Wikipedia

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)/Archive 1

< Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the link to Green Left Weekly should be reinserted given that it is a newspaper (the only one) with which the Socialist Alliance has an official relationship (after the Alliance's second or third national conference I think). --Redit 09:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

numbers

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Althugh it's difficult and not essential to give very precise numbers for any political organizations, an encyclopedia entry should give a general idea. "a group of several hundred activists" or "of several thousand" or whatever. Many readers of wikipedia come from outside Australia and have no idea what size of organization Socialist Alliance might be. 90.11.207.244 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

History a little disjointed?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm a little confused about the history and aims of the SA, especially concerning the chronology of which groups have joined and left, and why? rakkar 12:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

idealogical conflict/a question of validity

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just re-worded this paragraph, as it did highlight a valid point, but I felt it lacked a neutral point of view. rakkar (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

unsourced material

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

in response to frequent edits by user:220.233.11.201, who i can only assume is part of the socialist alliance/dsp themselves: the edits made to these aforementioned pages are not unreasonable. the socialist alliance may well have 700 members on paper, but until you provide sources for such grand claims- such assertions will be removed. this is not unreasonable/controversial or "vandalism" for anyone editing on wikipedia. Marxwasright (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. This article read like a press release and has too many facts that are uncited, unsupported by a reliable source and look distinctly cherry picked. I've neutralised a fair bit and requested cites in places. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
in response to complaints by User:119.12.183.250:
  • the article still lacks relevant citations.
  • "This page is less biased than Socialist Alliance" um... this is the socialist alliance page.
  • "...the Socialist Alliance places more emphasis on campaigning activity than on expounding one particular "form" of socialism as do many other socialist groups..." according to the article the only active non-formerly dsp aligned orginisation is the Sudanese-Australian Human Rights Association. the article fails to discuss the former dsp's positions on the 2 stage theory for example, assuming that the majority of the dsp members remain in the alliance after the merger and assuming these members still hold and argue these politics.
again, these tags are here for a reason. Marxwasright (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
in response to User talk:Marxwasright
* "this is the socialist alliance page" - sorry, typo. I meant Socialist Alternative, a page you seem to spend a lot of time updating. I hope you're not viewing this through factional glasses...
* Your "point" regarding affiliates' activities makes no sense in relation to this article. The DSP's position vis-a-vis "two-stage uninterrupted" vs "permanent" revolution belongs ... guess what, on the DSP page. The DSP no longer exists, its positions are clearly not those of the Socialist Alliance, and the Socialist Alliance is not simply the DSP with a different name. Your assumptions are just that, assumptions, and provide no reasonable basis for questioning the bias or otherwise of this article.
* Once again, unless you can provide substantive reasons to maintain them these tags are obsolete and out of date, and should be removed.
to User:119.12.183.250 (again):
  • you imply editing the socialist alternative page is some sort of perversion or damning evidence. i make no apologies for that.
  • you're dodging my arguement: that the socialist alliance has a significant amount of members who adhere to and expound the "two-stage uninterrupted" theory. so what you're suggesting is not one member of the alliance argues these politics anymore now that the dsp is officially over. but you contradict yourself as the article itself suggests (albeit vaguely) that the alliance maintains this theory:
"...the Socialist Alliance has been an active supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela..."
i can only surmise the alliance supports this if it is indeed the first act in a two-part revolution.
  • i would stop being defensive about a reasonable critique and actually start providing believable evidence if this is not the case.
p.s. sign your posts. Marxwasright (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Again you miss my points:
* re the Socialist Alternative page - I don't regard your editing of that, or any other, page as "damning" evidence of anything, however your attitude towards this page, in particular your insistence that Socialist Alliance *must* hold some kind of position on the Stalin/ Lenin/ Trotsky spectrum suggests that you are approaching this from a partisan position. You need to remember to approach editing impartially, and on the basis of referable evidence, especially when you are editing the page of your main "rival" (if - as i assume - you are a member of SAlt).
* The Socialist Alliance's positions and policies are on its website, in their discussion bulletin Alliance Voices and in Green Left Weekly. If there is no reference to Russia or the "two stage v permanent" theories of socialist revolution debate it is in all likelihood a matter of fact that they simply don't have one, despite what individual members might think, or because a majority has not been convinced of the particular politics you are referring to. As I see nothing on their site or elsewhere that suggests otherwise, insisting that this is relevant to the Socialist Alliance page more than would be satisfied by reference to the (already existing) DSP page and its politics is a mistaken and problematic approach to editing this page.
re Venezuela: "i can only surmise the alliance supports this if it is indeed the first act in a two-part revolution."
  • You can surmise whatever you want. It doesn't make it a fact, nor does it indicate that the SA holds the DSP position. Once again, you are assuming things with no factual or reasonable basis.
  • It's not a question of being "defensive". Your "critique" is neither reasonable nor supportable. If you believe the page could be better referenced, I suggest you invest your time in that, instead of problematising its content in what is increasingly obviously a partisan manner. If you have something to support your assertions - I repeat - provide the evidence.

119.12.182.210 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • the fact that the alliance is an active supporter of the "Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela" is in itself a partisan position. not everyone considers this a revolution. those that do are assumingly two-stage theory exponents. what is impartial about proclaiming the events in venezuela as revolutionary as pure fact? a non-partisan position would be to say:
"socialist alliance is an active supporter of what it considers a revolution in venezuela." the obvious conclusion to this is if they consider it a revolution- why?
"The revolutionary process in Venezuela and the bold stand taken by its leader have resurrected the idea of socialism in the consciousness of millions."
again, alliance members assert some form of revolution is occurring in venzuela. this statement alone is a reflection of the alliance's glowing endorsement of the two-stage theory.

two stage theory

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

user: 60.242.186.153 "support for venezuela" is not the same as support for the "revolutionary process in venezuela". don't fudge the argument. Marxwasright (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's fudging the argument? Support for or advocacy of a "revolutionary process" in Venezuela is not limited to the DSP, nor does such a position indicate, or even suggest, in any meaningful way, "adherence" to the former DSP's theory of "two-stage uninterrupted" revolution. To claim that supporting a "revolution" in Venezuela "denotes adherence" to such a position is ridiculous, and I should warn you to keep a close eye on wikipedia standards as well as your own partisan prejudices before amending competing groups' entries in such a fashion. 220.233.11.201 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

clearly you both are fudging the argument. as i have said on this page before, the line "revolutionary process in venezuela" is itself a partisan statement. obviously it is not limited to the dissolved dsp but is the position of a specific political tendency no matter how ridiculous you call it. it's about as partisan as saying "the Australian Liberal Students' Federation supports the heroic democratic struggle of the Liberal Party". Marxwasright (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you so a little clearer, seeing as simple logic appears to be passing you by. Firstly, yes - the Socialist Alliance supports what it calls the "revolutionary process" in Venezuela. The former DSP did likewise, and many of the Alliance's members are former DSP who it can be presumed still hold to that view (and the DSPs position on revolutionary processes in general). But (and please bear with me here, it's not actually that complicated a point) that does *not* "denote adherence" on the part of the Socialist Alliance to: 1. The former DSP's position on Venezuela, or 2. The former DSP's position on a "two-stage uninterrupted" revolutionary process You say that the line "revolutionary process in venezuela" is in itself partisan. Yes it is. It's the statement of the Socialist Alliance, which is a party, and it holds that position. I might also add that a number of orthodox Trotskyist groups - adherents of the "permanent revolution" thesis - also describe Venezuela as a "revolution". Does this now "denote adherence" on their part to the DSP position? Which specific political tendency' are you referring to? If you think you have sources supporting Socialist Alliance adherence to the DSP revolution theory, and to the DSP position on Venezuela, provide them. Until then, you are fudging by inferring a position that does not exist. To clarify: the contested text has two problems. Firstly, it is unsupported by any meaningful reference. Secondly, the specific language used is such that it demands a high level of supporting evidence, which you have not provided. 119.12.174.107 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

this is getting boring. but thank you for spelling things out a little clearer. but it is already well known within the australian left that:
(a) "the Socialist Alliance supports what it calls the "revolutionary process" in Venezuela"
(b) "The former DSP did likewise, and many of the Alliance's members are former DSP"
(c) "it can be presumed still hold to that view"
(d) "It's the statement of the Socialist Alliance, which is a party, and it holds that position (and the DSPs position on revolutionary processes in general)"
(e) the former dsp, which makes up the cadre of socialist alliance, abandoned orthodox trotskyism in the 1980s.
obviously, the specific tendency i am referring to is the two stage theory and not an orthodox trotskyist's position. if you want to defend the alliance's position on venezuela, can you please clarify what they exactly mean by "revolutionary process" if it is not in fact referring to the two stage theory? Marxwasright (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is getting boring, and you would do well to reflect on that before jumping the gun again. You cannot simply assume that because the Socialist Alliance (or, rather, the Socialist Alliance's Victorian branch) supports what it may see to be a revolutionary process" in Venezuela that it therefore holds to the former DSP's rather complicated and detailed position. The onus is on you to prove it, with references, not on anyone else to prove they don't hold such a view because you can't be bothered referencing your assertions. The Socialist Alliance's policy on Venezuela might be a good starting point: http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=214123.200.233.83 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

so you're essentially saying that all alliance members from the former dsp have abandoned this position (and possibly others) as a prerequisite to being a member of the post-dsp alliance or, unlike the dsp, the alliance's position on venezuela is rather uncomplicated and lacking detail? if this is true, fine. but i don't see why the onus is on me to prove anything, when the facts are laid bare to make a perfectly reasonable observation, as was previously admitted on this discussion page:
"many of the Alliance's members are former DSP who it can be presumed still hold to that view (and the DSPs position on revolutionary processes in general)"
again, i ask you to please clarify exactly what you mean by "revolutionary process" if it is not referring to the stagist theory. what is the process and where is it going? is it a revolutionary struggle for socialism? for democracy? your link to the alliance's policy on venezuela isn't particularly useful because it doesn't even mention the word revolution at all. Marxwasright (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

continued practice of dishonesty and/or distortion over membership numbers

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

an editor (or editors) of the socialist alliance page continue to remove inline tags without reasoning or justification. a Weasel words tag was added to the following paragraph which was promptly removed:

"Federal registration requires 500 members, Victorian registration also requires 500 members in Victoria, and 750 members are needed for NSW registration. These figures reflect electorally registered members, however, and may not be an accurate measure of active or financial membership. A Socialist Alliance Perspectives resolution published in Alliance Voices in February 2012, suggests a membership of figure of approximately 600, making it the largest organisation on the Australian far-left - approximately twice the size of the next-largest group, Socialist Alternative."

upon inspection of the Alliance Voices source, the closest mention to this reads:

"While we were not successful in our campaign adopted by the 7th national conference to get to a financial membership of 1000, the 8th national conference agrees to launch a new campaign for 1000 members by the next Socialist Alliance national conference...
Socialist Alliance seeks to improve its regular political contact with all its members, not just those who regularly attend branch meetings forums. Since the last conference a weekly national newsletter has been emailed to some 600 members..."

just to clarify:

""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis." Unsupported attributions

the problem with the initial paragraph is that it implies that the "600 members" which it admits may not be active or financial make socialist alliance "twice the size" of socialist alternative. this is tantamount to saying email contacts constitute members of the organisation. Marxwasright (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Alliance Voices source, quoted above, is quite clear, and there is no "dishonesty" or "distortion" of the membership figures in this section. The Socialist Alliance is quite obviously claiming approximately 600 members at the time of that document (and was targeting a larger number). The weasel word tag is unnecessary and misleading, as is any reference to "active" members or "email contacts". If you think the wording problematic, then change it to something clearer, but the link supports the statement.
user 124.176.54.159, i have as you suggested, changed the wording to something clearer, quoting none the less Alliance Voices, and you still seem to think it not uncontroversial or problematic to just erase this edit from history without any explanation. Marxwasright (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
so user 124.176.54.159, you have yet again, in the most appalling traditions of stalin in The Commissar Vanishes deemed it fit to censor a point of view that doesn't match the fiction you have painted of the mass party that is the socialist alliance, ignoring the most basic democratic principles of wikipedia. bravo comrade. Marxwasright (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Your additions add nothing of value or relevance to the section. A quick perusal of the source site indicates that the commenter is a former member of the organisation, who at the time constituted a hostile minority faction of one, and left some short time afterwards. Were Wikipedia to reference every such statement, accusation, claim and counter-claim of ex-members of far-left on these pages it would be rendered obsolete and unusable. The pertinent fact here is that in the document I added - an official statement of the Socialist Alliance - it claims (or claimed at the time) a financial membership of some 600. Other evidence suggests different forms of membership in addition to this, but the point stands, and is relevant to the purpose of the section. Your ridiculous rhetoric about "stalin" etc, indicates a continuation of an intemperate and clearly hostile partisan approach on your part to editing this page, an approach evidenced in some of your earlier edits, here and elsewhere. I strongly suggest you endeavour to take a more even-handed approach in future. Wikipedia is not a site to play out political grandstanding or feuds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.54.159 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
well that got your attention. all be it a response wreaking of rank hypocrisy.
"Wikipedia is not a site to play out political grandstanding or feuds."
please. i think you'll find that i did not start this grandstanding about membership stats in the first place. your problem is that i contest your claims. my "intemperance and hostility" is towards your blatant erasure of competing facts without any debate whatsoever, hence the The Commissar Vanishes reference. if you don't like the metaphor, stop taking it upon yourself to rewrite history and presuming you will be unaccountable.
"Were Wikipedia to reference every such statement... it would be rendered obsolete and unusable."
since when were you so concerned with wikipedia protocol anyway? this is a transparent defense of an inconvenient fact.
"Your additions add nothing of value or relevance to the section."
so it is irrelevant that one of socialist alliance's own members (former or not) publicly contradicts the claim:
"making it [socialist alliance] the largest organisation on the Australian far-left - approximately twice the size of the next-largest group, Socialist Alternative."
the spurious claim that some 600 paper members constitutes the "largest" revolutionary organisation in australia holds about as much weight as socialist alternative claiming over 1000 members as a result of it's last marxism conference or over 10, 000 members due to 'likes' on its facebook page. it is this very line that indicates a partisan approach to editing this page. there is nothing even-handed about it. Marxwasright (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"the largest group on the Australian far Left".

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a reference? Who thinks that is true, in terms of active members? --Duncan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article suggests that the number of active members is not mentioned anywhere in official Socialist Alliance documents. This article from their internal bulletin suggests 100 active members as of 2012: http://alliancevoices.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/marxist-vacuums-rise-and-rise-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3quarks4mustermark (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist Alliance (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist Alliance (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 64 external links on Socialist Alliance (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Alliance_(Australia)/Archive_1&oldid=1234097283"