votemoose (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am being dim Votemoose but where on that page is the 1600+ figure? I have looked and looked at the page and I can't see it. Or do you have click the 'Request to join' button to see the figure? I won't click this as I don't wish to join. Thanks. SmokeyTheCat 12:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have joined the facebook group - the figure it gives in the members box on the page is 1615 at the moment (21:40 BST, Sunday 1st August). Can't remember if it was visible before I did. Votemoose (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Marxist socialism and Democratic socialism

Is it important to point out that the Socialist Party advocate Marxist socialism, i.e. communism, rather than democratic socialism as many other parties of the same name operate the latter?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.72.238 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006.

Good point. It's important to understand that not only are they advocates of Marxism but of Trotskyism in particular, i.e. permanent socialist revolution. As such, the implementation of these demands is totally irrelevant to Socialist Party's idea of a future socialist party. SP is a revolutionary organization, and the list of proposals, though in total more radical than any programme previously implemented by any Labour government would not in itself amount to the kind of revoluion SP wants.

"In non-revolutionary periods demands for the arming of the working class and the dismantling of the State will not be sufficient. These presuppose that the workers are arriving at or have reached revolutionary conclusions. Soviets can only be demanded or established when objective conditions are ripe". 'Bulletin of Marxist Studies' (Militant int. doc.), Spring 1985, p. 8

N.B. Militant or Militant tendency is the Socialist Party's former name. The internal documents which contained the above were leaked and revealed by the now BBC Newsnight Political Editor Michael Crick in his 1986 book 'The March of Militant'.

Thus, their policies must be seen as a transitional programme (drawn up by Trotsky for the Founding Conference of the Fourth International in 1939). In short, their policies serve only to appeal to the working class. As Trotsky says:

"It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat."

94.11.160.24 (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Centralism

The SP practice this. In fact it just means centralism. One vote of substance is taken at conference, whether the to confirm or reject the slate the Executive Central Committee (5 or 6 people) presents for the National Executive Committee. In practice this could never be rejected or the whole organisation would cease to function. No individual votes are taken for any position nor is there any alternative slate. The NEC -chosen by the ECC- goes on to rubber stamp the ECC. So the 5 or 6 people on the Executive Central Committee are unelected in any shape form. This is in no sense democratic.SmokeyTheCat 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to add things to the article in a NPOV fashion rather then editorialising. Also you need to provide references especially for contentious material.--JK the unwise 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a theoretical basis for democratic centralism and so it needs to be understood from a Leninist perspective. To talk in terms of a liberal democratic electoral process misunderstands what democratic centralism is about. The danger, of course, is that you land up with the centralism without the democracy. But that's the difference between theory and practice!! - Dave Smith 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an ex-member of the SP and attended conference. I know what I say. The current article merely blandly restates the SP official version of itself. Wiki readers have a right to know the truth. As such I am reverting. SmokeyTheCat 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrases " In practice Congress could never reject this slate as then the whole party would instantly cease to function. The SP call this 'Democratic Centralism'. In practice it is simply centralism" are totally POV, as you are conjecturing about something ("would cease to function") and stating that conjecture as fact. BobFromBrockley 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an omission not to state categorically that the SP pratices democratic centralism, and Smokey has correctly pointed that out. Replaced conjecture with references from three sources. The journalist Crick sometimes lapses into the worst habits of his trade but at other times he is a reliable source, especially where he steers clear of gossip and heresay and gives sources. The entry certainly required more explanation. Andysoh 13:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well doubtless Taaffe does argue in favour of the way the Socialist Party does things because it guarantees him the job of leader for as long as he feels like doing it. He can compare himself to Lenin and Trotsky as much as he likes. Democratic Centralism is discredited for a good reason : it gave rise to Stalin. Until the Socialist Party becomes genuinely democratic it will never grow and remain the marginal sect that is now. SmokeyTheCat 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think many supporters of the Trotskyist ideology, including those in the Socialist Party, would argue that the failure of the revolutions which broke out in the West after the Russia revolution, which left the Russian revolution isolated, and the unfavourable conditions in Russia itself, where the working class were no more than a small minority, gave rise to the bureaucracy. The usual analogy is that when there are shortages, there arises a policeman (the state forces) to police the queues, and then the policeman ensures he is fed first, (and becomes a priviledged layer) or as marx put it, all the s**t comes to the surface. Andysoh 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do the Socialist Party now? Taaffe elects himself and then quotes Trotsky to justify this. You seem to be quite happy with this 'democracy' Andysoh.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does Taaffe elect himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanD 016 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Smokey, any branch can propose an alternative slate, or amendments to a slate. Branches can also demand an emergency congress at any point if 1/3rd of branches agree. 81.103.57.200 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The article blandly states:- "Congress elects a National Committee, which in turn elects an Executive Committee of around a dozen or so members which runs the party on a day-to-day basis."

However at Congress there is simply an accept or reject vote for the slate for the National Committee. This slate is chosen by the Executive Committee. So it all goes round in a circle. I've never heard of an alternative slate being proposed. I've never heard of an Emergency Congress being called either. In 6 years in the Party I never saw or even heard of a Constitution or a Rule Book. It all worked on trust. But maybe I am out of date. I don't care anyway. SmokeyTheCat 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Marxist or Trotskyist

While I know the two can be used alongside each other, shouldn't either Marxism be added to the infobox, or change the intro text to "...is a Marxist-Trotskyist political party..." or both? - Lasse Havelund ^{(p) (t)} 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Trotskyism is Marxism, as practised by socialists who supported Trotsky against Stalin, so Marxist-Trotskyist is really tautological. Marxist-Leninist is a different matter. Warofdreams talk 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's all fine and good, but couldn't you write "Marxism, Trotskyism" in the infobox, instead of using two different terms in two different places, to clarify? I dunno, might just be me. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Can we add some IMT criticisms on the Socialist Party?76.71.171.251 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Add any criticisms you like as long as you have a source. SmokeyTheCat 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Militant Labour into Socialist Party (England and Wales)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Socialist Party (England and Wales). No opposition after 6 weeks Mpjd500 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article Militant Labour be merged into Socialist Party (England and Wales). Both articles refer to one and the same party, with Militant Labour changing its name to the Socialist Party in 1997. I feel this is different from the Militant tendency which I agree should be covered in a seperate article, since it was a grouping with a notable history in the Labour Party and did not in its entirety become the Socialist Party. I think that the content in the Militant Labour article can be covered within the Socialist Party article without causing any problems of undue weighting. Mpjd500 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Below 500 Members in England and Wales now?

The SP are not exactly open about their membership figures but I would estimate that they are easily below 500 in England and Wales now. Way below 100 members in the capital now. 500 in England and Wales would seem like an over-estimate. There was a time in 1990 when they could have reckoned on 8,000 supporters.

No, I don't think so. The SP is quite easily able to mobilise roughly 1000 people to its main events, and its delegate conferences, which might have one delegate per five or ten members (that sort of range) seems to have 300 delegates or so, suggesting somewhere between 1500 and 3000 members. Andysoh (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Domestic abuse allegations - this section, added by unsigned, is removed due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations, pending discussion

The section Domestic abuse allegations, copied below, was recently added by an unsigned person. I have removed it since it carries very serious implications and has a number of misrepresentations, pending editors discussion. I have detailed for reasons below. The socialist party's statement can be found here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Trade_union_figures/Steve_Hedley/16427/02-04-2013/rmt-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer

There are POV issues and a question of whether it is appropriate, noteworthy, and if so, whether it deserves it's own section.

There is a possibility of serious misrepresentation. This is why it was removed.

1. The accusations against Steve Hedley refer to a time before Hedley joined the Socialist Party, and he immediately (not 'later') resigned from the Socialist Party when his former partner made the accusations precisely in order that the Party was not implicated. The Independent article correctly does not cite the Socialist Party. The section, as it stands, by such omissions, results in misrepresentation. No Socialist Party source is cited.

2. His former partner was not a member of the socialist party. In fact she was a member of an organization, the AWL, which has carried a number of articles which attack the socialist party. This is problematic when the leading source in the section is the AWL.

3. The AWL is one of the two sources which mention or implicate the Socialist Party. The other is the Weekly Worker, which has carried many attacks on the Socialist Party. What is certainly required for a section, I think, is a source which links the Socialist Party to the accusations. I don't see how it could, given the facts.

4. These two sources themselves also have some POV issues, and are not really of the standard of wiki sources.

5. The section says that the socialist party found there was no case to answer. This is incorrect. Here is part of the Socialist Party's statement:

"Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter".

"The police had previously investigated and concluded they would be taking no action.

"All allegations of violence against women should be taken extremely seriously and investigated thoroughly, in a way that is sympathetic towards the woman making the accusation.

"Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."

Here is the removed section: Domestic abuse allegations in 2013 In March 2013, allegations of domestic abuse surfaced in The Independent against one of the Socialist Party's leading trade unionists, RMT Assistant General Secretary Steve Hedley, who later resigned from the party. The Socialist Party claims there is "no case to answer" and has been accused of covering up for Hedley by other groups on the far-left.

Andysoh (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

References

"Internal Crisis"

This section is factually inaccurate. The "Marxist World Faction" is not a faction because they are no longer members of the CWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmox (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Far-left?

This party has some quite communist ideals in there, wouldn't it be far-left and not left-wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatJosh (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism after 2019 split

I have had to revert several untrue edits following a split of about 5% the organisation:

1. removal of CWI affiliation: this is not true as both sides still claim to represent the CWI
2. removal of "socialist alternative": this name is still registered to the party with the electoral commission. Even if the split is currently using the name organisationally there is no evidence the party will not continue to use that name in elections as is its right under electoral law.

Please restrict edits to what is factually true and citeable and leave factional motives aside.

Golightlys (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

See also talk:Committee for a Workers' International Golightlys (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative

The Socialist Party sometimes use the name Socialist Alternative to contest elections, as currently registered with the Electoral Commission.

A new group has every right to use that name for themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that the Socialist Party still has the name registered to them for electoral purposes.

Therefore I oppose recent edits removing Socialist Alternative from the info box but due to contention and COI have opened this for discussion.

Golightlys (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

SPEW has shown no intention of standing as Socialist Alternative since a new group was launched under that name.

However even if we follow the logic that the name should be there as it's a registered name, SPEW also has 7 other names registered with the Electoral Commission, for example "Socialist Alternative (Nellist)" - should they all be added to the info box? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Socialist Party are standing under their electoral name Socialist Alternative in the Coventry Upper Stoke ward by-election 19 March 2020. Although yes it remains to be seen what name will be used at a general election.

Golightlys (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of violence against women

In March 2013 Socialist Party member and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Assistant General Secretary Steve Hedley was accused of domestic violence by a former partner, Caroline Leneghan[69] Hedley resigned from the Socialist Party during the investigation[70]. Hedley subsequently claimed that he had been cleared of abusing Leneghan by the police and by an RMT investigation[71] - the Socialist Party did not carry out an investigation. Leneghan and her RMT rep Andy Littlechild published a statement arguing that Hedley had not been cleared, as charges were not pressed due to the time lapsed between the alleged incident and when it was reported[72]. The Socialist Party's role was strongly criticised by other socialist groups[73].

A former Socialist Party member, Sara Mayo, has also alleged that the Socialist Party's Executive Committee covered up a sexual assault against her by a fellow member[74][75]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

See talk in next section Andysoh (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual assault have been removed

This is astonishing. Andysoh has removed allegations made by a former Socialist Party member, Sara Mayo, that she was sexually assaulted and that this was covered up by leading SP members. I can only assume Andysoh is a Socialist Party member as they make innumberable edits to this page, and quote Peter Taaffe on their talk page. If this is not the case they are of course welcome to say so. If, however, they are an SP member then they should not be making such significant edits to this page, which show a clear bias. It is also absolutely outrageous that they questioned whether Sara's accusations are "notable". I am reinstating this section. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss your edits before posting them.

Please refer to previous talk sections before posting.

You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing. It could easily be seen as constituting an attack on the Socialist Party from a POV rather than an impartial edit. The accusations of bias carried in your comments above are thereby shown to apply to yourself.

Sara Mayo allegations are self published. They do not constitute a valid wikipedia source. More could be said on this topic if it returns for further discussion.

For these reasons I am returning the section dealing with the Socialist Party's views on Women'a oppression.

In addition, please note the points made about the Steve Hedley section made in 2014, in the talk section under the title "Domestic abuse allegations - this section, added by unsigned, is removed due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations, pending discussion". This entire reference is not a valid entry for the Socialist Party.Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

" You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing." @Andysoh you did just this yourself, please refrain from removing sections without discussion when you, as a member of this organisation, have a conflict of interest 86.25.13.191 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing. It could easily be seen as constituting an attack on the Socialist Party from a POV rather than an impartial edit." I did not remove that section, 86.25.13.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did. I know that lying is second nature to your organisation, but I suggest you refrain from doing it so blatantly. Furthermore the idea that removing a section is an attack on SPEW is bizarre, and frankly indicative of a cult mentality. Has it possibly occurred to you that the section was removed because it was an irrelevant waste of space? You should be familiar with them Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you a member of the Socialist Party? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sara Mayo's allegations were also published in the Weekly Worker and on another blog,both of which I added as a source. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I will review both sources and return to you. However my initial view would be that these are intercene far left disputes of little value in wikipedia terms. Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

re Sara Mayo. What appears to be undisputed by either side is that a member of the Socialist Party put his hand on Sara's knee in a pub after a meeting. Both sides seem to have accepted that. Neither side dispute that there was an investigation and that the assailant, a former employee of Remploy, apologised. However, note that there is no accusation that Sara's accusations were "disabilist" in character. If Wikipedia allowed self-published attacks on political parties on Wikipedia articles, it would substantially lower the standard of Wikipedia articles. I don't think it is notable for these reasons, however I will review her blog post. The Weekly Worker page appears to have been removed. Andysoh (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Astonished to see Mayo actually naming her alleged attacker and making allegations against him which are unfounded, opening herself up to prosecution. I think the named individual would have a good case before the law. I think this is clearly a source that cannot be used by Wikiepdia.Andysoh (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you a member of the Socialist Party? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the points made above before making further edits, particualrly adding material of a potentially libelous nature. Andysoh (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, please refrain from making personal accusations. Andysoh, please refrain from restating that bit of political propaganda which is even more poorly sourced than the material you are removing. All of y'all, stop edit warring--if you continue, I will lock the article and block every single offender. You too, 86.25.13.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Drmies (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the idea of being a member of SPEW is pretty horrible, but I'm not sure it quite constitutes a "personal accusation"? Another regular editor of this page, Golightlys is a SPEW member, but they admit this conflict of interest on their page and avoid making controversial edits as a result. Why is it unreasonable to ask Andysoh if he is a SPEW member? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

COIs can come from detractors/rivals too. If there aren't the reliable third party sources for an organisationally neutral editor to write this section then it's probably a good sign it's not suitable for Wikipedia - as an advertisement or as a critisism. Without those sources its going to be the individial POV of individual editors going backwards and forwards. Golightlys (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like transphobes, so I don't like SPEW. I'm not sure that counts as a conflict of interest? Anyway the accusations were reported in the Weekly Worker. And you remember them, obviously - you were one of Sara's supporters back then, weren't you? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"What I remember" isn't a source Wikipedia can use. Leaving it there because I'm not going to be involved with editing this section Golightlys (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Golightlys. I do not believe there are any good sources for this material, which is simply not notable. The Weekly Worker article is not a good or usable source. If other editors are unsure of this, I will present arguments for this over the weekend if I have time or as soon as possible after. I hope this is acceptable.

incidentally, the Socialist Party article, Women's rights, trans rights and the Labour movement referenced by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (who is clearly a detractor/rival of the SP, as can be seen from the comments on this talk section above, e.g. using the term "cult" and SPEW) which I will read in full tomorrow, does not on first viewing appear to indicate any transphobia at all. I have only read the reply from WPUK, expecting it to accuse the SP of transphobia on the basis of Yevgeni's assertion, but the opening paragraph reads "Sarah Sachs-Eldridge's article, 'Labour Party and trans rights: united working-class fight needed for rights and resources for all' in the Socialist (issue 1077, 19 February) is to be welcomed, because it clearly rejects the demand for expulsions of Labour members who are active in, or support the views of, Woman's Place UK (WPUK) and LGB Alliance." And carries on in that fashion, but with some differences of opinion on certain things. Perhaps Yevgeni will enlighten me.Andysoh (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. You're not very bright, are you Andysoh? " I have only read the reply from WPUK, expecting it to accuse the SP of transphobia" - WPUK are a transphobic group. Why would they accuse anyone else of transphobia? Typical SPEW member... Anyway, yes I am a detractor of SPEW as I have made clear. I'm being open about that. I notice that you have still refused to admit that you are a SPEW member. Don't worry, I'd be embarrassed too. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you continually violate WP:CIV and I must ask you to stop. Secondly, your assertion about WPUK appears false at first glance, and rather contrary to fact. However, if you want to back up your statement I would be interested to understand your viewpoint.

I've looked up the background to your assertions. Found this Guardian article - a reputable source - [Labour leadership: row over support for trans rights charter] and this second source which is useful also, [Woman’s Place UK is not a ‘trans-exclusionist hate group’].

So your assertion that the SP is transphobic is in fact based on the following: That some on the left have asserted that certain rights are required for trans people, which others on the left find problematic in some respects. The former, the "Labour Campaign for Trans Rights" then accuse the latter (WPUK) of being transphobic because they raise these objections. Note that the supporters of WPUK strongly object to this and state that this is a defamatory claim. Nevertheless you proceed to state that WPUK are transphobic as fact, and then argue that because the SP is prepared to discuss precisely these contentious trans issues with the WPUK, the SP itself is transphobic, regardless of its own political view point, which has never been transphobic. I think I was therefore right to state that this is a false claim, despite your assertion that I am not very bright. In my view, there are a whole number of problems with your approach to understanding the world, and it possibly gives insight into your desire to publish the defamatory material in Sara Mayo's blog, via the Weekly Worker, despite the numerous problems with it. Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The material

For the two sections, on Leneghan and Mayo, there is only one reliable, secondary source, this short article. Whatever that verifies is probably valid article content, though really one needs more sourcing to provide a fuller picture. The rest of the sourcing for both sections is below par and unacceptable, given the requirements in WP:BLP. We cannot use blogs or material written by the involved people; it's as simple as that. So, go find the proper sources and hammer something out here. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP is clear that we can't use Mayo's, Leneghan's or H*dley's blogs - can we use the Weekly Worker's report? https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/958/workers-movement-bureaucratic-justice-and-dealing-/ Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, can I first remind Yevgeni Preobrazhensky of wikipedia's policy on civility between editors.

Here is the summary: "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." WP:CIV

I would be grateful for an apology for the insults thrown at me in this section, and an end to personal attacks.

Secondly, it is clear to me that the Weekly Worker is not a reliable source, but a bitter political enemy of the SP using the derogatory term "SPEW" as does Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, who should also review this practice. It represents a tiny group of individuals with an agenda, rather than a valid news source and its main source and line of attack is the blog of Sara Mayo, which is potentially libellous and which the SP disputes.Andysoh (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not apologise to you or the disgusting group to which you belong. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

there is no need for such aggression, get a grip this is wikipedia 92.237.155.25 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Large scale deletions problematic

I'm not sure the large scale deletions, of multiple sections, should have been undertaken without consultation. There's usually a strong sense that editors should work for a consensus on Wikipedia and try to get stuff improved rather than engage in sudden mass deletions.

There is a further problem with the reasons given for deletion: e.g. typically: "all information is either unsourced, primary source, or inappropriately cites third-party sources that do not state Socialist Party links."

So the first thing here is that there are perfectly good reasons to use primary sources, so long as the subject is justified ("notable").

It is worth taking a look at this article: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources on this subject.

If a subject is notable, what the subject says about itself is important, so long as it is not treated as anything other than "this subject says this" about its policies, etc., and not as an independent truth.

Of course, where stuff is unsourced that's bad, but I don't recall much that was unsourced, so I'm not sure that's a good judgement. Not forgetting Wikipedia does get vandalism and the removal of important links now and then.

And then finally the judgement of whether a third party source source is inappropriate needs discussion, as it may not be a balanced view.

So in each section, the strengths and weaknesses should have been looked at, rather than being summarily dismissed.

I have very limited time myself and only dabble now and then, but I am happy to take a new look, in the light of the criticisms, at the sections deleted and revise them. But note this will take time, measured in weeks, I'd guess.

We don't want an edit war, with people getting banned, etc., so lets look at the sections and improve them.

Anyway, just my penny's worth.

Andysoh (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, it's quite simple. You are an editor with a very obvious WP:COI given your clear history of sympathetic, inappropriate editing for topics to do with the Socialist Party (TUSC, Peter Taaffe just to name two others). You should not be editing on these pages to begin with.

As is clear in Wikipedia's policies, using self-published in the way you have, namely to write what is basically a biography of the Socialist Party, is deeply inappropriate. The sections removed were done to meet policy, and therefore will not be reinstated unless reliable sources are used to back up material. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, reading through WP:COI, and from thence, Advocacy, I think you are mistaken. I have an interest in Socialism.

You omit the fact that I played a major role, before turning my attention to the Socialist Party, to the Socialism page, around 2007, all of which edits are now long forgotten.

When I turned to the Socialism page, many years ago, it held a biased position, guided by the personal opinions of one dominant editor with misguided views.

I had a bit of trouble getting unbiassed views presented, but in the end, the guy pushing the "socialism does not work because" point of view, ceded to the position of presenting the ideas socialism as they actually emerged, so as to give a wide understanding of the various strands of it. This was purely fact based, and presented no opinions as to their value.

My efforts were rewarded when the page was awarded with some award or other

I since turned my attention to the Socialist Party page and others, which were, frankly, very poorly presented from a wikipedia point of view. Few verified statements, etc., and plenty of advocacy, which I removed.

You ignore my point about Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources on this subject. To repeat, if an organisation is shown to be notable, then "If a subject is notable, what the subject says about itself is important, so long as it is not treated as anything other than "this subject says this" about its policies, etc., and not as an independent truth."

Now it is my belief that I have done nothing more than this. I am happy for you to show, in detail, where this is not the case. You just make sweeping statements which are too general, and hide, I feel, perhaps unknowingly, some prejudice.

Given my previous experience on the wikipedia socialism page, I feel that it is you, not I, that is driven by a perhaps unconscious revulsion at statements such as that the Socialist Party says there should be a 30 hour week without loss of pay.

For some reason, a plain statement of fact like this is seen by you as in some way advocacy, whereas it is merely providing a factual statement. Let's see: if I had added an edit which said "the Socialist party argues for a much better system of pay and hours than presently under capitalism, such as a 30 hour week and a minimum of £15 and hour" - that would be advocacy. You will agree I am sure.

But that is not what is presented. Can you not see that? I hope this helps clarify the situation. Andysoh (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You can point to that Wikipedia essay and push the pretence that we're talking about primary sources all you want, it doesn't change the actual fact under discussion here which is you built nearly the entire "article" using self-published sources, which as stated in the policy is unacceptable. Now you can't claim you were unaware of this policy, you've literally referred to it in edit summaries to remove material ("Removed potentially libelous self-published material from article as per talk - please discuss in talk").

So despite this awareness of the policy you have chosen to engage in years of editing where you have expanded this article repeatedly using nothing more than the Socialist Party's website as a source, which is highly inappropriate under Wikipedia policy.

You may state you were just "removing bias" and wanted it to be "unbiased" but when the end result is an article that is 75% just publishing the Socialist Party policies citing their website, it's very much not "unbiased" but a one-sided, partisan article that is advocacy at the end of the day and frankly suspiciously reminiscent of the many a civil POV push I've seen on niche political organisation pages on this site.

You may go "well I edited this other page" but when nearly half your total edits are on pages to do with the Socialist Party and Peter Taaffe, all while having a user page that is an argumentative essay quoting Peter Taaffe at length from the Socialist Party's own "newspaper", it's rather clear to see you have some kind of COI and should not be editing these pages.

So, again, as per policy the edits will not be reinstated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rambling Rambler,

We need to reach some consensus, and I've written a lot below which I'm not sure anyone will read.

So I've added a TLDR summary, headers and some italics to bring stuff out.

So TLDR summary:

- Assessment of your critical point on verifiability - it has merit.

- Happy to look at the "75%" primary material, and reverse that, preserving the remaining 25%, as a starting point, adding only reasonable amounts of "self-publishing" within the guidelines, and suggest some edits on the talk page.

- I don't think experienced editors would agree with your assessment that the use of primary sources is the same as using self published material. And as I show, it certainly does not apply here.

- Interest in a subject, and consequent editing of the related pages, does not prove COI. I don't have "some kind of COI" as you suggest. I don't accept that I cannot edit this page.

- You are not, I think, proceeding as you ought in widescale deleting of material without consultation, let alone consensus, especially when you assess that 25% of it is not "self published".

- However as a concession, I'll no longer advocate for its reinstatement but as stated am happy to work through suggested edits on the talk page.

1. Verifiability

The critical thing here I guess is this, from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

So you are referring critically to the last point, which I have bolded. The rest I think have been carefully observed, but your point is that my recent edits meant that the page went beyond what is reasonable on point (5).

If we agree that a Socialist Party wiki article quoting primarily from its own published material is self publishing, I accept that the article needs attention. We need to ensure that it is not based primarily on such sources, as tricky as that might be. This is why you've emphasised that it is 75% "self-published" arguing that it is the Socialist Party publishing material about itself, irrespective of whether I myself have any relationship to the Socialist Party. Ok, I get it.

2. Thanks

Firstly thanks for providing a reply and apologies for the long wait for me to reply - there was a time I'd be at Wikipedia waiting for responses from editors to my proposals for edits well into the early hours. That had to stop. Especially because times in the USA are so different. But more on that shortly.

You've looked into the matter in great detail, and provided careful explanations. While I don't agree with much of what you say, I an happy to drop the demand that you re-instate the edits. Let's discuss edits in the talk instead.

Also on the positive side, your calculation that 75% of the article is from primary sources (I'll come to "self published" shortly) is I think, if correct, a starting point.

If we can agree on the extraction of the remaining 25%, that, plus adding from material from "reliable sources" as you suggest above, and a quantity of primary source that editors think is acceptable, that should be good enough for a short article -- if we can get over the absurd COI/self published thing.

I ought to stop there and suggest some edits, but I must admit, I've always been interested in the operation of Wikipedia as a collective enterprise as a whole, so happy to attend to the issues you raise. Perhaps what I should do is post suggested additions under a different header.

So there's no real need to read further if the above is acceptable.

But we should research to see what proportion of primary material is acceptable, or, if this is a moveable feast, at least seek a wider consensus as to the use of quotes or references from the published material of the Socialist Party as a proportion of the whole as it develops. Until your own appearance on the page, if anything, the article was welcomed and no problem was seen with the sourcing of its material. It got a rating at one point, with no issued raised. But if my recent edits were problematic, let's look at that.

Now, let's look at the points you've raised.

3. Confusion about Primary sources and "self published" material

I now see you are making a distinction between primary sources and "self published" material. Sorry I had not really grasped what you are saying before, but you've been consistent. I don't really think "self published" applies to quoting from the Socialist Newspaper, or indeed the Socialist Party website (albeit I prefer if it has been physically published), at all, so I had not really considered it a serious allegation, but you have clarified that that's how you assess quotes from that newspaper. I think that is simply an incorrect assessment.

The publisher of the Socialist Newspaper is the Socialist Party, not myself. This is very clear. The newspaper is in fact a legal entity. I'll mention myself in a moment. Correction, a pdf of the Newspaper says it is published by "Socialist Publications". I think that should be "Socialist Publications Ltd", which has an entry in the UK's Company House, the government's registration of companies that trade.

The closest that the article gets to our situation here is WP:NEWSBLOG. Really there is no comparison. Possibly this just needs a few editors with experience to look at it and make a judgement, since you appear to be convinced of it.

If we consider the "self-publishing" accusation, you can see clearly in the Wikipedia article on using self published material, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works:-

✅ Acceptable: The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees.

✅ Acceptable: The self-published autobiography to support claims about the author.

The first clearly applies here, if you replace "company" with organisation and the article states:

Examples of non-self-published sources

The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers (including online-only content of widely-circulated magazines and newspapers)

So, I do think you are not correct in your assertions here, however you look at it.

4. Conflict of interest

Now, you seem to think I am, in some way "The" Socialist Party. While flattering, it is not true.

Consider a person interested in sport, who takes a particular interest in tennis, and then, a particular interest in a player, and begins editing their page, and related pages. Will you then accuse that person of being the player in question? Why?

Take a closer look at the edits I made up until I recently retired and decided to spend a couple of hours a week returning to my old favourite hobby. You can see from the times (converted perhaps to UK time) that all the edits were at night, or weekends, out of working hours, (for ridiculous amounts of time). Surely, if I was employed by the Socialist Party, I would have done them in working hours?

I could equally accuse you of being in the pay of one of the organisations that split away from the CWI, editing with the intent to destroy the Socialist Party's presence on Wikipedia. It would be absurd to make the accusation because it has no bearing on the value of any edits. What would be the point? But you are doing the same. (And you know it is against Wikipedia policy to try to "out" people.)

I admired Peter Taaffe. I admire the tennis player Jack Draper. But his page is already in good shape, (and I don't have any quotable quotes from him to add to my page). Had I been younger, I might have been responsible for a lot of its content, with edits in the related fields. Would you have accused me of being him? I don't think so. That kinda suggests an agenda.

There is simply no basis for you to accuse me, a pensioner, of "some kind of COI" quoting from "self published" material.

I hope you will consider the above.

I had intended to make some suggestions for improving the page, but I think I've spent enough time on this for now. I'll return at a future date. Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF it is inappropriate to create articles primarily based on such material and despite your misrepresenting of an essay on self-published sources, self-published "newspapers" of political parties are not regarded as newspapers in the typical fashion as the essay makes clear itself (making clear reference to "newsletters published by organizations" as inappropriate). Also such material would more than likely be regarded as unduly self-serving.

Per WP:BURDEN it is for the person desiring inclusion to find suitable reliable sources to establish suitability. Removal of your inappropriate content under demonstrable policy grounds doesn't require "consensus" as you demand.

As for the conflict of interest section, the complete "non-denial denial" nature of it where you actively refuse to state whether you are or aren't affiliated with the Socialist Party, instead deploying a series of fallacies such as strawmen of it merely being an ask of you being an employee (which you don't really deny in any case) and false equivalence about a tennis player, while also pleading about this being "outing" because you've been fairly challenged about your relationship with the group given your demonstrable editing that favours them across multiple articles using inappropriate self-published sources, simply functions to further suggest you indeed do have a COI.

So once again, for succinctness. Your edits were inappropriate. The material was removed for this reason. The material will not be restored unless suitable reliable sources are shown to support claims. You should desist from making any edits to this page or others adjacent to it as your behaviour appears to suggest a COI regarding Peter Taaffe and the Socialist Party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The publisher of the Socialist Newspaper is the Socialist Party, not myself. This is very clear.

Just to add on this very specific point, that's quite literally you acknowledging that it's a self-published piece of media. "Self-published" doesn't mean "published by the wikipedia user who sourced it", it means it was published by the subject itself. It is very strange that you would seek to suggest that anyone was ever suggesting you operated the newspaper... Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)