Talk:International Socialist Organization

message: It is the right of the ISO to forbid criticism within their organization if that's the kind of organization they want to form, but the ISO does not own wiki.  If their henchmen delete the criticism again, they should be banned from editing the entry, as they have already reverted edits more than 3 times.
Also, compare the ISO entry, to for instance, the ICFI.  In that article, every decision throughout the entire organization's history is subject to criticism or discussion and opposing views.  Yet in this article, all criticism is deleted by busy-bodies who have nothing to do but erase all trace of discussion.
Just because they have more free time to delete edits, does not mean that readers of wikipedia should receive incomplete information.  Please address the problem of ISO henchmen on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.199.136 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the note about criticism from the current revision of the page.  For full disclosure, I'm an ex-member of the ISO with no particular axe to grind.  I think that a healthy criticism section is well deserved, but the WP entry on the ISO shouldn't become a gripe-fest.  There are sites with information critical about the ISO that you could use as sources for a better developed critique.  As long as it's presented with NPOV and sourced well, I think it's worth going over what should be in a criticism section.  Cadriel 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it's assumed that the removal of rants, rumors and general distaste is considered the work of ISO henchmen. Try to assume good faith here. I have removed several items that are unsourced accusations or simple ideological rants. They are a socialist organization, and it can be safely assumed that those who are anti-socialist have the predictable feelings on the matter. If there are particular, sourced and factual notes about activities of the ISO – say their work in USAS, the Green Party and Nader campaigns – then by all means include this and link it. But these entries are not bulletin boards for debates. The internet has plenty of room for that. I don't believe criticism is forbidden, just that a distinction should be made between such criticism and rants, rumors and other endemic problems. Consider it a challenge to do well.In the Stacks 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The recent attempt at "criticism" of the front groups & the ISO's conduct in the Green Party is a model of how not to do this.  I'd have nothing against a substantiated note that CEDP or CAN are considered front groups by many on the left - these aren't uncommon opinions.  But please source them!  This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor chat.  Cadriel 12:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a note about CAN being considered a front group with a reference to one of the articles that I see referenced relatively frequently about the question.  If anyone has any other sources, it'd be a good addition to the article.  We should be as fair as possible here:  there ARE people who consider the groups the ISO works with, particularly CAN and CEDP, to be front groups, but Wikipedia isn't about validating either pro- or anti-ISO points of view.  Cadriel 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Forbidden? 

message: Someone's been putting up claims about the ISO being the "largest revolutionary socialist organization" in the United States.  I don't think this is inaccurate, but people who want it in the article should provide a source.  It's not as if there is no writing about the ISO that could be referenced, and this has to be a two-way street for good and bad things that people want to include.  Cadriel 10:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative size of the ISO 

message: Without a criticism section this entry is basically one big ISO plug. 
ISO people -- and, heck, non-ISO people -- should not be allowed to simply remove the criticism section if they disagree with it.  
There should also be links to critics of the group. I have added several, though the bulk of the links are still to official ISO sites. 
I also question the "events" section -- seems rather like an advertisement for the group.
Rarrr 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without a criticism page, this entry is unbalanced 

message: If a criticism section were added to the descrpition of ANY leftist group (not just the ISO) wiki's servers would crash under the sheer voume of sectarian B.S. that got posted. There are plenty of places to vent spleen at (insert most hated group)--let's not make wiki one of them.
--ADF    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.31.201 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really a debating board about the ISO, or an entry on what they are? Virtually any group or individual can be tarred with accusations. To claim the ISO is "anti-democratic", for example, would be difficult since I've never heard even the reference to them actively attempting to stop anyone from doing anything ever. To be one thing instead of another (say a Trotskyite student group) isn't "anti-democratic" – it means they have defining principles. So the logic of including pejoratives as "critcism" seems as if it would turn this into little more than a debating board about the organization. This entry is fairly informative and to the point. If there are legitimate, published criticisms of the ISO, then I would have no objection to their inclusion. Note: that doesn't mean disinformation and internet slag.In the Stacks 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I've added a couple of the prominent and national controversies surrounding the ISO.  This page was too heavy-handed pro-ISO, as if the group had no controversy.  Matt Sanchez 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced Page 

message: :Image:Fp banner.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added fair use rationale for this article to image page. Kalkin (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Fp banner.gif 

message: Hey. I'm removing the third opinion listing for this page, as there's four editors working here right now. 3O is generally reserved for pages where only two editors are present. If you need more help on this, I'd recommend an WP:RFC listing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I'm moving this discussion into its own area because the "Funding" section we were discussing no longer exists.  I think that the current section of critical links is a good first step toward creating a balanced and neutral section on criticisms of the ISO.  I'd like to hear from the other contributors what kind of material they think would be justified by Wikipedia standards in creating a real balanced critique section, or from those who think it would be inappropriate to have one, and I think we should work out what is going to happen with the page here rather than everybody keep trying to edit it to their liking.  Cadriel (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Lancy critical piece (and the half dozen rants attached at the end) – where was this published and by what process was it fact-checked? I don't believe it needs a publisher to be considered verifiable, per se, but if not a standard editorial process then I have to ask by what means this can be included?In the Stacks (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacny's piece was put up by a number of electronic distributors, including What Next, Retrogression, and various Indymedia sites.  I feel that it's noteworthy (I don't agree with either the critique or the politics Lacny has taken up) because it's one of the relatively few signed and well publicized ex-ISO member critiques.  Cadriel (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second what Cadriel has said. Sysoctopus (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Napzilla (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Links / Criticism Section 

message: I changed "The group was involved in building a number of the major protests against corporate globalization in the late 1990's" to "early 2000's" based on the citation referencing the Philly RNC protests in August of 2000 (which wasn't exactly an anti-globalization event, but the anti-globalization movement was present). It might make more sense to move it into the next paragraph if its being broken down decade by decade.
Tex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.251.1 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Anti-Globalization Movement 

message: Given recent discussions, I'd like to suggest the following change to the page: Creation of a separate section labeled "Socialism Conference" with the text as follows: "The ISO is the co-sponsor, along with the Center for Economic Research and Social Change, of an annual conference titled "Socialism." Featured speakers at the Socialism 2011 conference include Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah, Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald, 1968 Olympic bronze medalist John Carlos (who gave the black power salute on the medal podium), and Nation.com sportswriter Dave Zirin." The section can be referenced with www.socialismconference.org. This should satisfy the points made by above by Jtizzi about the need for a section on the Socialism Conference, which is co-sponsored by CERSC, without adding unverifiable language about funding.Nicole.colson (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the source supports it, I don't see a problem. If you put it in, I'll copyedit and wikify it later. Rivertorch (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Rivertorch. I've added the section, along with a reference to the conference website.Nicole.colson (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. After checking out the ref, I'm a little less confident that it's 100% appropriate to mention some of the expected speakers, especially before the conference has taken place. For one thing, it carries a faint whiff of promotion or advertising. A reader might also question why certain names were selected for mention and others omitted. Not a big deal, I think, and probably will be beside the point a few days from now. (In future, I'd suggest listing a more exhaustive selection of speakers at past conferences.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will change the list of speakers to speakers at past conferences and then update the list after the conference takes place this year with a couple of the ones from this year.Nicole.colson (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new topic: Socialism conference 

message: I've removed the "Criticisms" section that was recently posted. First, it was posted as a sub-heading under the "Socialism conference", which was not appropriate. Secondly, both citations were more than 5 years old (one was from 2000?). Finally, as a previous comment on this discussion thread noted, other left group pages on Wikipedia do not have such sections on them: The Wikipedia entries for the Socialist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, World Socialist Party of the United States, Socialist Alternative (US), Communist Party USA, Progressive Labor Party (United States). as well as Workers World and Party of Socialism and Liberation all fail to include a "Criticism" section. Nicole.colson (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the same "Criticisms" section from a different spot on the web page after it was added back by the same editor, without reference to the discussion above. Please respond to the discussion on this page before editing pages with inappropriate content. --Alanmaass (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: The final paragraph in the History section, beginning with "After some years with very little contact between the ISO and the British SWP, relations improved", is out of date and now inaccurate. See: http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp
I don't have time right now to try to write up a more accurate paragraph, so either somebody else should do that or it should simply be removed. It's too bad Wikipedia has now made it a giant PITA to edit if you don't have an established account; I've lost the login to my old one which would have let me just do this myself.
Separate: China Mieville is not a member of the ISO and should be removed from the "notable members" section. I don't have a source for his non-membership (not sure how I would), but, uh, he's British, & the ISO is based in the US.
Kadalkin (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 September 2013 

message: Removed allegations made referring to a faction of the group making unsubstantiated allegations of ISO leaders failing to address an alleged sexual assault by a member. The allegation is unfounded based on the material provided. WP:OR allows the use of primary sources, but only with context established by reliable secondary sources. The blog post cited does not provide any substantiation of the claim and does not fit the criteria for correctly sourced material.Nicole.colson (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not appear to be "in compliance with WP guidelines" and consensus does not exist to add it. Anyone continuing to add it risks violating the policy on edit warring and being blocked; please don't go down that road. Concerns about reliable sources and BLP content must be resolved first; that's non-negotiable. Hopefully, the matter can be resolved amicably here on the talk page. If not, there is a process to follow to resolve the dispute about the content in question. In the meantime, no one should be in a hurry to reinsert the material. Incidentally, this looks very much like a real-world squabble that has spilled over into Wikipedia, and that's not what Wikipedia is here for. If necessary, the article can be locked so that nobody can edit it. Let's hope we don't come to that. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to History section 

message: From this article: . Currently, International Socialist Review is a disamb page and International Socialist Review (1997) is redlinked. Haymarket Books has its own page, which describes the Center for Economic Research and Social Change as its parent company. Center for Economic Research and Social Change redirects to Mondoweiss, which says . Should ISR redirect to this page instead? Is Mondoweiss the right redirect for CERSC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Socialist Review/Haymarket/Center for Economic Research and Social Change