Talk:Globalise Resistance

Seeing as how the stearing commity of GR contains 12 non-SWP members to 7 SWP members its seems inacurate to redirect quires about GR to SWP - So I changed it. --JK the unwise 15:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do people feel the need to vandalise this page? You may have a disagreement with some of the criticisms levelled at GR, but to simply excise them from the article reeks of Stalinism and is also attrocious wittiquette. If you have a problem with the allegations of the CPGB and others on the left then rewrite the article in order to put those criticisms into their proper context, don't just try and pretend they don't exist. In accordance with the above I intend - once I've worked out how - to revert the article to the last version by JK (himself hardly an opponent of GR). I encourage people to work on it (it really needs looking at), but please try and do so in an honest, open manner. Disillusioned kid 21:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This page has been altered by GR members because the criticisms that have been put up form a tiny part of GR's work over 4 years, the linking to inaccurate and slanderous articles by tiny groups with axes to grind against GR (weekly worker, Schnews) is a distortion of the work GR has done when put in that perspective, and as members we feel we should have the right to say how our group is represented. If for instance you take a look at the Schnews entry there is no criticism or links to articles spreading lies about them. So why does GR get different treatment? Disillusioned Kid or JK have had no involvement in GR and therefore are not the best arbiters of what Gr's entry should be. Criticism of GR being used by the SWP to be involved with the Social Forum process has been left in by us, despite the fact that GR predates that process and both SWP and non-SWP members have been active in that process since it began, and SWP members bieng involved through GR is no different from Labour party or Green members being involved through groups like War on Want.

136.148.1.142 10:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Globalise Resistance


 * While I agree with you that the accusations found in the Weekly Worker and SchNEWS articles are largly sectarian rantings and agree that your veiws as members as valuble, I don't think that it gives you the right to dictate what the page says. C.f. You wouldn't accept Labour party members demanding that only their point of view was put accross in an article on the labour party. In fact I have been involved in GR before (and would be now if it existed in Manchester) so you are wrong there. The way wikipeida works articles have to be writtern from a netral point of view rather then a true one (as editors would never agree on the truth and endless edit wars would be the result) I see your point that because of the small size of the article the critisms represent an unrepresentative percentage of the article, prehaps it would help if the article got expanded. One issule is that Wikipedia requires that sourses are cited (otherwise there is no way to check the information and people could right anything) so it would be brilliant if you could find some ballanced articles on GR. I won't re-vert it back for now, lets work towards a concensous.--JK the unwise 17:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

JK I'm disappointed your a Marxist and a philosophy student and you think it's possible to have a 'neutral point of view' isn't the phrase itself an oxymoron-better get reading that Gramsci?! Anyway that aside let's say we want a balanced entry as that's better. I'm not saying 'we' have the right to determine the page but then nor do I think you or the rather sectarian 'disillusioned kid' do either. I'm glad you've at least been involved in GR, maybe you could drop us a line at the office so we knew who you 'really' were. Anyway onto the substantive stuff, the accusations from Weekly Worker and Schnews are not just 'largely sectarian rantings' they are totally sectarian rantings! Schnews did their pamphlet just after Genoa largely because of the success of the GR mobilisation and the develop of the movement beyond anarchism- it is an attack on the SWP (and a bad one at that) and not GR per se, which is why I think it's not on to link to it, also many of it's 'sources' in that document are hearsay and indymedia, hardly reliable, (as I said you don't find lots of links to criticisms on the SchNews entry), we also find that in spite of the criticism SchNews and their fellow travellers in Brighton Dissent have no problem taking and using GR artwork for their G8 posters, hmmm... The Weekly Worker is more serious in that a number of GR steering group members are smeared and lied about in that paper, which of course is well known in the labour movement for it's inaccurate and sectarian reporting. I don't see why we should link to articles that are lies or make false accusations do you? As for the members who left during the ESF, well that's not such a big deal, although again none of them actually mentioned any problems before leaving, they just left and then brought out a statement designed to inflict maximum damage on us and to promote their group which if you look at the website is just GR with a slightly more autonomist bent. But as I said before the key problem is that these criticisms are given almost as much space as what we've done, yes we could write more of what we've done, but then we have a website and maintaining that is enough work, surely our wikipedia entry should be fairly concise about the groups orientation and major achievements, no? We'll discuss this more in the steering group, as I'm sure the independent members will be annoyed by the unfair representation of their hard work too (though they are use to it by now). 136.148.1.143 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Globalise Resistance

Actually I have had some peripheral involvement with GR for all that matters. You seem to have no idea what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for you to advertise ypur group. The reality is that most of the left regard to GR as a front group, whether this is accurate or not is hardly relevant. Any serious Wikipedia article should engage with that controversy. The article as it is is a joke. Disillusioned kid 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Disillusioned Kid, firstly I'm well aware of what Wikipedia is for, thanks if you took a look at how elitist your own assumptions about technology and it's use were, maybe you'd reflect on the comments I made about you. You write "The reality is that most of the left regard to GR as a front group, whether this is accurate or not is hardly relevant" so we don't like accuracy then it's not relevant in an encyclopedia?...hmmm. Some parts of the sectarian and anarchist left regard GR as a 'front' group (though what exactly is wrong with a united front? No change will come without them...) Weekly Worker or Schnews are in no way 'most' of the left, what should we do put up all the good things people across the world have said about us, real groups like ATTAC or the MST, I mean where would it end? As I've said before neither Reclaim the Streets or Schnews have any criticisms on their pages, why should their views of us overrun our entry? More people than a few nerds who hang out on the internet and hoover up any gossip going look at this site I presume so it seems important to us136.148.1.143Globalise Resistance


 * Lets keep it civil, Wikipedia won't change the world its just an encycolpedia so there is no point turning it into to much of a political battle ground.
 * Firstly, why not sign up to an account so your not just an number?
 * I agrre that indeed nothing is really neutral. However wikipedia NPOV policy is best regarded as a thing in itself, something that requires reflection of differing veiws. (see an ok discution of this issule) This works well sometimes, as when it means that an argument can be made for inclution of left-wing veiws on stuff in generall, and not so well other times, when daft marginal views have to be presented along side more accurate ones.
 * The article on SchNEWS was indeed a pile of pants. I have edited and now it is more neutral and does include some critism.
 * I have no doubt that ATTAC and MST may have said nice things about GR. Some links to some quotes would nicely ballance things out if there are any about.
 * The reson we should link to articles that make inacurate critisms is as referances for those critisms.
 * You say As for the members who left during the ESF, well that's not such a big deal however given that they were members of the stearing group and that they represent other groups/were connected to other groups (if indeed they did), surely this is at least worth a mention regardless of their ill or otherwise motives?
 * --JK the unwise 18:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
In an attempt to provide some kind of balance here I'd like to point out the following POV (everyone else has above). IMHO - To the majority of UK activists (sensu people who take direct action - not talk about it), GR are at best a bad joke, and at worst a major threat to the 'movement'. Schnews and the other organisations that contributed to the pamphlet about GR, are not 'small' groups - individually and collectively they have pulled off more meaningful action then GR could possibly imagine in their wildest dreams. GR turned up as the movement was achieving great sucess globally (e.g. J18, N30) and tried to recuperate that sucess for themselves. GR got themselves in the media spotlight despite doing absolutely nothing - except take subscriptions and try to flood events with their orange flags (remind you of anybody - SWP perhaps?). To suggest criticism of GR is sectarianism is disingenuous. How can you be sectarian to a group with which you share NO common ground. Needless to say I'll keep my POV for this page and regularly check that the article stays NPOV and BALANCED. NickW 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Nick to the very small 'direct action' movement in the UK of anarchists and autonomists GR maybe 'a front for the SWP' but then so is every other united front to them too. Schnews and Earth First are tiny groups and Reclaim the Streets doesn't exist, none of these groups have any real connection to the wider social movement outside their own fellow travellers, hence their hostility to those who do. That is what is meant by sectarianism, a lack of connection with the wider milleau and because of that trying to impose your perspectives on it from the outside as the autonomists do all the time (the G8 being the last example of many) and yes many of us in GR have taken direct action on the streets and have been gassed, water cannoned, beaten and tortured (in Genoa) for the trouble so save the empty moralism, ok?

GR have done a tremendous amount to bring lots of people into the anti-capitalist movement in a non-ideologically committed way, and have mobilised more people for demos and conferences than all the 'direct action' groups put together in the last five years, that and the fact we will talk to the media is why we get attention, your comment reads like the usual sour grapes from a politcally bankrupt and disorientated part of the movement, yes j18 and N30 were great (I was at both) but what since then? The anarchists don't even do anything on Mayday anymore...says it all

GR


 * Two points here - firstly Wikipedia requires NPOV and thus balanced articles - it's no place for vanity pieces. Hence the reinclusion of the criticisms section.


 * Secondly - on the issues of which groups are biggest and/or do most. Well this depends on your perspective. For the record I would strongly argue that EF! and RTS (which most certainly does exist - it's a global network not just a London-based group) have taken more significant action than GR ever has, ever will, or could ever imagine possible. The difference is in the presentation. RTS and EF! do it, GR goes on TV and talks about it... I'm happy to carry on disagreeing with you on this. BUT this is Wikipedia, not a webpage for GR, and not a webpage for RTS et al. Hence the need for neutrality. As such, and given the repeated past removals of the criticism section I've now added the POV tag to the top of the article. NickW 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nick well done for ingoring the substance of my criticisms! The GR entry in not a vanity piece nor unbalanced either, including the criticisms of the bunch of narcs who write Schnews who thought that the key thing to do post 9/11 was to attack GR by writing a pamphlet about the SWP from it's own rather distorted perspective is a massive distortion of the work that GR has done over the last 5 years, which is why I dispute the criticisms being there.

The difference isn't in the presentation it's in the politics EF, Schnews and the (non-existent, a global movement come on!) Reclaim the Streets have no interest in bringing the majority into radical politics they just moralise to others and turn a tactic (direct action) into a lifestyle choice. GR on the other hand does engage in direct action amongst other things but always with a perspective to broadening and making more radical the movement. But please do tell me about all the significant action EF et al have taken...is it more than being the source of the feb 15 call that instigated the largest day of protest the world has ever seen?


 * I've no wishes to debate this with you - we clearly have little common ground, language or understanding. My aim here is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia standards. Contributors who seek to create a POV article about their own organisation are clearly in the business of vanity.


 * However - for the record - RTS is a global network - street parties take place across the world (N.B. corporate media coverage is no way to measure reality). If you want a visible example of an RTS and EF! action then J18 in the UK is a good one. NickW 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No Nick I understand you and your kind of politics only too well, it is you who is avoiding debate, nobody in GR wrote the wikipedia piece in the first place, but your silence speaks volumes, yes J18 was good but it was 7 years ago, the Schnews pamphlet 5 years ago and as a heavy partcipant in the 'goblal movement' I don't rely on the corporate media for my news, but I do know that RTS is in no sense a global movement anymore, again maybe 5 years ago but not now, but keep on ignoring reality though if you wish...


 * Thanks for your judgements. Again my concern here is the quality and NPOV of the article - not your personal views and what you think of me. I don't think Wikipedia is the right forum for a slanging match NickW 12:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry re read it and answered my own question.BFKate (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)