This article needs a list of the members of the Central Committee. The SWP's website seems curiously devoid of that info. Is this actually public? Morwen - Talk 22:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so - unless party notes have been released. The weekly worker lot may know as they collect gossip. Secretlondon 22:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chris Harman names 4 particular leading figures. I wonder if even that is verifiable. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tried looking up who were their designated officers on the register of political parties, and of course they aren't on it. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The best I've found is this Weekly Worker November 6 2003

which lists Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German, Chris Harman, Dave Hayes, Chris Nineham, John Rees and Martin Smith as the leading members of the CC. Secretlondon 23:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I've put it in the article, in a sort of NPOV way. Morwen - Talk 23:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Offical lists of the leading committees of the IS/SWP have rarely been published publically or even internally since the mid-1970's. When the practice was abandoned security was cited as the reason.

I've deleted discussion of the World in Action smeer of IS taking part in a strategy of tension around football grounds. It's untrue. Not a single member of IS or document from the period collaborates this. Believe me I've talked to virtually the entire curviving leadership from that period. I've also deleted discussion of Red Action as that should be in an entry on that group not here.

In general the entry needs a lot of work. Much of the theoretical discussion is inaccurate and needs placing in chronological order rather than being placed at the beginning.

Jock Haston

- user:T bone is making many "minor" edits to this article, whitewashing it, removing huge chunks of text and anything critical of the SWP. I hae attempted to restore much of this deleted text. Beware minor edits by this user - they invariably are anything but minor! 213.122.187.29 01:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to retain false information in the article and slander me? If there are huge chunks of text critical of the SWP in the article (as you claim) then they have no place being there. Wikipedia is not a critics message board. Its a factual database.

See NPOV to see the Wikipedia editing policy. In effect, it says: do not report "facts" where there is controversy: instead, describe opinions, attibuting those opinions to their sources. -- Anon.

In effect, it says nothing of the sort. It does not say "do not report facts where there is controversy". What an absurd notion. -- Tbone

Like a number of other contributors to this entry I'm annoyed at T Bone's selective editing of it. His actions seem quite bizarre in that among other pieces of data he has edited out is a list of the SWP publications! Such a list is not in any sense derogatory. Moreover whether or not T Bone likes it the ANL did physically confront Nazi's I ought to know I took part in such activities and remain proud of doing so. To delete a contribution. albeiut a badly written section, of the entry that says this is a distortion and a lie. In fact T Bone seems to know very damn little of the group s/he is so eager to defend.

Jock Haston

You will notice I have expanded a lot of the entries specifically concerned wih the IST and created many from scratch. Including profiles of people and other campaign groups connected wih the IST. These are valuable contributions to Wikipedia. They have not been criticised or deleted by anyone. In fact some have facilitated further contributions. You make no mention of any of this in your attack on me. Where have I "editied out a list of SWP publications" as you claim? Please reinstate it if it has been removed. The entry about the ANL was misleading. If this were the only instance of misleading information being written about the SWP then it would not be that big a deal. But there is a pattern. People (usually ex-members like yourself or members of groups openly hostile to the SWP) choose to spend their political energies on the internet writing slander and lies about the SWP. With regard to the ANL if you want to write a piece explaining the politics of no platform for fascists and the democratic decisions taken to physically confront them in specific and limited circumstances then do it. Don't try and defend and article that is written with the purpose of trying to paint the group as advocates of 'violence'.

Dear T Bone,

Your a liar. Just look at the history of this entry for proof. Twice now you have deleted a list of SWP publications and twice now I've reinstated it.

As for an entry on the ANL I've neither read it or edited it. But I have reinstated the section of the ANL Mk 1 in the entry on the IS/SWP. I no more agree with it than you do but I do not consider it to be violance bating of the SWP. it is biased against the SWP for sure and you and I may not like that but deleting it is against wiki policy. What needs to be done is a rewrite for NPOV.

As for the SWP in the 1980's we were advocates of violance for political purposes. If you do not believe me read the article In Defence of Violance from the ISJ (OS). [I forget the issue number but it's 98 to 104 for certain]. The same article was reprinted in the SWP's Internal bulletin in the early 1990's. I don't actually expect you to know of such facts but please do not tell me that we were not advocates of violance as we were and revolutionaries always advocate such methods.

For what it's worth i have no animus against the SWP and make no attack on it or you on this wiki as such an attack is inapropriate. but I do object to your editing entries relating to the SWP and it's alies in a fashion that is not NPOV. for what it's worth I've written a lot of the entries relating to Cliff, the SWP and IST too. I suspect that I'm now going to have to go throught the ISt entries checking for your distrotions.

Jock Haston

Changed the image to a PNG one 'cus thats what they tell us to do --JK the unwise 15:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that estimates are added, but what about actual figures. At the most recent SWP conference, Susanne Jeffrey, speaking for the central committee, claimed that there were 4,240 “registered members” and 3,345 current members.

There is quite a bit on the ANL (4 paragraphs) does it all really belong here or should most of it be moved to the ANL page?--JK the unwise 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"In addition it publishs an international bulletin and an internal bulletin Party Notes, various pamphlets and books often through its publishing house Bookmarks and a number of rank and file news papers for specific industries such as Post Worker."

Does this mean it sells bookmarks, or its publishing house is called 'Bookmarks'? I'll assume it's the latter for the time being as it's capitalised, and add commas to make this sentence clearer. 62.255.32.11 20:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. Warofdreams 09:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)