Talk:Workers Party of Britain

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

Brian Travers[edit]

Is there any evidence, other than the party's own claims, that Brian Travers was a member?Disintegration1989 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a video of him saying it. — Czello 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it should be added to the article then. Disintegration1989 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted[edit]

With George Galloway being a notable politician in the UK and this party's establishment being discussed in several news outlets I argue that this page should not be deleted. Ec1801011 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the template on the page explains: "You may remove this message if you [...] object to deletion for any reason." You should go ahead and do so, but bear in mind that the article might still be deleted if an Articles for deletion discussion results in a consensus to do so (i.e. if it's found not to satisfy the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organisations). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, the material could be merged into a section on George Galloway's article and this page could redirect there. It doesn't inherit its notability from George Galloway. But if you want to contest the deletion, I'm happy to bring it for full discussion at AfD. Ralbegen (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After the latest round of elections, they still have no representatives. Why are they worthy of their own page?::: Disintegration1989 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They didn’t even take part in the three by-elections this week. Why do they warrant their own page given that they’re not a political party worthy of the name? Disintegration1989 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to nominate the article at WP:AfD to test the community's opinion on whether it should stay. My advice however is that being associated with a notable personality and having plenty of notable sources for citations will work in favour of "keep". It's up to you, however. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry does every political party who has no representative get deleted oh wait no, what silly thing to say. If that was the case then the majority of parties on Wikipedia would be up for deletion, including many of pre-modern era when sometimes parties were in conditions of no representation was possible or underground. UK system it literally impossible other than 2 parties to get in so that's zero grounds for anything. This is not Galloway project only, it was formed by him and people associated with the CPGBML among others. Merging it with Galloway would be incorrect historically. Orexin (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of UK political parties that have 0 representatives on any government level have their own Wikipedia pages. Why should this page be treated any differently? The fact that the WPB is led by a notable former MP and achieved over 20% of the vote in a by-election surely makes it more warranted in having its own page in comparison to the countless number of obscure political parties that have failed to save their electoral deposits. Alpsman (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke the Deletion[edit]

The majority of the people who participated in the Deletion Process actually suggested for keep, regardless of whether they held the "right" opinion, I saw 3 keeps to 1 comment and 1 redirect. Therefore the result to make the page a redirect will gave to be reversed and undo'ed, as there is no reason to not listen to the Consensus just because they disagree with you. Consensus said otherwise and their decision must be respected. --LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LinkDirectory5000: I'm afraid you've misunderstood how consensus works on Wikipedia. It isn't the same thing as majority opinion, and Articles for deletion discussions are not votes – they're discussions in which arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given greater weight than those that are not. You're still free, of course, to conclude that the discussion was closed incorrectly, but there's a process for that: first, contact User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, who closed the discussion, at their talk page, and if you're still not satisfied with the decision begin a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In the meantime, the article will stay as a redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic revert stating "not independent source" when citing the party's own positions[edit]

I reverted it back to what I had cited, because - and here's a shocker. Maybe a good source for what that party states they stand for is.. that own party's website, cited exactly as it is stated? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a party's position should be reflected through the prism of someone else's opinion or reporting when they have literally stated it on their website. This site is obviously manipulated to neoliberal orthodoxy anyway, but this kind of stuff is just egregious and dumb. WobInDisguise (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources are always preferable to first party. See WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RELIABILITY, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:PRIMARY etc. This is thoroughly common on Wikipedia that we go by how independent third-party sources describe a party, not how it describes itself. The reasons for that can be found on the linked pages. Helper201 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, you are taking someone else's opinion as a 'stated fact' or 'reliable source' when the party itself claims otherwise. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats idiotic is you not reading the bloody rules, dont you dare call my decision idiotic. HoopaRoopa (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're talking to you. This comment was made before your account was created. — Czello (music) 10:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, someone done this to me HoopaRoopa (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is clearly a left-wing party, members, and the leadership all claim to be socialistsJudeobasquelanguage (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. You need a supporting citation from a reliable third-party source. Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean they necessarily are that thing and where the party stands within the spectrum of the left is open to debate. Helper201 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are in favour of Social Traditionalism as well as Socialism, that's pretty syncretic by definition. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Full Name[edit]

I cannot find any mention of the "National Socialist Workers Party of Britain" (NSWPB) with regard to George Galloway's party. Its inclusion seems like vandalism. Arky who (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syncretic?[edit]

Would people consider the party syncretic + so should this be in the info box? 81.106.115.150 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No additions to the ideology and position-sections should be made regardless of editors opinions unless they have reliable sources for their additions. This has been a long-time issue on this page. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone wrote it in a guardian article doesn't make it a fact. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely agree they are Syncretic since they believe in Socialism and Social Traditionalism. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British unionism[edit]

id say it is British unionist due to being part of All for Unity HoopaRoopa (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. The article that mentions his "pop up party" is somewhat ambiguous on who they're talking about. On the one hand it sounds like All For Unity, but the article doesn't make mention of them but does mention WPGB. I'm inclined to suggest they mean the latter, but more sourcing would be advisable. — Czello (music) 13:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HoopaRoopa I understand that, but the Wikipedia page of "British unionism" cites it as a belief of Northern Ireland being part of Britain as well which may be misleading to readers, since Galloway in particular is a large advocate of Irish unity. JoselfFihr (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism[edit]

This should not be in the ideology section. Opposing wokeness and self-id isn't nearly strong enough to justify the use of this term to describe the party by the source. The source likely doesn't understand the term it uses or is being disingenous. If the bar was this low several other parties would be given this, not even the conservative tories have this on their ideology page, for which I agree because they aren't socially conservative either. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like personal opinion; as long as a source is considered reliable we go with their description. — Czello (music) 14:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to keep repeating the same thing like a bot? I said before that it is based on the definition of the term, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the party at all. You can call the party anything and by your logic it should be taken at face value even if the source uses the term incorrectly.2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you've misinterpreted how Wikipedia works, but yes we do use the labelling that sources use. If you feel their description is wrong then you should take it up with them. — Czello (music) 14:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The labelling the source uses is wrong, I explained that previously. Please explain how the party is socially conservative? You are defending an assetion so you should justify it's inclusion in the article. I was ready to be civil from the start but I don't take passive agression. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have indeed misunderstood how Wikipedia works. It's not on me (or you) to explain how the party is or isn't socially conservative. That's WP:OR. — Czello (music) 14:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you won't answer the question clearly illustrates you are not good faith, you probably haven't even read the source. This website is pathetic. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the source, which is how I know it uses that label. I have answered the question clearly – it's just not the answer you were looking for. If you want to learn how Wikipedia works, I suggest you read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:TRUTH. — Czello (music) 15:04, 1 March 2024

So you actually think that justifies using it in the ideology section based on two minor issues? If the party had a sweeping position on a range of social issues like abortion, LGBT rights or capital punishment I'd be fine with it's inclusion, but the examples are nowhere near enough to include this term. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Using a term from a source for the sake of it even if it's wrong or innacurate is moronic. Nobody on wikipedia can ever adress the use of erroneous infomation from sources. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the importance scale[edit]

This party is now part of UK politics, it has been on television news all day. Considering that every major news channel in the country has/is talking about this party I think many more people will take interest and note of this political party. It deserves at least mid-importance. I'm not a wikipedia expert and I'm not quite sure how to go about changing the importance scale, but I thought here is a good place to start the discussion. Friendly Engineer (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, just look at this graph.
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-365&pages=Workers_Party_of_Britain Friendly Engineer (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to further put it in context, here is a comparison between the page views for this party, and the Conservatives & Labour https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-365&pages=Workers_Party_of_Britain%7CConservative_Party_(UK)%7CLabour_Party_(UK) Friendly Engineer (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed the importance to mid-importance. Elitemagikarp (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party has a right-wing domestic social policy[edit]

The contents of Galloway's own letter to selected addresses that states 'unlike other parties, I know what a woman is' and 'God created everything in pairs' including men and women is clear social conservatism. If anything, this leans further right on social policy towards the LGBT community than mainstream Conservatives and Reform. 2A02:C7C:6A66:2100:EC43:E8FC:A261:B41A (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2024/mar/03/writing-off-george-galloway-ignores-his-dangerous-appeal-to-both-far-left-and-right?fbclid=IwAR2GwUCEb1k3aw0tVjVC3lR_5LAAqIhE2jT9vfklADo7astCO6fAJnmESSs 2A02:C7C:6A66:2100:EC43:E8FC:A261:B41A (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use the term "socially conservative" both for the Honourable George Galloway and for the party. This is the term used by the sources we have cited. The Gruniad source to which you have linked uses the same term. Burrobert (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Honourable' is definitely a matter of opinion... 2A02:C7C:6A66:2100:10C:9B8A:9340:DFF (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'right wing' 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Worker[edit]

Reflecktor, adding one line with a citation in the middle of the page is not undue. Helper201 (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Residents Group[edit]

can whoever keeps adding this as an affiliate party please either add a source that actually corroborates it or stop. I'm also sceptical about including A4U as a former affiliate since to me it seems the other way round. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:8561:9915:5E06:8DF6 (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti zionist[edit]

I think we should use this[1] source for Anti-zionism. HoopaRoopa (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR news seems quite new so it is hard to give it a rating (it does not seem to have a wiki page). PressGazette recently published an article about it.[1] What is the timestamp of the quote that you want to use? Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3:40 "The Workers Party being opening Anti-zionist" HoopaRoopa (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote seems fairly clear. The is already a statement under Ideology that "The party describes itself as anti-Zionist". Burrobert (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable in combination with the self-description. Cortador (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and its a proven reliable news source. HoopaRoopa (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HoopaRoopa, can you cite your evidence for that assertion please? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2]
[3] HoopaRoopa (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Neither give independent third-party analysis of their reliability, but the second does, at least, relay their aspirations. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a reliable source saying a source is reliable: that's not what WP:RS says. What it does say is, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." I would call TLDR fairly established at this stage. I think it meets WP:RS requirements. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou, yes, and I tend to agree. But I would be reluctant to declare them "a proven reliable news source" myself without supplying that proof for others to be able to evaluate. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So should we use it as a source, considering everyone know WPB as Anti Zionist anyway. HoopaRoopa (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is a user generated source and is not generally a reliable source to use for citing sources. The reliability of TLDR is subjective. They have regularly made mistakes in videos, for example in this video they state the wrong communist party when referring to the communist patty that endorsed the WPB. Helper201 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't YouTube - it's a news channel hosted on YouTube. Many news organisations have channels on YouTube, and that content isn't better or worse than content hosted on a text-based website. Cortador (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RSP, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. So the real question isn't about YouTube, it's whether TLDR News themselves are reliable (I say this as someone who is unconvinced that they are). — Czello (music) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR have released 100's of factual videos HoopaRoopa (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but so have lots of YouTube channels. What's the evidence for their reliability? — Czello (music) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Britain's New Fringe Parties Explained". Youtube TLDR News. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
  2. ^ https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/youtube-channel-tldr-news-uses-explainer-content-and-impartiality-to-engage-gen-z/s2/a751900/
  3. ^ https://pressgazette.co.uk/social_media/tldr-news-jack-kelly-youtube/

Mystery solved[edit]

I was curious about the history behind the unreferenced quote defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain removed by Cortador in this edit. Here is what I found:

  • It was added on 21 July 2021 as defend the achievements of the USSR, China, Cuba etc and supported by this article in The Times.
  • The quote was faked on 13 February 2024 to say defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain. - leaving the original source in place.
  • On the same day the quote was moved to the end of the paragraph, and without any supporting source, in this edit.
  • The "citation needed" template was added on 2 March 2024.

So I suppose we should restore the original quote, supported by the original source. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicial positioning is wrong - it should be syncretic[edit]

How can this page claim that they are solely left-wing or far-left if they have social tradionalist views? Surely syncretic is a better term here. Left wing by it's definition contradits the social traditionalism that they promote. I wouldn't put them down as such. They promote socialism (economics) and (social) traditionalism. I wouldn't label them solely as 'left wing' 90.195.179.57 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say, not personal interpretation – that's WP:OR. That said, social conservatism isn't restricted to the right, that's just its most common position. There have been leftists with traditionalist views in the past. — Czello (music) 15:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Workers_Party_of_Britain&oldid=1217233643"