Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974)

Split by the 'Refounded CWI'

I suggest we add a new section on the split by the SPEW and six other sections into a 'refounded CWI'. --Duncan (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As there have been no formal expulsions or announcements of leaving, i suggest waiting a few days for the dust to settle and more announcements to be made. e.g. in Germany this will be formalised 7th September

However, a non-biased mention of the split that is occuring is appropriate.

Golightlys (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. This is still unfolding, we should wait a bit for things to be clear and for reliable sources to become available. --MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits recently made by Vjr300 - I think they are well balanced and clarifying Golightlys (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Due to the split and the supposed "refounding" of the CWI by a minority of its members and sections, I propose the name of the page is changed to "Committee for a Workers' International (Refounded)" Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better for the time being for both to use the same page. Otherwise we would have two pages duplicating a lot of content e.g. history of the CWI Golightlys (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In that case the "refounded CWI" should have a new page summarising its own history, ie since November 2018. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe at some point. I don't think either side of the split have enough notable new history to justify separate pages yet. I think for an encyclopedia this page should stand as the history of the CWI. Golightlys (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The refounded CWI has no history. Its existence began either in November 2018, if we're being generous, or July 2019. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are members of the CWI (Refounded) International Secretariat editing this page?

TU Senan, a member of the CWI (Refounded) IS is listed in the history of editors as having edited this page, and making edits which cast his faction of the CWI (Refounded) in a better light. It is not appropriate for him to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to set a good example by also declaring your own COIs Golightlys (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any to declare. I'm not an employee of the refounded CWI or a member of its International Secretariat. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And you say "also" declaring my own, but TU Senan (your comrade, who you have a vested interest in defending) hasn't declared his COI and just decided to use his own name, for some reason. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not all COIs are paid - see WP:COIPOLITICAL Golightlys (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You can contact the editor on their talk page as a first step and then escalate to WP:COIN but as the last edit was one day several months ago action might not be needed unless it repeats. Golightlys (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I still don't have any conflict of interest but thanks for your concern Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Split three ways"

The article currently says the CWI split three ways in 2019. This isn't accurate: the CWI split *six* ways. The CWI majority, the "refounded" CWI and Izquierda Revolucionaria are the three that are mentioned, but there are also three groups which left the CWI but did not join the "refounded" CWI; a small group in Worcester, MA in the USA, the tiny "Militant group" on the island of Ireland, and RISE, Paul Murphy TD's group on the island of Ireland. If we can find sources for these that would be useful. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added Murphy's group, RISE, but cannot find sources for the Militant group, "CWI Ireland" or the group in Worcester, MA, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New name

The CWI Majority is likely to change its name to International Socialist Alternative this week. Assuming this goes ahead the name of the page should be changed accordingly, and a new page should be created for the "refounded CWI". This is the logical way to proceed given that a clear majority of CWI sections and members support the CWI Majority (ISA) and that the "refounded CWI" has only existed since July 2019. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Object, for the same reason that Militant (Trotskyist group) doesn't redirect to the Socialist Party: the CWI as an organisation has prior history that stands alone Golightlys (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, in that case this page should be changed to state the CWI no longer exists, in the same way Militant no longer exists. The faction to which you belong claims to have "dissolved and refounded" the CWI. So this page should be put into the past tense, eg. the CWI *was* an association of Trotskyist parties, and two new pages should be started - one for the CWI (Refounded) and one for International Socialist Alternative. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, yeah. The CWI (refounded) doesn't call itself that so maybe CWI (-2020) and CWI (2020-present). Neither CWI/ISA side would have enough notable new sources just yet to support a new page but that's a reasonable direction to go in Golightlys (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The first CWI World Congress was 1974, so 1974-2020 Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I would support renaming the current page to CWI (1974-2020) and the creation of two new pages: Draft:Committee for a Workers' International (2020-present) and Draft:International Socialist Alternative. Give the page rename a few more days for comments. Golightlys (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It actually looks like everyone agrees for once if anyone just wants to make those edits now 😂 Golightlys (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On Portugal

The IEC majority claims have members in Portugal. Unless they are made deep entrism is not true. The former CWI' Portuguese Section - Solialismo Revolucionário - decided step out CWI and, as Esquerda Revolucionária, if founding member of International Revolucionary Left. Francisco d'Oliveira Raposo (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The CWI majority does have members in Portugal, but not a section. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The CWI majority (now ISA) can easely reclaim members in Portugal, but it's still untrue. As far I know there is a Portuguese member in Holland group. In Portugal, the Congress (that assembled all SR members actives in Portugal) decided with no vote against or abstention to leave CWI — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranciscoR (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There are members in Portugal. Thanks Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Draft: International Socialist Alternative

If creating a new page for ISA, please start at Draft:International Socialist Alternative Golightlys (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's the "Refounded" CWI which was the CWI minority, which claims to be a continuation of the CWI.SolTrek (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to edit that page; its just a starting point Golightlys (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a new article. The CWI article needs to be renamed and updated. What now is called the CWI is a rump group which by its own description "refounded" itself - it was a minority faction that left the CWI so there should be a new article for the rump group while the original article is renamed. SolTrek (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Some rump https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/gallery/311 ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

ISA is the new name of the CWI. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotta cite that from neutral sources Golightlys (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Luckily this article has well referenced explanations as to the structure of this organisation. The world congress is its highest body and is the body to establish policy and programme, such as on name changes, as it did today.86.25.13.191 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not going to be reported in any neutral sources though is it? The ISA website will cover it, not like the media is going to care. The majority of this article isn't based on neutral sources, but on material from either side of the split Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not yet no, but that is for better or worse the standard for wikipedia. Golightlys (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest changing this page to a disambiguation page that says Committee for a Workers' International may refer to one of two international organizations that emerged out of a split in the Committee for a Workers International in 2019: the Committee for a Workers' International - Majority, now known as International Socialist Alternative or the Committee for a Workers' International (refounded) which declared itself the "refounded" CWI. SolTrek (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than a disambiguation perhaps renaming the current page to CWI (1974-2020) and additionally Draft:Committee for a Workers' International (2020-present) as the other draft page Golightlys (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the Refounded CWI retains the name of the Committee for a Worker's International, and the Majority CWI is now known under a different name, it seems ridiculous to have this page become the page for the ISA. 2600:1000:B051:A22A:C00E:D5A3:B398:A6D3 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The page "Committee for a workers international" should relate to the organisation of that name, and not to "International Socialist Alternative" ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

See Liberal Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) for an analogy which suggests the page for the "refounded" CWI should be Committee for a Workers' International (2019) (not "2020-present"). SolTrek (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point thanks Golightlys (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The organisation which calls itself the CWI claims to have dissolved and refounded the CWI, so the previously existing organisation called the CWI no longer exists. The CWI existed from February 1974 until July 2019, and another organisation called the CWI has existed since July 2019. Hence the decision reached elsewhere to rename this page "Committee for a Workers' International (1974-2019)" and start two new pages, "Committee for a Workers' International (2019-)". Golightlys, who is a member of the "Refounded" CWI, agreed to this move, we are waiting a few days before carrying it out Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The CWI still exists, and has members, produces newspapers etc in 11 countries. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

But, by your own admission, it is a different organisation to the organisation that existed prior to July 2019. You "dissolved and refounded" it. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Same organisation, same name, same leaders, same methods, same programme. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Same name, yes, the other points are debatable. Leaders in the vast majority of sections are no longer members, for example. Given that only 11 of the 40+ sections remain, it's clearly not the same organisation. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS for this claim ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your claim it's the same organisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we move Draft: International Socialist Alternative into the main wiki space now that it has enough content to no longer be considered a draft? ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Committee for a Workers' International (1974). To match the article's scope. If ابو علي or anyone else feels that is article covers the same topic as Committee for a Workers' International (2019), then that is a separate discussion. However, as the organization covered in this article no longer exists as it previously was, it's best we make that as clear as possible. That's the consensus here at least. (non-admin closure) (closed by non-admin page mover) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Committee for a Workers' International → Committee for a Workers' International (1974–2019) – See discussion under the sections New name and Draft International Socialist Alternative Golightlys (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree - but does it need to be "Committee for a Workers' International (1974)" rather than 1974-2019?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - the organisation is called "Committee for a Workers' International" without any dates attached. Its website socialistworld.net contains articles since the 1970s till February 2020. Nobody has provided a reliable source to support the idea that the organisation is referred to by any name other than the CWI. The page exists in its current name since 2003. There was a period at the end of 2019 where two organisations claimed the CWI name, and at that time there would have been an argument for a disambiguation page. But now one of the organisations has renamed itself to International Socialist Alternative, so such a page is not needed. None of the advocates of a move have cited any WP:RS to support the idea that the name has changed. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree -- as a compromise to avoid fighting over the existing article -- with a new page at Draft:Committee for a Workers' International (2019). E2A: agree that the rename should be to just (1974) also. Golightlys (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree Committee for a Workers' International (1974) is more accurate as one version of the CWI was dissolved and "refounded" in 2019 and the other renamed itself in 2020 - so the end date is contestable. As an aside, the dash isn't needed for the fork, Committee for a Workers' International (2019) is sufficient. SolTrek (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a point of view. Objectively, the CWI split and one of the two resulting groups has changed its name from CWI and now wishes that the wikipedia entry be changed to reflect only their viewpoint. It is clearly a POV request and not correct wikipedia practice. Andysoh (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Any other course of action is biased towards one side. I would note that both Abu ali and Andysoh are members of the Refounded CWI, so it is unsurprising that they have both opposed this move. 86.8.83.246 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree International Socialist Alternative may have changed name but are the group with direct organisational continuity to the original CWI. The Reformed CWI are organisationally a different group who split off in 2019 but kept the same name. The "Socialist Party in England and Wales voted overwhelmingly, 83.2% to 16.8%, (173 - 35 with 0 abstentions), to sponsor an international conference to reconstitute the Committee for a Workers’ International" For the title to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects it should make clear that it refers to the CWI between these dates, not the Reformed CWI which split away or remainder of the organisation which voted to change their name.Vahvistus (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

both organisations claim organisational continuity. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Refounded CWI claim political continuity. They broke the organisational continuity when they set up a new organisation. Vahvistus (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The majority changed its name to ISA. The minority usurped the name CWI. That's the difference. SolTrek (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Both factions claimed to have the support of the majority of the members. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The IEC is the more representative body and what is now ISA had a majority on it while the faction had a majority of the IS. We will never know who would have been a majority at the World Congress because the faction boycotted the IEC meeting and walked out before there could be a world congress. SolTrek (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WSA sometimes claims that they were bureaucratically expelled by what they considered a minority of the CWI, who they say have no right to use the name CWI. And at other times, they say that their opponents 'left' the CWI. These two claims are contradictory. But is not our job on wikipedia to decide which faction is right. It is our job to make sure that our articles reflect reality. Otherwise we could rename Israel to Palestine. A cursory examination of https://www.socialistworld.net/ shows that there is still an active CWI organisation in existence. And https://internationalsocialist.net/ shows that ISA also exists. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note The CWI is an international Trotskyist organisation which was founded in 1974. In 2019 it split into two organisations both claiming to be the CWI. On February 1 2020, one of these organisations changed its name to "World Socialist Alternative", and the proposal to change the name of this page was made on the same day. Those who are arguing for a rename have so far not provided any non-partisan WP:RS, which refers to the new name suggested here. Supporters of WSA argue here that the other side have no right to use the CWI name. But it is not the role of Wikipedia to adjudicate these sort of disputes, but to reflect real world usage by reliable sources. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• But by asking Wikipedia to treat this page as the page of the current CWI, even though the current group was a minority, you are asking Wikipedia to take sides. If the CWI IEC majority is the true CWI and changed its name to ISA then the proper path would be to rename this page International Socialist Alternative. By letting either the minority or majority "have" this page Wikipedia would be taking sides. The NPOV route is to have this page be the page for the 1974-2019 CWI and have newly created pages for each of the two groups that claim to be the true inheritor of the CWI - ie the proposal currently being voted on. SolTrek (talk)

Since your organisation has relinquished the name, there is only one CWI in existence. You are perfectly free to argue that this CWI is "illegitimate". But you can not will it out of existence. And wikipedia's role is to reflect reality, rather than ignoring reality to fit your POV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See Liberal Party (UK, 1989), this is the rump that refused to join the merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats into the Liberal Democrats. Even though the original Liberal Party "relinquished the name" and the rump Liberals claim to be a direct continuation of the pre-1989 Liberal Party we have separate articles for Liberal Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK), and Liberal Party (UK, 1989). Just as wikipedia doesn't treat Liberal Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) as the same entity (or conversely Liberal and Liberal Democrat) it should treat the original CWI and the refounded (or continuing) CWI as different entities. Similarly, there are different articles for Social Democratic Party (UK), Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988), and Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present) despite the fact that the latter two claimed to be direct continuations of the first. ie the SDP (I) merged with the Liberals to form the Lib Dems but a rump of SDP members refused to join and "refounded" the SDP. That second party then dissolved but a minority refused to accept the decision and continued. Rather than treating the three as one single SDP, Wikipedia has three separate articles. The CWI situation is analogous. The practice when the majority of a party abandons the name but a minority claims and continues it is to treat it as a second entity, even if they claim to be in direct continuity. SolTrek (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence that the currently active "Committee For A Workers International" is a rump comparable to the Liberal Party in Britain. "Committee for a Workers International" has been the stable name of this page for over a decade. During this period the CWI has suffered a number of splits, but none of them resulted in a page move here. There has been no consensus to change this name. Furthermore the new proposed name gets no Google hits outside wikipedia itself - so there is no WP:RS which refers to the new proposed name. Wikipedia's role is to reflect existing reliable sources, not to create new 'better' or 'more correct' names. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Note Just to make people aware of the process. This discussion will be open until 8th February and as per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions a uninvolved experienced editor will have to make a call at that point. Bear in mind when giving reasons, the editor may not know anything about the CWI, so simple explanations are useful. Thank you everyone for the comments so far and engaging positively on the talk page. Despite the split there is a shared history to be proud of and document on wikipedia to a high standard. Golightlys (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split

This section is quite incredible as it does not explain the political differences behind the split. It should be rewritten.

What do you believe the political differences were? 86.8.83.246 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have appended the following:

Dome of the key documents relating to the split are published at marxist.net and some of the documents published by the 'In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI' faction are collected in the book In Defence of Trotskyism.

Overall, however, I think that whole section is far too detailed and needs summarising but I will leave that to other editors. Golightlys (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed too long. And it gives undue emphasis to the 2019 split, compared with say, the split Grant/Woods in the 90s. The article as a whole says very little about the politics of the CWI, and what distinguishes its programme from other internationals. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

ISA logo

The logo for the ISA can be found here: https://twitter.com/salfordSA/status/1223691666256809984/photo/1 Can someone who knows how to navigate wikipedia rights issues upload it and add it to the International Socialist Alternative article? SolTrek (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This will be easier to do on Wednesday when the new ISA website is supposed to be going live but I'm happy to do it at that point if still needed Golightlys (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Structure

Is the organisational structure of the CWI notable enough to be included here? The three references are from the CWI itself, so probably could not be considered a WP:RS

A group can be a source on itself under RS. SolTrek (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This paragraph which has been here since March 2015 has been deleted by ابو علي (Abu Ali) on the grounds that it is not notable. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. However within the context of the page the structure is clearly notable. In fact Abu Ali refers to the structure in Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019) "The International Excutive Committee and the world congress may be very high and important to you, but here on wikipedia, few people care about them or have heard of them." It was this comment that alerted me to the deletion. He first deletes the information then says nobody has heard of it. I think it should be replaced but am interested in the views of other editorsVahvistus (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no section on structure on in the wiki pages of any other Trotskyist internationals on Wikipedia. The fact that the internal committees of the CWI was mentioned in a book by Peter Taaffee does not mean it has to be included here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Taaffe mentioned the structure because it is politically important. It differentiates the CWI from other organisations because it is one world party of revolution not a federation of parties. The first two paragraphs on Fourth International (post-reunification) deal with the structure. The article on Fourth International discusses similar ground and has this quote which might clarify for you why Peter Taaffe's group kept the name CWI dispite leaving that organisation "By declaring themselves the Fourth International, the "World Party of Socialist Revolution", the Trotskyists were publicly asserting their continuity with the Comintern, and with its predecessors." Vahvistus (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What is important for a Trotskyist organisation is its ideas - its programme, rather

than its structure. I believe that Peter Taaffee has been leading the CWI since its inception, so he does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. The article has been tagged as relying to heavily on primary sources which are too closely identified with the subject, so I will remove this paragraph. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The subject can be a reliable source when talking about itself, as SolTrek pointed out. The structure is clearly political. You have used it in argumentation Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Why do you think it is not political? You appear to be deleting the content to bolster your point Vahvistus (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. Vahvistus (talk) 20

29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

CWI (Refounded)

Unlike the Rifondazione Comunista, the term CWI (Refounded) does not appear anywhere on the web or on their own website. While there were two organisations called the CWI, the suffix did help identify which was which. But is there any point in keeping the suffix now?

Yes it differentiates it from the CWI which it voted to leave. Vahvistus (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The CWI voted to leave the CWI? Are you serious? ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The CWI (refounded) was set up by The Socialist Party (E&W),it was joined by other sections who left the CWI. I can see it is confusing which is why we need the suffix Vahvistus (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS for the claim that they left the CWI. The only references I can find are from ISA sources. Also please provide a WP:RS which refers the the CWI (refounded). As far as I can see, the CWI split into two groups, both of which claim to be the legitimate CWI, but one of which has now changed its name to ISA. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The first reference below will take you to the article posted by the Socialist Party where they explain "The international conference’s decision to reconstitute the CWI followed an intense debate and political struggle in the CWI over the last seven months." Else where in the article they say refounded. They didn't attend any further meetings of the CWI. They only invited their co-thinkers to the congress mentioned in the article. That was the organisational break with the CWI. That was the point at which they left the CWI. Vahvistus (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

They clearly did attend further meetings of the CWI (e.g. a meeting in Early November - see https://www.socialistworld.net/2019/11/08/a-world-of-explosive-social-upheavals-and-inter-imperialist-turmoil/). I think what you are saying is that they did not attend *your* good CWI, but the other (illegitimate in your opinion) CWI. They would presumably have the opposite opinion. Having two organisations both claiming to be the CWI does create a certain confusion. Happily this has been resolved by your comrades renaming their organisation to World Socialist Alternative. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The link you supplied confirms that they split away in the first paragraph. "Even since the re-founding meeting of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), last July... " A refounding is still a founding meeting. So your presumption that they would have the opposite opinion is not supported. Vahvistus (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

See the bottom right hand corner of page 15 of their newspaper https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pdf/issue/1072/1072.pdf which states "The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) is the world socialist organisation which the Socialist Party is affiliated to." This shows that they are as of today still members of the CWI. It also shows that the name is just CWI, without any suffix. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Refounded Committee for a Workers' International (2019) left the CWI while usurping the name. 208.98.222.31 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, the organisation split, with both components claiming that they are the real CWI and that their opponents are the usurpers. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is why it makes sense to have three separate articles instead of Wikipedia declaring one group or the other to be the true inheritor of the CWI. SolTrek (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

tense

socialistworld.net has been updated as recently as Feb 3. So it appears that the organisation is still active, and should not be referred to in the past tense.

That would be Committee for a Workers' International (2019). 208.98.222.31 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The website is quite clear that it is the website of the CWI, without any suffixes. In fact, if you google "Committee for a Workers' International (2019)" or Committee for a Workers' International (refounded), the only hits you get are on wikipedia itself. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

no objection raised here, so I will change 'was' to 'is' ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No objections raised because this issue has already been covered. Corrected tense back to past tense. The original CWI no longer exists, as has been established, and a new article started for the "Refounded" CWI, aka CWI (2019) Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that the CWI does evidently still exist. Their website [[1]] is still up and was updated today (15 February). ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Phantom sections

The article claims various sections for the CWI with dubious claims for their existence and significance. I suspect some of these sections may be inactive or only have a single member. Trotskyist internationals have a tendency to self-aggrandizement, and claiming a base in countries where they have zero influence. But in wikipedia, groups which we include do have to fulfil the requirement of notability. We should audit the long list and see which sections have evidence for their existence from reliable secondary sources, and remove any which do not pass the WP:NOTABLE test. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As this is a historical group it would not be appropriate to remove sections Vahvistus (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The list is very selective. Nothing about the various groups which split with the CWI in the 1990s to form the Grant/Woods IMT. Nothing about the relatively large Labour Party Pakistan, which was probably larger and more notable than most of the sections limited. Nothing about the Scottish Socialist Party. Nothing about the Portugese section. There seems to be an attempt to claim many tiny sections in order to make this organisation seem more important in wikipedia than it is on the ground. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Structure" section and severe problems with verifiability

I reverted an edit to the "Structure" section because references should not be at the beginning of a section but rather should follow the content that the references support. Prose is preferred to tables of bullet points for describing the structure of an organization. My edit was reverted with an invitation to discuss on the the talk page. That motivated me to take a more in-depth look at the article and the references. In its current form, this article is in violation of Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability because it relies almost completely on references to works published by the Committee for a Workers' International itself. Although self-published sources can be used in articles for uncontroversial claims that are not self-serving, the policy makes it clear that this applies only when "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article violates that core content policy, and the violation must be corrected by adding references to sources discussing the CWI that are completely independent of CWI, and reducing the excessive use of CWI affiliated sources. The tag placed at the top of the page in March is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Vahvistus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸The edit that you reverted has been in place since 2015. I know that doesn't of itself justify its place but it was deleted by Abu ali to justify his argument on another page. When I invited you to join the discussion on structure I meant the discussion in paragraph 10 above. Your points about the placing of the references and the tagging are valid but they are cutting across that discussion. Your point about prose rather than bullet points may also be valid although I think it makes a complicated subject clear. The organisation broke up and a dispute about which part of the structure had most authority was key to that. It would be sad to lose this information because the references were in the wrong place so I have moved them. Vahvistus (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vahvistus, the issue of the references being in the wrong place is a minor one. The substantive issue at this time is that this àrticle is based largely on self-published sources that are not independent of the subject of the article. Is there a single independent reliable source in the article that devotes significant coverage to CWI? Can you furnish any such sources? If not, the topic is not notable and the article should therefore be deleted. As for Abu ali and another page, I know nothing about that. I am concerned with the shortcomings of this specific page at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with Cullen328's criticisms of the lack of secondary sources. This criticism would also apply to the page of International Socialist Alternative which I have now also tagged. There are a fair number of decent secondary sources on the CWI available, but not references on the article. The article itself, as I have mentioned earlier is very poor, and says very little about the ideas, the people, and the struggles that the CWI played a part in. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For secondary sources, there is a fair bit about the CWI in John Kelly's book, Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain. A Google search shows many accademic papers such as Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain By John Kelly. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There are secondary sources for example [[2]] The CWI is a world party but each country has its local chapter or section. It is these sections that gain mainstream coverage. In the source/link above the story is about the Scottish Socialist Party which broke away from the CWI. Where the article mentions CWI it is talking about that group that wanted to remain affiliated.

The section on the structure makes it explicit that the CWI is one world party. This sheds light on the political nature of the sections that are listed. I feel that even if the article was rewritten with secondary sources this section would still need to remain in order to show the connection of the sections and to explain the split. AbuAli would like to delete this section and then argue that the ISA is not a continuation of the CWI, this would make it harder to show notability. In the split the minority had control of the international secretariat who controlled the buildings and website. Vahvistus (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Vahvistus, the BBC coverage is a trivial passing mention that provides no information about the CWI other than it existed at the time the article was published. As for the claim that CWI is a "one world party", that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence from independent sources. The Kelly book is published by Routledge and certainly appears to be a reliable independent source. I recommend that the article be rewritten based on what that book and other independent reliable sources say about the CWI. I will let a bit of time pass and then will start removing content that is referenced only to the CWI itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Abu ali as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸Being one world party is not an extraordinary claim for a Marxist party. The first line of the article "The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) was an international association of Trotskyist political parties." contains links to Wiki articles that explain the nature of this.

Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article. I think that may be productive. This is a minority interest subject so most contributors have some connection. I would ask you to bare in mind that there is very little mainstream coverage of the CWI itself, much like local sports teams get far more coverage than the bodies they are affiliated to but understanding the sport is easier if you understand the international bodies that set the rules. The history section explains why the organisation was not publicised. The recent split means the organisation now called Committee for a Workers' International (2019) is not universally accepted to be the CWI of this article. International Socialist Alternative claims organisational continuity but took a new name. Abu ali's views are not necessarily shared by anyone in either organisation although he clearly has some historical connection. Vahvistus (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Vahvistus (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of websites

Pinging Vahvistus and Cullen328. User:Abu ali appears to be attempting to use this oage to promote and direct traffic to websites of the 2019 CWI both in the body of the text and in the Infobox. Please review. Sowny (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The material below is copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

Comments: Slow edit war. The CWI split one year ago. User:Sowny repeatedly deletes material such as the website of the organisation and links to the documents concerning the split. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see [3] and [4] as well as [5] where I have attempted to raise the issue on the article's talk page as well as User:Abu ali's talk page. Abu ali has opened this complaint rather than respond to my talk page comments. Note, as well, that what Abu ali says is his attempt to resolve the dispute was actually about another article and is on that other article's talk page: Talk:International Socialist Alternative and is about another issue, one he has just raised, which I have attempted to address with this edit[6] So his claim above that he has attempted to resolve the dispute on Committee for a Workers' International (1974) is erroneous.

User:Abu ali is attempting to POV-push as well as use these articles to direct traffic/promote his organization's websites.

The Committee for a Workers' International split in 2019. The minority faction declared that the CWI had dissolved and that they had refounded it. Hence the article Committee for a Workers' International (2019). The majority faction called itself the CWI-Majority for several months and then changed its name to International Socialist Alternative in 2020. Despite this Abu is treating the Committee for a Workers' International (1974) page of the original pre-split group as if it the page of the new organization and a) first removed the website of one of the two successor organizations, in favour of the one he belongs to [7]. I then removed the websites entirely on the argument that either both websites should be listed as successor organizations or neither should since the original organization no longer exists.[8], and he put it back[9] and so on.

The second element of the dispute on the CWI(1974) page is User:Abu ali insists on using the narrative text of the article to promote his organization's websites. I initially removed this paragraph:

"Some of the key documents relating to the split are published at marxist.net<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://marxist.net/in-defence-of-trotskyism-the-documents/|title=In Defence of Trotskyism – the documents – Marxist.net|language=en-GB|access-date=2020-02-29}}</ref> and some of the documents published by the 'In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI' faction are collected in the book In Defence of Trotskyism[20][10]

because it didn't add anything to the narrative, it was only promotional of his organization's book/website. Abu put it back in[11] and I compromised and attempted a balance by writing a paragraph that retained Abu's link but added one for the other side, and used language which favoured neither.[12]. He changed to a version which again is promotional of his group's website/book.[13]

Looking at User:Abu ali's edit history, since he reappeared on Wikipedia if February after a 12 year absence, virtually all of his edits (150 or so) have been to either this article or others related to the CWI, which I think means he should be regarded as a single-purpose account. Sowny (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for my 12 years of absence. The demands of life often do not leave much time for sitting at a computer. I think Snowy's comments show a failure to assume good faith. Regarding the CWI website which Snowy repeatedly deletes, www.socialistworld.net - an examination of wayback machine shows that’s this has been the CWI website for nearly two decades. And examination of this website shows that the CWI is still active and operating today, even if Snowy does not like the fact. The role of wikipedia is to reflect the world as it is, not as certain users would like it to be. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to the status quo ante where both websites were listed.[14] This was the situation before you removed one of them in favour of the organization you belong to.[15] I hope that resolves the matter. Sowny (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

By all means have the ISA website on the ISA page. But putting it on the CWI page is linkspam. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, because there are three pages, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) is the predecessor organization of which there are two successors, Committee for a Workers' International (2019) and International Socialist Alternative. I am saying either the sites of both successor organizations should be listed, or neither of them. You insist on taking a POV position and promoting one side over the other. Sowny (talk)

This goes to another issue. Trotskyist groups are continually splitting. The CWI is no exception. It has split many times. The IMT is a result of one such split. The Committee for a Workers' International (2019) page should in my opinion be deleted, as it the term "CWI 2019" does not exist anywhere outside Wikipedia. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your organization said it "dissolved" and then "refounded" the CWI while the other organization denied that and called itself CWI-Majority before changing its name to International Socialist Alternative. That is why there is now a Committee for a Workers' International (2019) and an ISA article - and I see from Talk:Committee_for_a_Workers'_International_(1974)#Requested_move_1_February_2020 there was extensive discussion of that. You are now trying to go against that consensus unilaterally. I guess it's a case of Schroedinger's CWI that has simultaneously dissolved and not dissolved? In any case, since there is a Committee for a Workers' International (2019), that is the appropriate place to list the website in the infobox. Sowny (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You say "Your organization". But you have no idea who I am and what if any organisations I own. On the other hand, you assert that you are not a member of the ISA. I think that a brief examination by an objective observer would say that both the ISA and the CWI exist and are active to this day. It would be useful if some univolved editors would help out, as we are clearly deadlocked here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a member of either organization and am trying to ensure the articles are balanced and that is what my edits show. The fact remains, a consensus was established by a vote and the current CWI organization's article is Committee for a Workers' International (2019) so you should not treat Committee for a Workers' International (1974) as if it's about the *current* organization until and unless the established consensus changes. Sowny (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You claim not a member of either organisation. But your obsession with this subject makes your claim that you are "trying to ensure the articles are balanced" hard to believe. You claim that there was a consensus to split CWI into CWI 1974 ad 2019. But consensus means unanimity. And I opposed the split of the article at the time, so there was no consenus. And I will propose that we remerge the two articles (actually just delete the fork), when I have time. But that is an issue for another day. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Another issue raised here is my linking to the collection of documents around the split on the CWI site. I know that those who formed the ISA produced over 100 documents around the CWI debate, some of which are reproduced on the CWI site. These documents form an important part of the ideological foundations of the ISA and the political explanation of the split. If you can find an ISA published compendium of these documents, we should add it to the article. But if no such compendium has been published by the ISA, then we have to make do with the CWI's list. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Already included under External Links: Committee_for_a_Workers'_International_(1974)#External_links. Your attempt to promote them in the body of the article with the following paragraph is both superfluous and promotional: "The CWI have published their main documents of the debate leading up to the Split in the book "In Defence of Trotskyism". They have also made the most important documents from both sides available on the marxism.net website. Sowny (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The roots of any split in organisation are always political, and their nature can in this case be revealed from the documents written by the protagonists of the split. The CWI and ISA articles are both weak in this respect. They give a blow by blow narrative of the events leading up to the split, but reveal very little about the ideological differences which drove these events. The CWI have published a collection including most of their key documents and a small number of ISA documents. If the ISA publishes an compendium of its documents, then we should add it to the articles, perhaps replacing the CWI list if the ISA list is more extensive. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the links, it's with the promotion of them in the body of the article. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia to try to promote a website. The links are already listed under "external links". You want not only to also have them in the body of the article but use prose essentially promotong them. It's one thing to link to something for citation reasons, quite another to do so in order to promote the website. Sowny (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The political basis of the split should be the core of the narrative, and not a footnote. The argument about promoting a website is a red-herring, and somewhat disingenuous given your continual attempts to promote the ISA website on the CWI page. I would certainly be happy to replace the link with a complete compedium of all debate documents hosted on the ISA website, if the ISA publish such a collection. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The length of this discussion is already indicative enough: this is a content dispute that (fortunately) has not turned into a full-blown edit war that administrators need to get involved in. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: website link(s) in infobox

Should the infobox of this article include a link to internationalsocialist.net (one of the organizations that claims to be the successor of the original CWI - see International Socialist Alternative) socialistworld.net (an organization which claims to have dissolved and refounded the CWI - see Committee for a Workers' International (2019)), neither organization, or both organizations. There is a second dispute - I hope to open an RFC for it once the current RFC is concluded. Sowny (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging all individuals who have commented in the talk page or the two related articles in the past year. Vahvistus Golightlys Yevgeni Preobrazhensky Cullen328 FranciscoR SolTrek Abu ali Andysoh Primefac DuncanBCS Sowny (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Both or neither - I don't really care which but I think given that we have separate articles for both successor organizations it would be inappropriate to list only one group's website in the infobox. Sowny (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

socialistworld.net - An examination of https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.socialistworld.net shows that www.socialistworld.net has been the CWI website since 2002. An examination of www.socialistworld.net shows that it is regularly updated, showing that the organisation still exists and has some degree of activity. The ISA website is linked to on the ISA page, but linking to it here would be link-spam, in the same way as would listing the CWI website on the ISA page. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

According to socialistworld.net the CWI dissolved in 2019 and was refounded.[16] According to internationalsocialist.net the original CWI was not dissolved, the minority (aligned with socialistworld.net) resigned and founded a new organization and the original organization, which went by the name CWI-Majority to avoid confusion,[17] changed its name to International Socialist Alternative in 2020.[18]

Therefore socialistworld.net is the website of the refounded CWI which has a separate Wikipedia article. The socialistworld.net website is linked to from the infobox at Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Conversely, internationalsocialist.net is the site of an organization that claims it is the actual CWI but changed its name.

If linking to the ISA website from Committee for a Workers' International (1974) is "linkspam" then so too is including a link to socialistworld.net since they are both websites belonging to successor organizations. Alternatively, both organizations have a claim to being the original CWI's successor (or continuation) and so both should be listed. Wikipedia should not be taking sides which is what listing one site, but not the other, would do. Sowny (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Abu Ali but neither is better than both. Golightlys (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Both Once again ابو علي (Abu Ali) is attempting to re-run the page move decision above. They say possession is nine tenths of the law and the International Secretariat of the old CWI kept possession of the internet servers, finances and property when they declared they had dissolved the CWI. The overwhelming majority of the membership outside of Britain carried on but chose to change the name. Control of the socialistworld.net website in no way proves that CWI 2019 is the same organisation as previously. Wikipedia should not play along with that duplicity. I say keep both websites in the info box to maintain balance and stop editing as if the page move hadn't happened. Vahvistus (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What you are arguing here is that the fact that the International Secretariat kept control of the websites, the premises and (I would add) the name is illegitimate, and an act of theft. I would disagree with that line of argument. But even if we accept your assertion, the role of Wikipedia is to reflect reality as it is rather than how you think it should be. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The reality is the International Secretariat, as part of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, declared they had dissolved the CWI. They founded a new organisation, and have never claimed organisational continuity, that is your unique position. Vahvistus (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Both or neither. I think the state of all three articles needs to be objectively looked at by neutral editors, given the extensive editing by SPAs with conflicts-of-interest. FDW777 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

What do people think about a single link that is an archive.org link to socialistworld.net pre-split Golightlys (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be an option if the socialistworld.net website were defunct, but it's not. Even having an archival link to an otherwise live website (and no other) endorses the idea that that website's organization is the one true successor to CWI1974 - and would be directed web traffic to that site - and so would violate NPOV unless the other organizations claiming an organic link to CWI1974 were also listed. Sowny (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Paragraph The documents concerning the 2019 split

Should the following paragraph added by User:Abu ali be included in the body of the article or should the site(s) mentioned be listed under "External links" instead?

The CWI have published their main documents of the debate leading up to the Split in the book "In Defence of Trotskyism". They have also made the most important documents from both sides available on the marxism.net website. The ISA produced over a hundred documents during the course of the debate, but have not published any of them online.

Pinging all individuals who have commented in the talk page or the two related articles in the past year. Vahvistus Golightlys Yevgeni Preobrazhensky Cullen328 FranciscoR SolTrek Abu ali Andysoh Primefac DuncanBCS Sowny (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• External links - The paragraph adds nothing to the narrative of the article and violates WP:NPOV by favouring one side and attempting to direct readers to one side's website(s). Sowny (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - favouring one side or not, its true that only one side has published the documents from both sides and one side has published neither. If ISA wants to put their side, they're welcome to publish it and add their reference too. Golightlys (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - The paragraph gives some information about the *political* disagreements which led to the split and provide links to documents which provide more background. These documents are hosted on a CWI site, but include documents from both sides of the dispute. If the ISA publish a compendium of the documents we should definitely add them. Unfortunately the ISA have so far not published a compedium of the many documents that they produced during the dispute, suggesting that many of them have not stood the test of time. Their supporters are trying to obliterate these documents from the historical record, as well as any description of the actual political issues that the 2019 split was about. The efforts of ISA supporters to erase the record of these documents are particularly ironic given that during he debate they claimed (without evidence) that the Faction supporters were failing to distribute the documents to the membership. So their edits focus on many IEC delegates and national sections joined each side, while removing all reference to the political questions which led the sections to go in their respective directions. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the ISA section in Britian, they say "Further material can be found on our international website with more to be published soon, including a selection of key political internal documents from both sides." [19]. Hopefully this selection will be forthcoming and we can link to it from the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Well done!

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)

Sections Chart

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FWIW here's a post-split reference confirming the existence of the section now and in the past [20] but I can't date the name change from Workers Democracy. Golightlys (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)