Jump to content

Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well done!

[edit]

I was cautious about getting involved in how Wikipedia should deal with the CWI split but I think the end result is pretty good. Congratulations to those who took part calmly in sorting out the mess. --Duncan (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sections Chart

[edit]

@Wellington Bay I do not believe the sections list for CWI (1974) can be kept anymore at this point. Unfortunately, due to the split, we have no clear reliable resource to determine when sections were or weren't in the group, and when they were active or defunct. While I've been trying to clear up the main two split off groups (CWI (2019) and ISA) I kept finding claimed sections that had dead sites long before the split emerged, suggesting that there is no reliable source and that the websites themselves for these groups shouldn't be considered a source for sections (as it is in their interests to claim defunct sections as still active to look more important).

It also doesn't help that finding sources for sections even at the time of splitting is a problem due to the fact the main source for both camps is a slagging match aimed at the other, which causes potential problems under WP:ABOUTSELF.

The most useful thing would be if there was a chart of supposed sections at some point before the split and start from scratch from there. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the chart using the CWI website as it existed at the time of the split, as stored in the Internet Archive. This is allowable under WP:V as "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". You are making radical changes to articles without first discussing them in Talk. Please remember there are other editors here and for an article such as this one, they edits you are making are to a version of the article that was largely reached by consensus so if you wish to change it you really should discuss it first.
In particular, if you wish to remove large swaths of material you should be tagging it first as needing better citation in order to give other editors a chance to improve the sourcing. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I think restoring what was the last column, which indicated which section went where (as well as the modified second column which showed the names of individual sections took if they split as well) would be useful and not POV.Wellington Bay (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is allowable if, as per WP:ABOUTSELF, it doesn't breach five conditions laid out which include:
"The material is neither unduly self-serving" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity".
Both these grounds are a problem. For example that snapshot you are using as a source to support the claims of which sections it had in 2019 includes a Romanian section that hadn't posted since 2017 and was taken offline before the split: https://web.archive.org/web/20180313120329/http://manadelucru2016.blogspot.com/
The CWI website is not a trustworthy source even about themselves, which breaches policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of sections is not "unduly self-serving" and there is no reason to doubt the autheticity of the list as it existed in June 2019. What is the doubt about its authenticity? Is there a published claim that the list as it existed on the CWI website in June 2019 is incorrect or fraudulent? Wellington Bay (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've literally just demonstrated to you that one of its own claimed section using the links on the source you provided connects to a non-existent entity. That is certainly a reason to doubt its authenticity as CWI is claiming they have sections that actually may not exist.
As a result it's an unreliable source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the chart so that the explanation at the top says "List of sections claimed by the CWI as per CWI website as it existed shortly before the split" so as to make clear this is the list the CWI claimed at the time. In any case, there are other editors here so why don't we have a discussion with them first rather than act based on your own original research. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Original Research, it's your source.
Here's another, clicking the link for their supposed Chile section as it was claimed at the time on CWI in 2019 on your source, dead since 2018 https://web.archive.org/web/20190629121854/http://revistasocialismorevolucionario.blogspot.com/
I can go through every single one if you like. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a link for that same organization today with articles posted this month- so evidently they do exist and are active and you jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on your own original research. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can't just claim that you finding a snapshot of their website on Internet Archive counts: as a valid source but then my usage of that same snapshot to demonstrate it's not reliable is "original research". Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "List of sections claimed by the CWI as per CWI website as it existed shortly before the split." (italics added). If you want to start an RFC on the issue please do. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just demonstrated to you that there are reasonable grounds for doubting their claims, which means you can't add it. As per WP:BURDEN you have to demonstrate a reliable, trusthworthy source to include material once it's been challenged. So I am happy for you to open a RFC but if so you have to remove the table first. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I just showed you that your are engaging in original research and jumping to conclusions based on that, for example you asserted the Chilean group was defunct based on the fact that in 2019, their website hadn't been updated recently. And yet, they exist and are active. See https://socialismorevolucionario.cl/ Wellington Bay (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not "engaging in original research", I literally clicked on the CWI link you provided, clicked on the link on that website for the Chile section and it came back dead. i.e. I used the CWI's own link and it didn't work.
Now you have provided a live link to a different website, which is actually a demonstration of WP:SYNTH. Now if you show a snapshot of it at the time of the original CWI being active that demonstrates the were in the original CWI then that solves the problem of that specific section but it still leaves a massive problem in that you have to actively find other websites individually because the CWI's own website at the time of the split in 2019 had the wrong links and therefore isn't a reliable source of information. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, SYNTH relates to actual articles, it does not apply to TALK. I'm just showing you that you made an assumption, acted on it, and it turns out your assumption was wrong. (Incidentally, if you look harder you'll see articles from the Romanian group in 2022 elsewhere - you assumed because their blog hadn't been updated that they were no longer in existence and you are incorrect) As I've said several times, the list is the list of sections the CWI claimed in 2019 and that's all the article says. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the CWI's own website at the time of the split in 2019 had the wrong links". Ok, so it's not the list of sections that was inaccurate but the list of links? If that's going to be your argument for proving a website is not "trustworthy" or "reliable" about itself then there is virtually no website online that can be said to be trustworthy, including wikipedia, since every website has broken links. In any case, I haven't reincluded a list of links, I've included a list of sections from 2019. You claimed that it is not reliable becuase one or two of the links on the CWI page were inoperative and I've shown you that regardless, those sections existed. At this point you are nitpicking. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that it is not reliable becuase one or two of the links on the CWI page were inoperative and I've shown you that regardless, those sections existed. At this point you are nitpicking.
It's not nitpicking, it's basic policy. If the links are broken we don't know at that point if the section was defunct or if CWI was just awful at site management.
Now at present you have come up with the link to a different site, but the point is without a snapshot of 2019 if it was active, then there is no source on the main article to support the idea it was an active section.
i.e. it's the same problem with Jamesation's edits earlier this week, where his source was "trust me, I know someone in that section". Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The source for a "List of sections claimed by the CWI as per CWI website as it existed shortly before the split" is the list of sections as it was listed on the CWI's website shortly before the split. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that it's the CWI claiming it, so they have an interest in appearing as large as possible. Basically I wouldn't have this issue if we had say an index on a site such as "International Marxist Database" where they were stating this was the list of national sections for CWI because it's a third-party saying it.
Because of that lack of "independence" we can't easily distinguish what's a dead link because it's simply CWI at the time hadn't updated it or what's a dead section and CWI don't particularly want to seem diminished so haven't removed it, without "original research" as there isn't a citation.
Now for Chile, if we have a snapshot for that new site you found from 2019, we can add that to the table with a note saying "CWI had wrong link, this was correct site at time of split" and it resolves the issue but at present that table doesn't have such a source and there are a lot of sections to go through if we want to pursue that.
Look, we're clearly both getting heated over this so what I propose is I put this on Third Opinion but revert to the table being removed (as under policy due to my challenge it shouldn't have been re-introduced) and we both agree to go by their verdict.
@Wellington Bay Is that acceptable? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not removing to keep a complete record, but obviously this is now beyond 3O due to presence of third editor below. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the list were a new addition it would be reasonable to revert but given that this table is from a version of the article as it existed in 2019 and that having a table in some form was a stable part of the article in the years since I think it's more reasonable to require consensus in order to remove it and if there is an objection to it, tag it rather than remove it, until the dispute is resolved. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, the list is the list of sections the CWI claimed in 2019 and that's all the article says.
But that is what you don't seem to want to understand, even prefacing it by saying it "CWI claimed they had these sections" still doesn't save it if we can demonstrate that snapshot of the website you're using a source is dodgy.
The problem is, we can't say if that list of sites on their website was ever accurate, and therefore it is not a source protected by WP:ABOUTSELF. So you'd have to manually amalgamate your own list but that would possibly breach WP:SYNTH (and that's what the Synth applies to, not here). Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start an RFC. Let's see if editors agree with you or if they think you are nitpicking and raising the threshold far beyond what WP:V requires. And as I've said repeatedly a qualification has been added that this is a list of sections the CWI claimed to have at the time of the split. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it's not reliable evidence that the CWI had those sections, but it's reliable evidence that it claimed to have those sections.
But that said, does the full historical list of sections that it claimed need to be in Wikipedia at all? Surely it's enough just to list a count and give further mention to any notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) sections in the text, as has already been done in the history section. Golightlys (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was reduced to a table of only the notable sections I wouldn't have an issue with that. Frankly it would avoid the possible "poisoning of the well" issue here. Basically for me it comes down to the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF, made worse by the fact we aren't using prose but effectively a list of website links. So if the CWI link to the Chile section is dead, well does that counteract their claim to have a section there if the only source we're using is basically that dead website link? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW here's a post-split reference confirming the existence of the section now and in the past [1] but I can't date the name change from Workers Democracy. Golightlys (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Golightlys I think the original chart which showed how the CWI split up and which section ended up where was more useful but also more difficult (or at least more time consuming) to source and also might not have sustained a WP:OR challenge. Nevertheless, the CWI was the largest Trotskyist International at the time (or they and the IMT were neck-in-neck) and if you're interested in far left history you would likely be interested to see a list of their sections or at least the countries they were organised in and you won't find an historical list on any of the current groups' websites. Which reminds me the IST used to publish a complete list of their sections in their paper publications and books (along with mailing addresses). I don't recall if the CWI used to do the same thing but one of their print magazines or pamphlets or books published circa 2019 may have a similar list which could be used as a source. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay a paper list would resolve the issue of dead website links as well, as it’s clearly what they were claiming and not easily disputable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source: A Socialist World Is Possible: the history of the CWI, Peter Taaffe, published by CWI Publications & Socialist Books (London), August 2004, ISBN 1870958292, page 90.
The source claims "more than 35" "affiliated parties and organisations", with contact details given for the ones listed below. Not appearing in this list is not evidence that some group was not a section, because readers are invited to instead contact the London office for the CWI in "Cyprus, Finland, Ghana, Kashmir, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Poland, Spain or anywhere else".
Australia: Socialist Party; Austria: Sozialistische Linkspartei; Beliguim: LSP/MAS; Brazil: Socialism Revolucionario; Canada: Socialist Alternative; Chile: Socialismo Revolucionario; CIS (referred to elsewhere by the CWI as "CIS (former Soviet Union)", I don't know what it stands for); Czech Republic: Socialistická Alternativa Budoucnost; England & Wales: Socialist Party; France: Gauche révolutionnaire Les amis de L'Égalité; Germany: Sozialistische Alternative; Greece: Xekinima; India: Dudiyora Horaata; Ireland North: Socialist Party; Ireland South: Socialist Party; Israel: Maavak Sozialisti; Italy: Lotta per il Socialismo; Japan: Kokusai Rentai; Netherlands: Offensief; New Zealand: Socialist Alternative; Nigeria: Democratic Socialist Movement; Portugal: ALternativa Socialista; Scotland: International Socialists; South Africa: Democratic Socialist Movement; Sri Lanka: United Socialist Party; Sweden: Rattvisepartiet Socialisterna; USA: Socialist Alternative
(Any spelling mistakes my own.) Golightlys (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Masses Arise: the great French Revolution 1789-1815, Peter Taaffe, Socialist Publications Ltd, June 2009, ISBN 1870958470, pp. 164-166. adds:
China: Chinaworker, Russia: Sotsialistcheskoye Soprotivleniye; Ukraine: Robitnichi Sprotiv; Moldova: Activitatea Socialista; Kazakhstan: Molodaya Gvardia; India: New Socialist Alternative; Lebanon: CWI Lebanon; Pakistan: Socialist Movement Pakistan; Poland: Grupa na rzecz Partii Robotniczej; Venezuela: Collectivo Socialismo Revolucionario.
Golightlys (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - is there anything published in 2018 or 2019 that can be used? In any case, if the list on the CWI website had been falsified or fraudulent that would have come out during the faction fight (and if the online version was fraudulent, a print version would have been too) - either what became the ISA would have said those bastards running the CWI put fake groups up on the list of sections or the continuing CWI would have said ISA was lying by saying the Romanian and Chilean section sided with them because those sections went defunct before the faction fight. If there are errors on the website (such as links that were out of date) then given that the list of sections never became an issue, those errors were inadvertent rather than fraudulent. In any case, the table isn't a list of links to websites, it's a list of claimed sections and we have seen that those two listings that were thought dubious becuase of out of date weblinks were actually in existence. Also, rival Trotskyist groups would also have exposed any fake listings - groups like the Weekly Worker and the Sparticists and Bolshevik Tendency would have not hesitated to investigate and fully publicise Potemkin village claims about sections that don't actually exist. One major (and rather amusing) embarrassment for not only the CWI but several Trotksyist internationals around 2009 was a Ukrainian group that joined several rival Trotskyist internationals in order to get money from each of them without telling any of them about the others. In any case, one reason Trotskyist "Internationals" aren't going to make up claims about non-existent sections is they know if they do they'll be exposed by their rivals and will have egg on their face as a result. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wellington Bay to be fair, I did spend yesterday/day before trying to clean up CWI (2019) sections and their Irish section (Militant Left) were claiming someone to be an elected member representing them despite all evidence to the contrary (including by CWI themselves on a different date).
And given what I saw with areas like Nigeria, it looks less like they'd claim the other was lying if they were inventing or stretching the truth over their list of sections but rather a rather petulant attitude of "pretending the other lot don't exist here" and just Stalin-esque erasing from the historical record. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 August 2024

[edit]

Committee for a Workers' International (1974) → Committee for a Workers' International – The disambiguator (1974) was added to the article name several years ago to distinguish it from Committee for a Workers' International (2019). With the AFD decision to delete that article and merge it into this one the disambiguator is no longer necessary as there is only one article. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The date was added in to aid clarity that this organisation was now a defunct one. While the refounded CWI might fail to meet notability on its own terms this doesn't change the reality that there is ample grounds for confusion and therefore this organisation is not the present group calling itself "Committee for a Workers' International". Therefore the descriptor (1974) should be kept to aid delineation that this article refers to the historical, now defunct organisation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptor (1974) gives no indication whether the organization is defunct or active as the current group calling itself Committee for a Workers' International asserts that it was founded in 1974. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it does aid better than just calling it the name of the current group, which is what you want to move it to, which would instead suggest it's about the current group and is what led to the original decision to change the name a few years ago. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - While it could be unorthodox the name "Committee for a Workers' International (1974 - 2019)" would solve the issue of titling to ensure it's clear this is not the current organisation, while also better making it clear it's defunct from the top. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is inconsistent with the AFD decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for a Workers' International (2019) to merge the two articles. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inconsistent with the decision. The decision was to "merge to Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. I don't see enough support here to Keep this article so this is an ATD. If all of the referenced content has already been merged to the target article, then this page will just beome a redirect".
It's quite clear therefore that the decision was to only merge the referenced aspects of the now removed article about the split into this one and nothing else. Therefore this article is still to be kept as only to deal with the historical organisation that went defunct in 2019 and not to be used to refer to the new organisation calling itself CWI that in reliable sources and its own pronouncements refers to itself as a "refounding". Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An examination of the history of the CWI website quickly shows that the CWI is not defunct. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed inconsistent with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for a Workers' International (2019). The decision can be found at the top of [[2]]
"The result was merge‎ to Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. I don't see enough support here to Keep this article so this is an ATD. If all of the referenced content has already been merged to the target article, then this page will just beome a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)"
Let's respect the actual decision, and not read into it things that it does not say. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Wellington Bay for working hard to sort out this mess. As you say the decision was made in the ADF. The decision was to merge Committee for a Workers' International (2019) with Committee for a Workers' International (1974). So the merged article does not need a suffix to disambiguate it. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website

[edit]

Rambling Rambler has been repeatedly removing the website from this page. Rather than edit waring, and engaging in Personal Attacks, let's Assume Good Faith and try to reach a consensus here on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu ali (talk • contribs)

Multiple editors have removed your attempts to turn this page into one for the current organisation calling itself CWI.
Your edit history makes it pretty obvious to discern that you are an individual associated with CWI and therefore have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing this or pages associated with CWI to begin with. Notably after returning from years of inactivity four years ago you have almost exclusively engaged in biased editing across a number of associated articles that adds pro-CWI and/or anti-ISA material, with sourcing being almost entirely formed from CWI-affiliated self-published blogs. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler, I would ask you again to WP:AGF and WP:PA.
And when you accuse others of bias and of COI, you should first examine your own edit history.
If you look at the AFD for CWI 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Committee_for_a_Workers%27_International_(2019)
we can see that you argued for the article to be deleted. But the ruling by Liz Talk!
was merge. This was not the ruling you wanted, but you are basically pretending that the result
was delete and reverting any attempt to merge content from CWI 2019 into this article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling was to “merge all referenced content into the split section” which I have done, and that once this was done then to turn the other page into a redirect, which I have also done.
What you are doing, in complete bad-faith with an undeclared COI which you have been questioned over for several years now, is immediately try and hijack this article about the historical organisation that dissolved in 2019 to instead be about your own group which currently exists. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that someone has a COI based on the nature of their edits is not a personal attack.
Voting in an AfD does not constitute a conflict of interest.
Also, asking a user not to make an allegation of COI on AGF grounds, and then immediately making a (completely unsubstantiated) counter-allegation of COI against that user is clearly an act of the most extreme hypocrisy. Axad12 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Committee_for_a_Workers%27_International_(1974)&oldid=1244523204"