Talk:Permanent Revolution (group)

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Permisison

i have permission to use the copyright of this material. The labournet austria article is a version of the statement I wrote and have posted on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill j (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Network?

Isn't it called the Permanent Revolution Network? --Duncan 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it did call itself PR Network for a time, but at the March 2007 (iirr) aggregate meeting it dropped the word from the name of the British group, tho retains it to refer to the international grouping. Belboid 12:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered in various comments from other independent third party people, both organisations and individuals to corroborate the facts sited here. (80.7.115.142 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) which are not anyway contested. I've also corrected some spelling (80.7.115.142 16:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can I request that the various warnings that have been put on this subject be removed as no one has seriously contested the accuracy of the content as I think the various third party links prove. (80.7.115.142 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I added a few more third party links just to emphasise the point that the account on this page is an accurate one and not disputed by any of the third party's who commented on it (80.7.115.142 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am all for removing them. I am not sure why they were put there in the first place. Dolaro 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was because of the "notability guidelines" it was implied that the article transgressed these guidelines - i.e. it had no third party corroboration, though I agree it is questionable if they really add anything (80.7.115.142 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#fn_1[reply]

I corrected some spelling (80.7.115.142 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"PR members in Britain participated among other things in"

Can we cut this? It's so non-notable. Can't we find out what they cooked as well? --Duncan 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah why not (80.7.115.142 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

BLATENT POV HERE

this artcvlke is well pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.170.242 (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]