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)

RFC: Copypasting from CWI 1974 and merging of two articles

In the past month someone copypasted the entire history section from Committee for a Workers' International (1974) into this article.[1]. As a result much of the content of both articles is the same, except for the list of pre-2019 sections. Should the articles be merged or should they remain separate and should the pre-2019 history be removed give. the duplication?

Also multiple accounts that either claim membership in the CWI or appear to be members of the organization have been editing this article, removing links to the 1974 article, and obscuring the fact originally asserted by the current group that a minority faction "refounded" the organisation in 2019 and tnat it and another organisation, which was originally referred to as CWI Majority but has since changed its name to International Socialist Alternative, both claim to be continuations of the original group. References to this have been removed from the lede and infobox.

So should the two CWI articles be merged or remain separate and how should the competing claims to continuity be dealt with? Wellington Bay (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Two separate pages was a compromise to end an edit war, but given one split has now changed its name I do think it's appropriate to merge them, but I'd be worried it would lead to a return of edit warring. We could give it a go, perhaps if an experienced neutral editor is here to keep an eye on it. I agree that COI/Advocacy/POV edits are a point of friction. If necessary, editors can be bold about reverting edits and starting a Talk page discussion instead. I believe the competing claims just need a sentence at most, near the start of the article. (disclosure: I am a CWI member) Golightlys (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking again at the recent edit history, it looks like there's edit warring ongoing anyway. We need to lock the page and talk this out. Golightlys (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support undoing the mass editing and keeping them all as separate pages. Regardless of which group is claiming to be the genuine successor, it is an agreed fact they all split into new groups and the lineage is disputed. As a result the article for CWI (1974) should contain all relevant information up to the split and any articles of the new groups should have articles on their own terms if they meet GNG.

After a cursory look at the CWI (2019) page (and this won't shock you @Wellington Bay I'm sure) I come away with the suspicion there's substantial COI editing going on (one of the frequent editors has just been blocked I notice) and are effectively trying to inherit notability from the CWI (1974) page for a group that are otherwise non-notable. As a result I think there needs to be a comb-through of the article and more than likely an AfD. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is contention about stating in the lead that the current CWI is one of two organizations claiming to be the continuation of the original CWI and that the other group is International Socialist Alternative. There is a neutral way to say that buy there appears to be an objection to any such mention. I don't see the problem with saying "Today, two groups claim to be the continuation of the CWI, the refounded Committee for a Workers' International and International Socialist Alternative" in the lede. Two groups do see themselves that way and denying that is ipso facto taking sides with one claimant versus the other. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Although both groups claim to be a continuation, CWI 2019 claim to be the true political continuation, not the organisational continuation. (See references in main article). Most Trotskyist groups claim to be a political continuation of the ideas of Trotsky and therefore the Fourth International but it would be a mistake to merge with that article. There is something of a Trotskyist tradition of reusing old names as a way of showing political continuity but for Wiki purposes it is best to follow the organisational line. So I am against merger of the two articles Vahvistus (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many groups claiming to be continuations of the CWI, includinging the IMT (now RCI), International Standpoint, Internationalist Viewpoint, and International Socialist Alternative. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the old lede, with some tweaks, which doesn't make mention of other claimants. I think its factual to mention the other group but will leave it for discussion here.Wellington Bay (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay I've reworded it, as unfortunately the claim it's the successor group is a disputed fact and it's a selfpublished source claiming this CWI is still the CWI. Frankly it's going to be hard to say anything other than "there was a split, this organisation named CWI was founded by one faction as a result". Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Given an editor's ban, and removal of contents, should the `Multiple issues > coi` be removed as resolved? As an aside, I appreciate User:Rambling Rambler & User:Wellington Bay good efforts as Wikipedians here. Golightlys (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the suggestion to delete this, and rename "Committee for a Workers' International (2019)" to "Committee for a Workers' International".

The name "Committee for a Workers' International (2019)" exists only in Wikipedia.

In 2019, there did temporarily exist two organisations claiming to be the CWI.

But one of them changed its name to International Socialist Alternative in 2020.

The supporters of ISA claim that their opponents illegally seized control of the CWI and its assets, in violation of the statutes, and despite being a minority in the IEC. The Weekly Worker

took a similar position in its article https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1262/taaffe-expels-his-majority/. Supporters of ISA on social media have recently condemned members of their Austrian section for "rejoining the CWI".

It is possible to argue about whether the current CWI leadership is legitimate or not. But the reality is the CWI does exist. And Wikipedia should reflect the reality as it exists, rather than how some editors would like it to exist. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to your claims there is only one CWI and it's a creation of Wikipedia to act like it isn't the case that the CWI as it was has ceased to exist, that is fundamentally untrue.

Both main factions of the split continue to claim to be the continuance of the CWI as it existed pre-split, to the point rather hilariously both have put out statements celebrating their 50th anniversary while basically pretending the other group don't exist. (CWI (2019) [2], ISA [3])

It's not for Wikipedia to make the decision that one of them is still the CWI that was founded in 1974. So until they can actually resolve their dispute (which I doubt will happen as long as one member from each group is still alive) then we can only say the CWI as it existed until 2019 is effectively defunct. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay Has there been any WP:RFCBEFORE here? At minimum, a discussion with @Ascena Rossa would have been helpful. That said, since this has already been open for half a month, it should stay open to not shut down the discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ascena Rossa is a single purpose account who has only edited on two days so hard to have a discussion with them, but as you've pinged them we'll see if they respond. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)