Talk:Socialist Worker

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.

Split

I think that this needs to be split, these two publications are entirely different and both need their own page and "Socialist Worker" should direct to a disambiguation page linking the two publications.--Jersey Devil 05:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The two papers are very similar in their origins and politics and there is not a huge amount of content on either. If one or other part of the page grows substantially then it might be worth splitting them but for now I would leave them as a single page.--NHSavage 08:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now about 3/4 different papers. While they are no doubt similar in political outlook, they are still different newspapers and thus should have their own pages.--JK the unwise 16:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career Starts

The claim that Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn used to work for the british Socialist Worker paper seems some what dubious and is not mentioned in either of their wikipedia articles. According to the Garry Bushell page it seems he did write for the paper in the early stages of his carrer.--JK the unwise 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JK the unwise, while I have not found confirmation on the web of the SW conneection for Littlejohn (only going by memory), it is certainly true of Hitchens; he refers to it in his Who's Who entry as having occurred in 1972-73. However, in his failed application for the, perhaps apocryphal, MI5 file on his IS activities, Hitchens dates his time at the University of York as 1970-73, therefore the evidence is either somewhat contradictory or suggests his work for Socialist Worker was slight. Occasional references on the web imply this is not the case though. The subject could be raised on his talk page, as Hitchens monitors his Wikipedia entry, or perhaps quietly buried as he would doubtless wish.Philip Cross 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the reference, and found reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Property is theft and all that good stuff, but is there a good reason the owners of these newspapers are listed as N/A? It's useful information. Socialistworker.co.uk for example appears to be owned by Sherborne Publications Limited. 79.78.81.196 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]