Talk:Workers Revolutionary Party (UK)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevant content for the page[edit]

I feel that the page is lacking relevant information such as what the WRP actually did (achieved?) during the 70s and 80s. Instead it's filled with allegations that other parties/media have made. Some of these may be relevant, but more content of what WRP actually did is needed. For example, to cite the accusation of the Youth training centres as being anti-police, we should first mention something about the centres, where they were, what WRP aimed with them, otherwise even the allegations become meaningless. A passive reader could imagine army style camps, schools, etc. I was directly associated with WRP in the 70/80s and the youth training centres were created from abandoned buildings, renovated, and made into a 'community centre' for urban areas where other resources had closed. There was one in Liverpool. There were jumble sales, craft classes, and young people could meet and chat. Strict classes were not held, it was very casual, and no more political than any average community centre would be.

WRP had candidates in many local elections, for council and government, with limited success, apart from the North west and Scotland which fared better. I cannot give stats but I assume they will be available somewhere. Many campaigns and petitions with protests (peaceful) took place to try and save or overturn decisions that would adversely affect communities, such as the well known Tory policies of closing small schools, taking away school milk, school dinners, community centres etc. These had many successes that were documented in News Line at the time. I hope this is helpful, I realise that I could be accused of using weasel words, but this is just supplying information in my own words. I would like to see a more historically balanced article, not just the negative allegations. I do not want to change the article myself before getting feedback otherwise I suspect my input would be removed. AmyNelson (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Younge[edit]

Someone told me that Gary Younge, the Guardian Journalist and author of No Place Like Home was in the WRP.

He was a member of the WRP's CC in the 1970's but of no importance. He is still of no importance come to think of it.

If he is of no importance, why on earth did you bother to mention him?

[He is too young isn't he? He's in this 30s, surely --DuncanBCS 12:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]


Present tense[edit]

"The Workers' Revolutionary Party was a Trotskyist political party in the United Kingdom."

er...it still is!

Allegations by BBC[edit]

The article says "In the early 1980s, the BBC claimed that News Line was financed by money from Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein's governments." I was unable to find any information on the web about this from any trusted, disinterested source. This probably says more about my lack of patience and expertise with search engines than about the allegations, but I'd be grateful if somebody could provide some evidence - firstly that the BBC made such allegations, and secondly what exactly was said, by whom, and on what programme? Thanks. GrahamN 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Money Programme. See [1] or [2] (both highly critical of the WRP but from quite different perspectives). Neither goes into much detail about the allegations, but summarises them in roughly the same manner as the article. I suspect the difficulty is that this was not very widely reported at the time, and that clearly it was before the advent of the internet. Should anyone have access to back copies of Newsline, it'd be useful to get their take on it. Warofdreams talk 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for replying and for trying harder than me to find some sources for this. The first one of those links you supplied is to a site I know nothing about, which says "In March 1983, the Money Programme purported to show that the W.R.P. was financed by the Libyan regime." [my italics] Nothing about Saddam at all, there. The other link seems to be dead, but the URL indicates that it is on a site run by an organisation that in my limited experience is not exactly an unimpeachable fount of truth, and which anyway freely admits it has a grudge against the WRP. A google search didn't turn up anything any more edifying. I really don't know anything at all about this, and I have no axe to grind either way, but it seems to me that if we are going to carry these extremely damaging allegations we need much more reliable, disinterested sources for them than this. Unless anybody strongly objects, I propose to remove all references to allegations of WRP funding by Libya and/or Iraq until somebody produces some convincing corroboration. GrahamN 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry be bring bad news but... The ICFI's control commission reported that over £1,000,000 was paid to the WRP by Arab regimes and the PLO between 1975 and 1983: perhaps half that amount was paid to other IC sections. To see an extract, go here and scroll two thirds of the way down.

The report also discusses photographs taken by WRP members of demonstrations being bought by Iraqi Embassy for £1,600 in order to identify Iraqi opponents abroad: the ICFI report attributes under £20,000 to Iraqi sources. Libya is different: Huge sums of money were involved, especially for the press and the Youth Training Centres. These are te details: A list by year shows the following amounts coming in:

1977 £46,208 1978 £47,784 1979 £347,755 1980 £173,671 1981 £185,128 1982 £271,217 1983 £3,400 1984 0 1985 0

TOTAL £1,075,163

Analysed by country, where it is possible to distinguish, the amounts are: Libya £542,267 Kuwait £156,500 Qatar £50,000 Abu Dhabi £25,000 PLO £19,997 Iraq £19,697 Unidentified or other sources £261,702

TOTAL £1,075,163

On a personal note, I was in the WRP's Young Socialists prior to the split, have stayed in the Trotskyist left since then. The full truth about the WRPs finance will never come out: many documents were destroyed. I feel that the true financial scandal is the immense human cost paid by their own members in raising funds that were squandered and abused. I think there were more subsidies. The WRP distributed some Libyan literature, including copies of the Green Book. Even amongst comrades I knew, I can also recall the example of fully subsidised training programmes in Libya. However, it will be impossible to prove much of this. --Duncan 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you say "bad news". You may not believe me but I genuinely don't have an axe to grind about the WRP. I'm just concerned that this is an extremely serious allegation, for which we don't appear to have any proper corroboration. The sources cited so far all appear to be from organisations who definitely do have axes to grind about the WRP. Furthermore they are all organisations that everyday readers of an on-line encyclopaedia will consider to be somewhat less than credible. I did see that blog that you provide a link to, when I was trying to find some independent substantiation before. But it's really not good enough. A second-hand supposed quotation from the report of a self-styled "Commission of the International Committee of the Fourth Inter­national" really doesn't cut the mustard as a demonstrably trustworthy, disinterested source for an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying I don't believe these allegations. I have no idea at all whether they are true. I'm saying we shouldn't include them in this article until we find them cited in a source that will be widely respected. If the allegations were really made by the BBC on the Money Programme, then we need to prove that. GrahamN 01:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the amended paragraph I've just removed from the article:
In the early 1980s, the Money Programme claimed that News Line was financed by money from Colonel Gaddafi's government. The Socialist Organiser newspaper repeated these claims, and the WRP chose to sue them, but soon abandoned the case.[3] When, a little later, the WRP disintegrated, an investigation was carried out by supporters of the Workers Press group of former WRP members. This claimed that the WRP had collected information for Libyan Intelligence. As printed by Solidarity, the report claimed over £1,000,000 had been received by the group from Libya and several Middle Eastern governments, between 1977 and 1983. While only a small proportion of this is alleged to have come from Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government, it draws particular attention to photographs which it claimes WRP members were instructed to take of demonstrations of opponents of Saddam Hussein, and it states were later handed to the Iraqi embassy.[4]
  • What source do you want? The ICFI members were formerly part of the WRP, and made the entirely plausible claim that they had access to the original documents. The AWL clearly are opposed to the WRP, but I can't imagine any reason why they'd invent a claim that SO repeated these claims and were sued by the WRP. I have tried to make it clear that these are *allegations*, and the sources are not unbiased. A front cover of News Line attacking the BBC for making the allegations would be great, but I don't know where we could find one. These allegations are widespread on the left, and the article would be seriously misrepresentative without them. What do you suggest? Warofdreams talk 01:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry - I'm really not out to cause difficulties. I agree that if these allegations were made then if we leave them out the article is missing something very important. But how can somebody who's not in the know and who doesn't remember these allegations at the time be sure that they really were made? Taking people's word for things is not good practice when writing an encyclopaedia. I can only repeat what I said before: these are very damaging allegations, and we need to cite sources that most readers of an encyclopaedia will consider to be pretty much beyond reproach. We do not as yet have any such sources. If the allegations really were made by the BBC and if they really are still common currency in leftwing circles, I'd have thought it shouldn't be too hard to find something suitable. The only other alternative as far as I can see would be to change the wording so as to hold the allegations at double arms length, something along the lines of "AWL, a group bitterly opposed to the WRP, asserts that allegations were made by the BBC ... blah blah etc". But that would be quite ridiculous. And, surely, unnecessary. I really can't believe 1983 is so far into prehistory that written records have not survived, especially of a thing like this which, if true, must have been a major scandal. Surely the Daily Mail must have had a field day? Sorry to be a pain, but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. We shouldn't take anybody's word for it. Serious allegations need serious sources! GrahamN 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Warofdreams's rewite takes us forward. However, the investigation was not made by "supporters of the Workers Press group of former WRP members" but by a commission appointed by the International Committee of the Fourth International, led by David North. Since this is the international party to which the WRP was affiliated, I think that is an exceellent source. Sean Matgamna's account of what happened in the 1980s squares with my recollections. It gives dates and quotes. I see no reason to doubt them. --Duncan 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reinserted the paragraph, with DuncanBCS's correction and a WRP point-of-view. However, should anyone locate any other sources, please improve the article with them! Warofdreams talk 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I met up with some of the Northites last week. They confirm all of this. They published much of this at the time in their old journal Fourth International. I have ordered it and will add in any relevant material. If anyone else has volume 13, feel free to beat me to it.

Fair use rationale for Image:Workers Revolutionary Party 1.gif[edit]

Image:Workers Revolutionary Party 1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The very idea of NPOV may seem absurd to trotskyites, who are drawn to this article with magnetic force, but the quality of the article is terrible. I don't want to start hacking and slashing (don't have the time now) but is anyone else interested in maybe doing a bit of a revamp and citation hunt for a bunch of the stuff on the trots? Alternatively, am I paid agent of the CIA, Kremlin, Bejing, and the zionists? Can we put a bunch of work in without being set on fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.238.208.2 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First find the citations, then start the work. If you're editing on Wikipedia, then you can only work within its rules. --Duncan (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Workers Revolutionary Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging The Club (Trotskyist) into Workers Revolutionary Party (UK). The section on The Club within the WRP article is already longer and contains more citations than the main article for The Club, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. Given that the WRP is the direct successor of The Club, through its time as the Socialist Labour League, I think it would be best to merge The Club article into the Workers Revolutionary Party article.Grnrchst (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Workers_Revolutionary_Party_(UK)&oldid=1208892730"