Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974)

message: I suggest we add a new section on the split by the SPEW and six other sections into a 'refounded CWI'. --Duncan (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TOOSOON. This is still unfolding, we should wait a bit for things to be clear and for reliable sources to become available. --MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by the 'Refounded CWI' 

message: TU Senan, a member of the CWI (Refounded) IS is listed in the history of editors as having edited this page, and making edits which cast his faction of the CWI (Refounded) in a better light. It is not appropriate for him to edit the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to set a good example by also declaring your own COIs Golightlys (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any to declare. I'm not an employee of the refounded CWI or a member of its International Secretariat.  Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And you say "also" declaring my own, but TU Senan (your comrade, who you have a vested interest in defending) hasn't declared his COI and just decided to use his own name, for some reason. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all COIs are paid - see WP:COIPOLITICAL Golightlys (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are members of the CWI (Refounded) International Secretariat editing this page? 

message: The article currently says the CWI split three ways in 2019. This isn't accurate: the CWI split *six* ways. The CWI majority, the "refounded" CWI and Izquierda Revolucionaria are the three that are mentioned, but there are also three groups which left the CWI but did not join the "refounded" CWI; a small group in Worcester, MA in the USA, the tiny "Militant group" on the island of Ireland, and RISE, Paul Murphy TD's group on the island of Ireland. If we can find sources for these that would be useful. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Split three ways" 

message: The CWI Majority is likely to change its name to International Socialist Alternative this week. Assuming this goes ahead the name of the page should be changed accordingly, and a new page should be created for the "refounded CWI". This is the logical way to proceed given that a clear majority of CWI sections and members support the CWI Majority (ISA) and that the "refounded CWI" has only existed since July 2019. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: The IEC majority claims have members in Portugal. Unless they are made deep entrism is not true. The former CWI' Portuguese Section - Solialismo Revolucionário - decided step out CWI and, as Esquerda Revolucionária, if founding member of International Revolucionary Left. Francisco d'Oliveira Raposo (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Portugal 

message: If creating a new page for ISA, please start at Draft:International Socialist Alternative Golightlys (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "Refounded" CWI which was the CWI minority, which claims to be a continuation of the CWI.SolTrek (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to edit that page; its just a starting point Golightlys (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't need to be a new article. The CWI article needs to be renamed and updated. What now is called the CWI is a rump group which by its own description "refounded" itself - it was a minority faction that left the CWI so there should be a new article for the rump group while the original article is renamed. SolTrek (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some rump https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/gallery/311 ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Luckily this article has well referenced explanations as to the structure of this organisation. The world congress is its highest body and is the body to establish policy and programme, such as on name changes, as it did today.86.25.13.191 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

text: See Liberal Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) for an analogy which suggests the page for the "refounded" CWI should be Committee for a Workers' International (2019) (not "2020-present"). SolTrek (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point thanks Golightlys (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Please provide WP:RS for this claim ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Please provide a reliable source for your claim it's the same organisation  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft: International Socialist Alternative 

message: This section is quite incredible as it does not explain the political differences behind the split. It should be rewritten.
What do you believe the political differences were? 86.8.83.246 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed too long. And it gives undue emphasis to the 2019 split, compared with say, the split Grant/Woods in the 90s. The article as a whole says very little about the politics of the CWI, and what distinguishes its programme from other internationals. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The logo for the ISA can be found here: https://twitter.com/salfordSA/status/1223691666256809984/photo/1 Can someone who knows how to navigate wikipedia rights issues upload it and add it to the International Socialist Alternative article? SolTrek (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISA logo 

message: Is the organisational structure of the CWI notable enough to be included here?
The three references are from the CWI itself, so probably could not be considered a WP:RS
::A group can be a source on itself under RS. SolTrek (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph which has been here since March 2015 has been deleted by  ابو علي (Abu Ali) on the grounds that it is not notable. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. However within the context of the page the structure is clearly notable. In fact Abu Ali refers to the structure in Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019) "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." It was this comment that alerted me to the deletion. He first deletes the information then says nobody has heard of it. I think it should be replaced but am interested in the views of other editorsVahvistus (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no section on structure on in the wiki pages of any other Trotskyist internationals on Wikipedia. The fact that the internal committees of the CWI was mentioned in a book by Peter Taaffee does not mean it has to be included here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Taaffe mentioned the structure because it is politically important. It differentiates the CWI from other organisations because it is one world party of revolution not a federation of parties. The first two paragraphs on Fourth International (post-reunification) deal with the structure. The article on Fourth International discusses similar ground and has this quote which might clarify for you why Peter Taaffe's group kept the name CWI dispite leaving that organisation "By declaring themselves the Fourth International, the "World Party of Socialist Revolution", the Trotskyists were publicly asserting their continuity with the Comintern, and with its predecessors." Vahvistus (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is important for a Trotskyist organisation is its ideas - its programme, rather
than its structure. I believe that Peter Taaffee has been leading the CWI since 
its inception, so he does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. The article has been tagged as relying to heavily on primary sources which are too closely identified with the subject, so I will remove this paragraph. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  The subject can be a reliable source when talking about itself, as SolTrek pointed out. The structure is clearly political. You have used it in argumentation Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Why do you think it is not political? You appear to be deleting the content to bolster your point  Vahvistus (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Unlike the Rifondazione Comunista, the term CWI (Refounded) does not appear anywhere on the web or 
on their own website. While there were two organisations called the CWI, the suffix did help identify
which was which. But is there any point in keeping the suffix now?
::Yes it differentiates it from the CWI which it voted to leave. Vahvistus (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The CWI voted to leave the CWI? Are you serious? ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The CWI (refounded) was set up by The Socialist Party (E&W),it was joined by other sections who left the CWI. I can see it is confusing which is why we need the suffix Vahvistus (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a WP:RS for the claim that they left the CWI. The only references I can find are from ISA sources.  Also please provide a WP:RS which refers the the CWI (refounded). As far as I can see, the CWI split into two groups, both of which claim to be the legitimate CWI, but one of which has now changed its name to ISA. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reference below will take you to the article posted by the Socialist Party where they explain "The international conference’s decision to reconstitute the CWI followed an intense debate and political struggle in the CWI over the last seven months." Else where in the article they say refounded. They didn't attend any further meetings of the CWI. They only invited their co-thinkers to the congress mentioned in the article. That was the organisational break with the CWI. That was the point at which they left the CWI. Vahvistus (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They clearly did attend further meetings of the CWI (e.g. a meeting in Early November - see https://www.socialistworld.net/2019/11/08/a-world-of-explosive-social-upheavals-and-inter-imperialist-turmoil/). I think what you are saying is that they did not attend *your* good CWI, but the other (illegitimate in your opinion) CWI. They would presumably have the opposite opinion. Having two organisations both claiming to be the CWI does create a certain confusion. Happily this has been resolved by your comrades renaming their organisation to World Socialist Alternative. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

text: See the bottom right hand corner of page 15 of their newspaper https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pdf/issue/1072/1072.pdf which states "The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) is the world socialist organisation which the Socialist Party is affiliated to." This shows that they are as of today still members of the CWI. It also shows that the name is just CWI, without any suffix. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Refounded Committee for a Workers' International (2019) left the CWI while usurping the name. 208.98.222.31 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I can see, the organisation split, with both components claiming that they are the real CWI and that their opponents are the usurpers. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is why it makes sense to have three separate articles instead of Wikipedia declaring one group or the other to be the true inheritor of the CWI. SolTrek (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CWI (Refounded) 

message: socialistworld.net has been updated as recently as Feb 3. So it appears that the 
organisation is still active, and should not be referred to in the past tense.
::That would be Committee for a Workers' International (2019). 208.98.222.31 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The website is quite clear that it is the website of the CWI, without any suffixes. In fact, if you google "Committee for a Workers' International (2019)" or Committee for a Workers' International (refounded), the only hits you get are on wikipedia itself. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  no objection raised here, so I will change 'was' to 'is' ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  Except that the CWI does evidently still exist. Their website [] is still up and was updated today (15 February). ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  tense 

message: The article claims various sections for the CWI with dubious claims for their existence and significance. I suspect some of these sections may be inactive or only have a single member. Trotskyist internationals have a tendency to   self-aggrandizement, and claiming a base in countries where they have zero influence. But in wikipedia, groups which we include do have to fulfil the requirement of notability. We should audit the long list and see which sections have evidence for their existence from reliable secondary sources, and remove any which do not pass the WP:NOTABLE test. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom sections 

message: What do people think about a single link that is an archive.org link to socialistworld.net pre-split Golightlys (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an option if the socialistworld.net website were defunct, but it's not. Even having an archival link to an otherwise live website (and no other) endorses the idea that that website's organization  is the one true successor to CWI1974 - and would be directed web traffic to that site - and so would violate NPOV unless the other organizations claiming an organic link to CWI1974 were also listed. Sowny (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Should the following paragraph added by User:Abu ali be included in the body of the article or should the site(s) mentioned be listed under "External links" instead?
::The  CWI have published their main documents of the debate leading up to the Split in the book "In Defence of Trotskyism". They have also made the most important documents from both sides available on the marxism.net website. The ISA produced over a hundred documents during the course of the debate, but have not published any of them online. 
:Pinging all individuals who have commented in the talk page or the two related articles in the past year.           Sowny (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Paragraph The documents concerning the 2019 split 

message: I was cautious about getting involved in how Wikipedia should deal with the CWI split but I think the end result is pretty good. Congratulations to those who took part calmly in sorting out the mess. --Duncan (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done!