This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Wrote Article" is by me, but my f****** computor logged me off. 16:45, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
19:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Keir Hardie prevented the Marxists from having influence and thus it has stayed.
As a postthought perhaps you haven't read the NPOV policy document and I am being too harsh. I suggest you take a look at it and digest. Morwen 10:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
13:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How can you justify omitting Marx, Engels and the First International, the CPGB and British trotskyism (perhaps just a brief mention, with a link to the suggested History of British Trotskyism)? The page is entitled History of British Socialism, and all of these things have had an impact upon it. The Militant Tendency is important in the history of the Labour Party, the CPGB in the trade union movement, and Marx and Engels on the left of Labour and the ILP. If no-one else incorporates these, I intend to. Warofdreams 14:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
--
I think the General Strike of 1926 needs adding as well. Secretlondon 14:21, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
--
I'm a bit annoyed at some of the recent editing on this page. If you intend to either put a neutrality sign up(which I've removed) or edit in any substantial way, please put it on the talk page so it can be debated.
The History of British Socialism is NOT controversial unless you are trying to flog your own viewpoint. What I have written is the commonly accepted version of events. If you happen to disagree, that's fine. What is not fine is vandalism.
I have not mentioned my political affilations once, and have not let them in anyway influence this article, which is as much about history as anything else.
My compromise is this: Please put all the information on the Hard Left in this article: History of the Hard Left in Britian, I will put a link to it on this page and hopefully this stupid argument will end.
I have also added a little bit on the General Strike.
I don't want an argument over this, so If any of you have some suggestions, please put them on the talk page.
Thanks
10:14, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10:34, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
12:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I put this on my talk page, but it's worth repeating here:
I'm feeling a bit better now, and can see a funny side to all this. So I've added myself to the problem users page, because I'm a user and I have problems :)
I've decided to forgive everyone who upset me, and have assumed that anyone that I may have upset has forgiven me.
12:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've reverted to my version... partially. I taken some of the extra detail on the Hard Left and on the '80's from the other version, and added it to the previous one. I've also added more on Clause IV and the "Benn Question".
I've gone for "After the "Revolution", as it's a nice tounge in cheek title(like "the Birth of Labour"). After the welfare state, would be innacurate as we still *have* the welfare state.
I've also tried to NPOV the ending. I decided not to mention Red Ken(as he looks likely to be re-admitted to Labour), or the SSP(it belongs to a seperate, but no less interesting scottish tradition of very radical Socialism. It would be nice if someone could write an article on it. It would have to include:
I would like to remove the "warning" at the top of the page, but will leave that to someone else :) 16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's still not NPOV so the warning stays;) It's interesting that you don't want to mention Scotland - the title is the History of *British* socialism - although personally it reads more like a history of the English Labour Movement. We either add Scotland, or change the title... 193.131.186.150 15:53, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Can I take the warning down now?
09:20, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Scotland has been mentioned, and I'll go and add some more on it. I'm happy to do so. I don't know a lot about the Clydeside Radicals, but I'll mention them anyway.
10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if this article was moved to History of the British left, which could include the non Labour left. And could give an explenation of why the British left developed as it did and not along Marxist/revolutionary etc lines G-Man 22:57, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
whats this chat about a so called British reformation? This is the first place I have ever heard of such an event.
There was of course a Scottish Reformation and an English Reformation, but they were quite distinct from one another; i.e. they took place at different times; were driven by totally different peopl; occured in different fashion from one another; and instituted different forms of church governance. It is therefore erroneous to talk of a British reformation.
Also, this article really focuses on England to the exclusion of the rest of the UK. Or is that an incorrect impression. More should be added about the development of socialism elsewhere, with links to the Red Clydeside article and so on.
I also agree with much of what was said earlier as well. This reads like an article on the Labour Party (with a bit of historical context added) rather than on the history of socialism in the UK. Of course they have played a major (if not THE major) role in that history (and some may be snide and say that socialism is history now in the modern Labour Party) but there have been other groups of importance, and are some today.
Even mentioning their existence might be an idea. For example, the Social Democratic Federation was the first organised socialist party in the UK (ahead of the ILP) and surely should be referred to.
Might well just have to add this stuff myself some day. :o) Big Jim Fae Scotland
I'm happy to add more stuff ;)
10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Simply shouldn't be there. I think the fundamental problem with the original version, which still persists, is that it started out as an essay trying to prove a point. All traces of that need removing. Morwen 12:56, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't actually trying to prove a point, but I'll write a new conclusion.
Encyclopedia articles don't have conclusions.
Secretlondon 13:11, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Some do
Name another
Secretlondon 13:32, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
They are not usually called "conclusions" but you often get paragraphs summing things up.
I've had enough of this stupid argument. Just say what you think is wrong with the article and I'll change as appropriate.
It was not meant to. I think I'll delete what I've written and stick some of it in the Labour Party article.
Better idea: I'm withdrawing from this stupid edit-"war".
I can then do something else.
14:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Name removed. Please do not revert to previous version. Thanks (for an explaination: go to my talk page) Alnu
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Wrote Article" is by me, but my f****** computor logged me off. 16:45, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
19:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Keir Hardie prevented the Marxists from having influence and thus it has stayed.
As a postthought perhaps you haven't read the NPOV policy document and I am being too harsh. I suggest you take a look at it and digest. Morwen 10:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
13:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How can you justify omitting Marx, Engels and the First International, the CPGB and British trotskyism (perhaps just a brief mention, with a link to the suggested History of British Trotskyism)? The page is entitled History of British Socialism, and all of these things have had an impact upon it. The Militant Tendency is important in the history of the Labour Party, the CPGB in the trade union movement, and Marx and Engels on the left of Labour and the ILP. If no-one else incorporates these, I intend to. Warofdreams 14:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
--
I think the General Strike of 1926 needs adding as well. Secretlondon 14:21, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
--
I'm a bit annoyed at some of the recent editing on this page. If you intend to either put a neutrality sign up(which I've removed) or edit in any substantial way, please put it on the talk page so it can be debated.
The History of British Socialism is NOT controversial unless you are trying to flog your own viewpoint. What I have written is the commonly accepted version of events. If you happen to disagree, that's fine. What is not fine is vandalism.
I have not mentioned my political affilations once, and have not let them in anyway influence this article, which is as much about history as anything else.
My compromise is this: Please put all the information on the Hard Left in this article: History of the Hard Left in Britian, I will put a link to it on this page and hopefully this stupid argument will end.
I have also added a little bit on the General Strike.
I don't want an argument over this, so If any of you have some suggestions, please put them on the talk page.
Thanks
10:14, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10:34, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
12:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I put this on my talk page, but it's worth repeating here:
I'm feeling a bit better now, and can see a funny side to all this. So I've added myself to the problem users page, because I'm a user and I have problems :)
I've decided to forgive everyone who upset me, and have assumed that anyone that I may have upset has forgiven me.
12:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've reverted to my version... partially. I taken some of the extra detail on the Hard Left and on the '80's from the other version, and added it to the previous one. I've also added more on Clause IV and the "Benn Question".
I've gone for "After the "Revolution", as it's a nice tounge in cheek title(like "the Birth of Labour"). After the welfare state, would be innacurate as we still *have* the welfare state.
I've also tried to NPOV the ending. I decided not to mention Red Ken(as he looks likely to be re-admitted to Labour), or the SSP(it belongs to a seperate, but no less interesting scottish tradition of very radical Socialism. It would be nice if someone could write an article on it. It would have to include:
I would like to remove the "warning" at the top of the page, but will leave that to someone else :) 16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's still not NPOV so the warning stays;) It's interesting that you don't want to mention Scotland - the title is the History of *British* socialism - although personally it reads more like a history of the English Labour Movement. We either add Scotland, or change the title... 193.131.186.150 15:53, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
16:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Can I take the warning down now?
09:20, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Scotland has been mentioned, and I'll go and add some more on it. I'm happy to do so. I don't know a lot about the Clydeside Radicals, but I'll mention them anyway.
10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if this article was moved to History of the British left, which could include the non Labour left. And could give an explenation of why the British left developed as it did and not along Marxist/revolutionary etc lines G-Man 22:57, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
whats this chat about a so called British reformation? This is the first place I have ever heard of such an event.
There was of course a Scottish Reformation and an English Reformation, but they were quite distinct from one another; i.e. they took place at different times; were driven by totally different peopl; occured in different fashion from one another; and instituted different forms of church governance. It is therefore erroneous to talk of a British reformation.
Also, this article really focuses on England to the exclusion of the rest of the UK. Or is that an incorrect impression. More should be added about the development of socialism elsewhere, with links to the Red Clydeside article and so on.
I also agree with much of what was said earlier as well. This reads like an article on the Labour Party (with a bit of historical context added) rather than on the history of socialism in the UK. Of course they have played a major (if not THE major) role in that history (and some may be snide and say that socialism is history now in the modern Labour Party) but there have been other groups of importance, and are some today.
Even mentioning their existence might be an idea. For example, the Social Democratic Federation was the first organised socialist party in the UK (ahead of the ILP) and surely should be referred to.
Might well just have to add this stuff myself some day. :o) Big Jim Fae Scotland
I'm happy to add more stuff ;)
10:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Simply shouldn't be there. I think the fundamental problem with the original version, which still persists, is that it started out as an essay trying to prove a point. All traces of that need removing. Morwen 12:56, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't actually trying to prove a point, but I'll write a new conclusion.
Encyclopedia articles don't have conclusions.
Secretlondon 13:11, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Some do
Name another
Secretlondon 13:32, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
They are not usually called "conclusions" but you often get paragraphs summing things up.
I've had enough of this stupid argument. Just say what you think is wrong with the article and I'll change as appropriate.
It was not meant to. I think I'll delete what I've written and stick some of it in the Labour Party article.
Better idea: I'm withdrawing from this stupid edit-"war".
I can then do something else.
14:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Name removed. Please do not revert to previous version. Thanks (for an explaination: go to my talk page) Alnu