Talk:Movement for Socialism (Britain)

Removing tags

I have removed tags stating that there are no references and that the article is not notable enogh. On the former, I have added some. On the latter, it is as notable as Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International, British Committee of the European Workers' Alliance, League for Socialist Action (UK) or any other Trot groupuscule included in Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material

I have removed what appears to be some original research from the article. I looked for reliable sources to support this material, but couldn't find any. I also removed some similar material from the introduction, along with an unsourced mention of "Gerry Healy's sexual activities". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies. Messed this edit up a bit. Will leave the re-arrangement of the format to the most technically able Cordless Larry who appears to be as deeply interested as me in the history of the Trotskyist movement. Once he has done this, I will re-evaluate the edit and proceed accordingly. This time with more caution and according to known and established protocol. It was not 'vandalism'. Just technical insufficiency. My mistake : I re-pasted the original doc back onto the page which left it without linked tabs in the subsections. Rather than simply deleting large parts of subsections - as CL has done - it would surely have followed a more refined etiquette if he had drawn my attention to my additions in order to give me a chance of re-evaluating and providing references. I think this 'bull in a China shop' approach is rather rude and unpleasant. This approach was also taken by another (possibly CL)in the dispute over the editing of the BBC page. More courtesy and consideration, please.PS Allegations regarding Healy's sexual abuse of members of his party is very well known and all over the socialist internet. Larry would have found no difficulty in locating a suitable reference [there are very many!] if he had simply taken the trouble to do so. The fundamental problem with giving an objective account of the internal nature of tiny, secretive organisations is that there are very few references available which can back up any assertions about this nature. Fair enough. If Larry re-formats (this time leaving content untrammelled)I will re-evaluate and revise on the basis of the latter principle. Greengauge121 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Start again, after you learn the basics of how to edit, if possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy. And how obnoxious and co-operative is that? That sort of attitude works two ways, sonny. Actually, if you search on the internet or elsewhere, there is no evidence whatsoever for its (the Movement for Socialism's) actual existence. If you can find it, the page will be left undeleted. Hence the page will be deleted. That is NOT vandalism. I am simply operating according to obnoxious editors' own rules. Now. find it! "If possible". And I afford you the courtesy of being able to make mistakes as a part of the learning process. Now get on with it, sunshine. And give readers the evidence for its actual existence!! Hurry up...we are awaiting the work of the Master Editor III! Greengauge121 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think this article should be deleted, you need to make a request at WP:AFD - see the guidance here. Don't simply remove the text of the article - that is vandalism. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page is not being deleted. Just the content for which there is no evidence. Now, find the evidence for its existence. After all, you are the Master Editor III. And hurry up....readers are waiting. Greengauge121 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is no evidence for anything on the page, the page should be deleted. If you are questioning what is on the page, there is a whole range of tags available that you can add to the article. Your editing behaviour, here and on other pages, demonstrates a lack of willingness to learn how things are done here - please start learning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is evidence for the actual existence of the Movement for Socialism then produce it and the page content will be left undeleted. You are - for reasons known to you and perhaps to others - pursuing an editing vendetta against my posts/edits. If there is no evidence for the existence of the group, then everything which relates to its "present existence" is invalid. Do not give instructions and reprimands to me, you pompous little prat. All further posts will be ignored and deleted if you continue with this obvious hostility and line of attempted control. Greengauge121 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:AGF. Calling someone a "pompous little prat" is not conducive to the collaborative editorial atmosphere to which we all aspire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And neither is the pompous, arrogant put-down in which you appear to specialise. Address others with due respect and it will be returned Greengauge121 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think any or all of the eight existing sources used do not support the content, you should remove them, with appropriate reasons, and replace with a "cn" tag. Please take your personal battle elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reinforcements arrived. Do not reprimand me with personal innuendo and insult. You have read my reasons. Now put up or shut up, you whinger-in-solidarity with the obnoxious.Greengauge121 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to defend/ explain your actions at AN/I or you may find yourself blocked. Please try and avoid unnecessary personal attacks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And do not accuse me of engaging in "personal battles". That is insulting, arrogant and patronising. Ditto : try and avoid unnecessary personal attacks. If you cannot take it, don't give it. Greengauge121 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You've now deleted the article 8 times. This constitutes vandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Myrtle : "conducive to the collaborative editorial atmosphere to which we all aspire"???? Is that what you call it?? I call it a dictatorship in disguise. There is absolutely no evidence of democratic structures or control in or on Wikipedia. It is a hierarchy based on number of pages created and edited. There are obvious tyrannical power structures in place mediated by so-called "objectivity" and "Knowledge streams". I have had more experience of being subject to petty control on this site than on any other site to which I contribute my own knowledge and experience. Stop pushing your faux nonsense about "collaboration". By collaboration you mean "compliance" to established power structures. Obey or be outed!Greengauge121 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR - that's just policy, not a "tyrannical power structure". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Greengauge121, you're the one making assertions that the current sources are inadequate. Since your removal of content has been challenged, the onus is on you to explain why those sources aren't good enough or to take the article to Articles for Deletion for wider discussion about whether the subject is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. You can't simply keep reverting against consensus. clpo13_(talk) 21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has suggested that the sourcing of the article is good. The point at issue was Greengauge121's incompetent editing practices, refusal to take advice, hostility to other editors, and general battlefield mentality - a behavioural matter, and only incidentally a content dispute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Greengauge121 might be unaware that the onus is on the editor adding material to the article to ensure that it is sourced? That is especially the case when the text being added includes "allegations about Gerry Healy's sexual activities". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge or delete?

Having looked a little for the sources for this article, it seems that... there aren't any. We have an article on Cliff Slaughter, who may have some degree of notability, and one possibility would be to merge this article into his. This is not a formal proposal - I'm not that well informed on the intricacies of Trotskyist groups (though I did have Gerry Healy in my house once) - but, do others think that would be a way forward? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This source, on p.171, seems to be the only source that mentions something called the Movement for Socialism. I'll edit the article and propose a merge. I haven't found anything to suggest that Dot Gibson is connected with this group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a few other sources, mainly blog ewntries (some more reliable than others). And there is probably hostile content in ephemeral leaflets and newsletters. From my recollection, Dot Gibson was only "connected" in the sense that the MfS opposed her and her group. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliff Slaughter died 19 months ago. As nobody has updated the article on Slaughter and adequately sourced and referenced it, I thought that I would make the effort to proceed to do this. I have used this article as the basis for adding another section to the article on Cliff Slaughter. I would appreciate some feedback from editors on both this act of updating using another article to create a new section in a second article, on the referencing and sourcing and anything else which they may consider to be relevant. The question heading this section is 'Merge or Delete'. If others think that my updating is adequate - which has used more or less all of the content of this article to create the new section - then I suggest that we delete this article. Otherwise, are we to merge the newly created section in 'Cliff Slaughter' with the content of 'Movement for Socialism (Britain)'? Or perhaps simply leave matters as they now are with one article, on the one hand, and a new section in a second but related article, on the other? Advancingreturns (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)