Template talk:Trotskyism

message: I'm sure this has been debated before, but if the internationals list has contemporary relevance (rather than historic) some of the ones listed need to be changed. My main concern in the inclusion of the ICFI when its number of sections is significantly lower than other Internationals, including but not limited to Fraction Trotskyista and International Communist Union, both of which have very large national groups which is not the case with the ICFI. If however this is included for purely historic reasons then I can understand why. incka (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's right that the template should list the most relevant international and not every international tendency. In particular, I think the template should list internationals, rather than tendencies/factions, and these should be notable. Adding, for example, a very small group with just a few individual members in each country seems like a task for the List of Trotskyist internationals rather than for the template.  --Duncan (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for adding key Internationals

message: I've changed the Russian Revolution link to Russian Revolution as the former is a dab page. Linking to October Revolution seems most logical. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link disambiguation

message: Peter Taffe? Are we getting a little low on the list now? Sad that there are no women on the list still. --Duncan 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Best known today, but has she actually contributed anything theoretically (genuine question)?  Sedova is another possibility; Clara Fraser perhaps. Warofdreams talk 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LO is so secretive, who would know? Fraser is a good suggestion. --Duncan 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominances 

message: I am thinking of expanding the material in a section of Michel Pablo into a new page on Pabloism, and then to add Pabloism into the Branches of Trotskyism. Good idea? --Duncan 09:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term "Pabloism" should not be used, as I don't think supporters of Pablo used this term to describe themselves. (If they did, then of course use it.) Trious 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pabloism/Pablism 

message: I'm staring to think that these 'branches' articles might also benefit from a similar structure: nutshell; founders; history; views on the seven big issues [the nature of Eastern bloc; relations to Stalinist parties; the colonial revolution; the post-war overturns; the leninist party; approaches to permanent revolution; the nature of the International]; distinctive issues. Any thoughts? I realise it's a little odd to raise the point here, but the Template is where the branches came from and where ther are dreawn together --Duncan 09:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there needs to be a section on Theory for each group. There's not enough info about this stuff. Trious 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree, although the list of seven big issues may not always be appropriate - some "branches" have little to say on some of these topics, and much to say about other "distinctive" issues.  Now that Posadas has (correctly) been removed from the section of notable Trotskyists, should Posadism be added to the list of "branches"?  It is small, but certainly distinctive and unlike other personality-driven "-isms", it accepts and uses the term itself. Warofdreams talk 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's useful to go over these principal facets; it shows where the divergences were and were not. But Warofdreams is right; there are other differentiators as well. However, it give us a easy way to start to summarise their theoretical stances. Poasdism seems more like a twig to me. Pabloism is a term only used by their opponents; similarly, most people who are called 'Orthodox Trotskyists' would not use that term themselves, but it gives us an opportunity to explain it. There's a big myth of what the Pablo current did and did not say, and we should assess that somewhere, somehow. --Duncan 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has added Pabloism to the list of branches. We don't even have an article on Pabloism! It's something close to an NPOV term. I'll remove it. --Duncan (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of 'Branches' articles 

message: I think the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) should be included as a Trotskyist group. Since this encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral, any group that calls itself Trotskyist should be included in the Trotskyist section.
Leon Trotsky 11:48, 2 November 2006
:The template isn't where we list all the Trotskyist groups. That's only for major groups and leaders, as you might have noticed above. The ICL is listed many, many times, in actual articles. --Duncan 08:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The International Communist League Should be Included as a Trotskyist Organization'''

message: James should not be on the template, given that the work he is most notable for was only after he broke with Trotskyism. I'll be bold and take him off the template if there are no major objections. --Dialecticas 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Duncan 12:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with this rationale. While it may be true that "the work he is most notable for was only after he broke with Trotskyism", but his valuable contribution to American Trotskyism—his theoretical work in helping develop the historic SWP position on the "Black Question"—earns him a place forever in this pantheon. —cargohook 08:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get that into perspective. Think of all the people who are not on this list: Pierre Frank, George Novack, Alain Krivine, George Breitman, Arlette Laguillier, Paul Le Blanc, and so on. The SWP's position on the Black Question isn't shared across Trotskyism and, as the debate in the CP and the FI shows, has roots elsewhere. --Duncan 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C.L.R. James 

message: Not a single Prominent Trotskyist alive in this tag. Shouldn't we include some?
--Againme (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is to include the personalities that represent the different historical tendencies of Trotskyism. I do not see any need to include present personalities. Who would that be? --Soman (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!, I wasn´t advocating for anyone in particular to be included... but the fact that they're all dead gives the tag an historical, not current flavour...--Againme (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no living Trotskyists who are more prominent in the history of Trotskyism than the people listed. There is already a category for Trotskyists. However, this template aims, amongst other things, to only give an introduction to the main figures and tendencies. If we included living people, it would be too long - and it's already over-long for a template. --Duncan (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is 

message: I added Alan Woods, I feel he is important enough Trotskyistmaniac (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't properly discussed inclusion criteria in more than three years but, last time there was a wideranging discussion, consensus was not to include Woods.  Perhaps it is time that we looked at the list of names again?  Either way, we should discuss here before making changes to the template. Warofdreams talk 16:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should always be open. I think it's important that we stick to the policy of one-in, one-out - otherwise the list will get too long. I also think it's important to note that this list is, so far, of people who are dead and who played a major role in the leadership, building, theoretical-development and inter-relationship between world tendencies. Perhaps the people who are weakest in this regard are Lora, whose role was really heavily focussed on one country, and CLR James. In terms of people who are missing, I think that Michel Pablo's absence is striking. If we think about the central leadership teams of the main international tendencies over the last few decades, the people who stand our are from the IST (Harman, Callinicos and Rees), and the FI (Lowy, Bensaid and Sabado). Woods, unlike those six, has a much more modest figure in theoretical development: No-one could say that Bensaid or Lowy are just deepening Mandel, or that Callinicos or Rees just deepened Cliff, but one can say that Woods follows Grant very closely. So if we do swap one or two people in, I'd be much more likely to support adding in Harman (who died recently) and Bensaid (who will probably die this year) rather than Woods. --Duncan (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not sure when Lora was added - I don't remember his inclusion ever being discussed, and he does seem rather less notable than the other people on the template.  I still feel that James does merit inclusion, and would suggest that he was at least as influential as Maitan, for instance, although in a different way.  Sadly, Bensaid died today.  I'm a big fan of his work, so I may not be the best judge of whether he should be included or not.  Lowy and Sabado are much less significant - I don't think we even have an article on Sabado.  John Rees seems of little more than national significance; Harman and Callinicos are more notable, but I'd hesitate to compare their influence with the names already on the list. Warofdreams talk 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will remove Lora. If anyone else supports adding Bensaid, then I think we should add him. --Duncan (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Someone added Alan Woods. Sticking to the consensus here, and to the one-on-one-out ideas, I will restore the original version. --Duncan (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Woods

message: I have removed Carl Skoglund, who certainly was a Trotskyist but didn't play a international role on the leve required by this template. --Duncan (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Skoglund 

message: I have removed her from the template. I have no idea who she, but she's not a key or notable trotskyist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.61.175 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheri DiNovo 

message: He's prominent enough for people to talk about "Northism" and has a substantial body of published work.  North played an important role in the split in the ICFI and the campaign he has led against historical slanders of Leon Trotsky is tremendously significant to the continued existence of Trotskyism as a political trend. --Nixin06 (talk)
:Do people talk about 'Northism'? How unfortunate. In the history of the IC, he clearly has a less prominent role than Slaughter, Banda, Dobbs, Robertson etc. He's not more of a figure than any of the people on the template at the moment, and we have in past agreed on one-in, one-out to maintain the size of the template. He's also still alive (AFAIK) which is key criterion for the list.  --Duncan (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: North is almost certainly still alive, as he's currently speaking at meetings for the anniversary of the WSWS.  (If he'd suddenly died, one presumes that this would have at least been mentioned.)  However, being deceased has not been agreed upon as a key criteria - on the contrary, other editors have lamented the lack of any living figures.  --Nixin06 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly has been agreed: look back to the discussion in 2006. Being agreed doesn't mean that there's no discussion on it: it means that we have consensus on it. --Duncan (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time, you had a 2 to 1 on death being an important criteria of fame.  In 2008, another user challenged the lack of living Trotskyists.  I am challenging it now.  There is (to put it politely) no consensus on that score. --Nixin06 (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. There is a consensus which has been established. You disagree with it. No-on else has offered an opinion. In the meanwhile, I still don't think that North is more notable than any of the people we have on the template. --Duncan (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Firstly, it's great to see a reasoned discussion on what to include in the template.  I disagree that death is an important criteria of fame.  We've previously had living people on the template (Grant, Lambert) and I'd like to see living people considered on the same basis as dead ones.  But we must also be wary of recentism, and I also disagree with the idea that we should include people who are less notable just because they are alive.  I don't see North as being as significant to Trotskyism in general as the names already on the list: he only became prominent in the ICFI when it was a pretty small organisation; while a prolific writer and theoretician, his work hasn't attracted much attention from the movement in general; and I cannot find any biographies, whereas I'd expect at least an article from an independent author profiling someone significant enough to join the short list on this template. Warofdreams talk 14:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a lot of Trotskyists in opposition to North who read the World Socialist Web Site "just for the arts review!"  --Nixin06 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing in principle against inserting living people in the list, but this should happen when some living individual gets a prominence so undisputable to sound convincing also to members of different factions within the movement. IMHO this is not currently the case with David North. The death criterion is quite good because at least it helps in looking back at the historical contribution of a theoretician in a more cold-headed way. I guess most of the people listed now are recognised as prominent thanks to the wisdom of hindsight. (BTW, this is sounding a bit macabre: my best wishes of a very good health to comrade North! :-) ) I believe there is also a consensus about the very reasonable "one-in, one-out" rule, and I don't see anyone who should be removed to give an empty slot to David North. --MauroVan (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I googled "Northite" and found this and this. ("Northism" apparently refers to the evil of having North at the top of maps!). I feel this falls short of the sort of notability required to elevate him to the rank of Key Trotskyists. Leutha (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Duncan may have had a memory lapse, but you can actually find him talking about "Northism" in the 2006 discussions above.  Of course, that's not a verifiable source, but it is rather amusing.  Googling for northism along with world socialist web site or wsws.org picks up a couple of other groups using the term.  That said, I do see the way the wind is blowing.  Same time next year, I guess. ;-)  --Nixin06 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Every sect or fraction leader gets an "ite" attached to the end of their name if they last long enough, even if their sect/fraction remains in the mere hundreds or even dozens for the duration of its existence. Trotsky, Cannon, Cliff, Grant, James, Lambert, Mandel, Moreno, and Pablo -- these figures inspired much debate among Trotskyists throughout the world, and still continue to do so. North has not. Certain controversial figures, like Healy and even Posadas, do deserve a spot there, because they influenced a significant amount of debate in their time and are still discussed decades later. Those are different stories. He should be removed. PtACttCoPE  — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include David North as Key Trotskyist