Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism

Welcome to the WikiProject Socialism talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

Project members are encouraged to watch this page, the alerts and the discussions feeds.
Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Threads older than 90 days are automatically archived.

List of archives
1, 2, 3

Shortcut

WT:SOCIALISM

Good article reassessment for Socialist Party USA

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Socialist Party USA has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Listing of National Sections for Internationals

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Bit of an odd one, but it's come up a couple of times in attempts to improve articles between myself and @Wellington Bay. Basically on a few articles on Internationals both current and historical we list a breakdown of supposed national sections based off of the group's own website (Revolutionary Communist International, International Socialist Alternative, Committee for a Workers' International as examples).

The issue is effectively differing views of where we fall when it comes to WP:OR, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:V. I myself believe that using the group's website as the sole source is a problem (because they have a interest in seeming as active as possible and therefore it is in their interest to stretch the truth as to whether sections still fundamentally exist) and had attempted to try and make it work by only listing sections whose own websites showed "recent" activity. @Wellington Bay is not happy with this, viewing it as breaching WP:OR, a view that I myself can see merit in even if I believe that it is preferable to not list sections that can't be shown to be active than list them when the only source claiming they're active is the international.

As an example of the issue while the International Socialist Alternative website currently lists an "ISA Australia" section[1], this group has in fact disaffiliated[2].

As a compromise it has been suggested by both myself and another user (@Golightlys) have put forward the concept of essentially only listing in full the sections that are notable (i.e. have their own articles) and just merely making mention that the group claims to have a number of national sections, but as per singular discussion with @Wellington Bay I am taking it here to get further views from others.

As an example, under the suggested compromise, the "sections" section on the article for International Socialist Alternative would look like this:

The ISA website maintains a list of claimed national sections, notable sections include:

Section	Name
Hong Kong	社會主義行動 Sewuizyuji Haangdung (Socialist Action)
Nigeria	Movement for a Socialist Alternative
South Africa	Workers and Socialist Party (WASP)
United States	Socialist Alternative

Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speaking from personal experience, far more socialist orgs exist on social media and self published websites than in real life.

Imo, if there are no secondary sources that support the existence of a national section, then I don't think it should be included. The primary source could be used to find a list of potential factions, but each faction should be shown to exist by a secondary source. WP:OR, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:V all give good arguments for not relying on sources like the one published by ISA.

That probably lines up with what you and Golightlys have put forward; only including sections with their own articles as a rule-of-thumb.

FropFrop (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All I would add is where possible make the connection in prose (as well as the table), as has been done in e.g. the CWI history subsection, or the ISA Rosa subsection Golightlys (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) There should be a notice of this discussion on the talk pages of articles that may be affected. 2) A number of articles for sections of an international political group redirect to the page of the international in question. Accordingly there should be some mention of that group on the page in question. The simplest way to do that is with a list of member organizations of that international even if the member organization is not notable enough for an article of its own. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the issue of redirects, if it was a more abstract redirect I'd probably agree. However here, even if not explicitly mentioned, it's pretty obvious what the redirect is about if you're discussing the International proper. i.e. if someone searched Wikipedia for the national Trotskyist group "Socialist Alternative (England, Wales, & Scotland)" and it took you to "International Socialist Alternative" it's pretty easy to infer the connection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also the redirects probably need cleansing too in any case given some of those sections don't appear present now already (because of disaffiliation post-redirect creation for example) so there's already no inherent link between redirects and coverage as it stands. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply