Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

Lacking

There are many Trotskyist organisations described on wikipedia. In what way is the CWI different from the others. Who are its key people? What are its distinct ideas. What books and journals has it produced? None of these questions are answered in this article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal For Deletion

I have proposed the deletion of this page for lack of notability. A google search for "Committee for a Workers' International (2019)" only returns this wikipedia article. To quote from WP:N "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." It is quite clear that this article fails the test. This article should be deleted and merged with Committee for a Workers' International (1974)

I have deleted the template as this is a backdoor attempt to revisit the discussion at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974). That is now a historical article with references to multiple organisations that no longer refer to themselves as CWI. Those that do are covered by this page. Vahvistus (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think merging makes sense. The other faction changed its name to International Socialist Alternative and this one kept name, Internet domain, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My point above still stands, CWI 1974 lists 40 sections affiliated until the split. 34 of the groups mentioned are not affiliated to CWI 2019. To keep that information on a merged page would skew the appearance of CWI 2019. To delete it would be to lose historical information from Wikipedia. It is worth checking the discussion at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974) which covered Wiki precedent of the Liberal Party in Britain which has seperate Wiki pages for the faction that kept the name. Vahvistus (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MarioGom merging makes more sense. Whether people like it or not, the CWI still exists as evidenced by its web-site. But the "CWI (2019)" does not have any references from any reliable sources, outside of wikipedia itself. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Vahvistus: That table wouldn't be a problem. It can be easily solved by having a table with two columns for pre- and post-split membership. Or two separate tables. Whatever fits better in the flow of the article. Are there reliable sources referring to current CWI as CWI (2019) or something like that? I know it is not unprecedented in Wikipedia to handle this kind of case with two different articles, but I think that the lack of continuity should be grounded in reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The precedent is Liberal Party (UK, 1989) which does not have any references from any reliable sources, outside of wikipedia itself. The lack of continuity of CWI 2019 is hidden because (Abu Ali) deleted the section on the structure of the CWI. He claimed it was not notable. Clearly the deletion was part of the factional struggle. The World Congress is the highest body, followed by the International Executive Committee. The CWI 2019 faction were in a minority in these bodies and so have no right to claim continuity. It would be wrong to show an organisational legitimacy that does not exist. I will put the section on the structure, with references, back into the article for clarity. Vahvistus (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to make a procedural and legalistic argument. 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. Despite your decision to form International Socialist Alternative, the CWI still exists and continues with the same leadership and approach that it has had since the 1990s. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason few on wikipedia have heard of the World Congress or International Executive Committee is because you deleted all reference to them. I am reminded of the man who murdered his parents and claimed being an orphan was a mitigating circumstance.Vahvistus (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Before you start accusing your fellow editors of murdering their parents, I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the wikipedia requirement to be civil to your fellow editors WP:CIV ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite clearly you weren't accused of that, it was a comparison to an apocryphal story. We have already had this discussion and a consensus was reached. You are trying to revisit it due to, presumably, your affiliation to the CWI. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The precedent of Liberal Party (UK, 1989) doesn't necessarily apply. There is also the precedent of the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE) and Communist Party of the Workers of Spain (PCTE). When they split, both factions claimed they were the real PCPE. At some point, and for practical purposes, one faction decided to change their name (PCTE) to be able to register legally. Even today, the PCTE does not recognize the PCPE right to use the name. You can probably find a handful of examples to illustrate both sides of the argument. --MarioGom (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish example is interesting but is not comparible. They had a dispute based on the election of a senior position in a national organisation. The CWI was an international organisation with clear structures. The English branch left and claimed they had refounded the international. Abu Ali claims there is a dispute but there is none. They carried on using the name CWI but they do not dispute that they left and "refounded the CWI". They claim to be in the political traditional of the CWI but they don't claim to be the organisational continuation. In the same way the List of Trotskyist internationals has 10 organisations with fourth international in their name. As I understand it the editor who created this page as well as Golightlys are in CWI 2019. This isn't a dispute, it is a misunderstanding of the difference between organisational and political continuity. Vahvistus (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need the separate page as a compromise otherwise this arguement is just going to continue but as an edit war like it did before Golightlys (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Re third-party tag

I know theres lots to be improved.on the article but i think the Irish Times reference is enough to make this not trivially third-party Golightlys (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)