Talk:Socialist Convergence (Mexico)

Untitled

An editor haa twice removed the article for Socialist Convergence (Mexico) without winning consensus on the talk page. This should stop. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Duncan 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I had the following reply:

Please do not misrepresent my edits, since I'm not deleting anything. I'm merging and redirecting a minor topic to its appropriate page (National political association) as per Wikipedia:Redirect. That stub won't be expanded beyond the text it currently has until (if) it becomes a proper political party, thus justifying the redirect. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Socialist Convergence (Mexico) is justified a page of its own, regardless of whether or not it is a party. However, that is a discussion we should have here. Do not redict this page again, without winning agreement here. --Duncan 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(Previous discussion here.) Per my previous reasoning, I see no reason why this group should have a standalone article. Most national political associations are not really notable, since they tend to come and go without having any real impact in Mexican politics (the oldest one registered is from 1997, consider that registrations began in 1991). Out of universe of 60 million voters, having 5000 sympathizers (which can be easily taken out of UNAMs Faculty of Philosophy, which is the source of some of these groups) is not really something to write home about, except for a fair mention in the NPA article. If somebody can prove that this article can be expanded using third party sources I'm all for not redirecting, otherwise the redirect should stand. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this organisation is not outstanding as a national political organisation. However, for a Trotskyist organisation to number over 5,000 members make it one of the two or three largest organisations of that type in the world. Indeed, the PRT was, in the opinion of many, the largest Trotskyist organisation in the world. We are an an early stage in fleshing out this page, but there is a lot to be said about the CS, and about the LUS. Google search for CS produces some 24,000 hits [1]. Of course, we are not only interested in third party accounts but also can note what the organisation says itself. I suggest we come back to this page in a month or two and see if it has been possible to enlarge it usefully. --Duncan 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious flaws of the Google test, your query did not flesh out false positives this search gives half the results. However, I still don't see a source that would actually convince me to keep this as a standalone article. In any case, as a compromise, if this is indeed one of the largest Trotskyist organizations in the world please produce a (preferably) third party source within a reasonable timeframe. Otherwise I think the redirect should prevail. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why national political organisations should not have their own article. The attempt to describe numerous very different political parties in one article is already unclear, and will be all the more confusing when more are detailed. Far better to create individual articles for any organisations with enough history or actual activity that they are verifiable and a reasonable article can be written.

A question: do the 5,000 supporters translate as 5,000 paid-up members, or just 5,000 signatories? Warofdreams talk 02:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being an NPA alone is sufficient criterion for these orgs to have their own article's. As I said, the existence of a large number of these is fleeting and tends to go unnoticed, making verifiability (and article expansion) hard since few tend to get the attention of academia or the press. Merging the less notable orgs in the main article is the course of action recommended by our policies and guidelines. However, in the case of this article I was given an argument of why this org is notable even beyond Mexico, thus the compromise I offered.

To answer your question, as far as my knowledge of the process goes, they have to collect 5,000 signatures. Requirements to become a national political party are tougher, and require the organization of a number of assemblies in a larger number of states within a period of time, with minimum attendance requirements (as in "at least bring x people") in each assembly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an example of deletionism gone berserk. There is no logic why an active political organization should not have a separate article. After all, [Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia]. Rune.welsh might have a limited interest in the intrigues of the Mexican far left, but he should at the same time respect that others might. Arbitrarily grouping all organizations that failed to achive legal registration of IFE into one article doesn't make much sense, as probably they have little more in common than their legal status. They have different historical developments and different political dynamics. Of course there can (and should be) wikilinks to all current and past APNs at the APN article. --Soman 13:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that this kind of accusations are the main reason why I am hesitant to engage in this discussion. If you, Soman, had cared to check at all you'd realise that I'm merging information according to our policies and guidelines. Moreover, I have not used my administrator powers at all in this dispute. So far I have seen little justification as of why these articles should be kept on their own, other than links to communist websites that obviously have their own agenda to push and may be a ways from being considered a reliable source.

In a related note, and since we seem to be getting personal here, let me add the following. It seems that the fact that electoral law in Mexico distinguishes between major and minor groups, and that we have institutions that actually enforce these distinctions does not sit well with Soman. It is my belief that he must understand first the reality that different countries may have different definitions for things. The President of Germany has much different attributions than the President of the United States, yet attempting to conform both positions to a fixed definition is foolish. It is a similar situation here. To be called a party in Mexico a group has to adjust to a set of requirements (which are widely available and quite verifiable) to achieve this end. These requirements are most certainly different in other countries. Big deal, as an encyclopedia we have the duty to register these differences, (as we do in President of Germany and President of the United States for instance) something that you, Soman, do not seem willing to accept.

I may also add that assuming the interests of other editors without asking is quite discourteous. When I was still studying in Mexico I was much involved with leftist groups myself. You may or may not know about the student strike at the national university in the late 90s, but let me tell you that I was there, I dealt directly with members of some other groups and know a fairly bit of the "intrigues" of the non-mainstream Mexican left. That's why I can tell you, in hindsight and with a fair degree certainty, that the claims of many of these groups as of their history, membership and activities are at best wishful thinking, especially of the smaller ones. Now please stop throwing accusations as if I were the bane of the Mexican left and please address the issue at hand. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is obviously one of apples and oranges. Presidentship (in the sense of head of states of republics) is a formal office. A political party is a body, of which many existed as political parties long before there was any legal recognition for them. In short, there cannot be a president without a state, but yes there are plenty of political parties without legal recognition. Different countries have different criteria for registrations of political parties (many have no formal legislation on the matter). In some cases parties are banned, and work in an underground fashion. Political parties do not automatically cease to exist when they lose their registration, neither do they lack history prior to obtaining it. My points is that several of the edits of Rune.welsh are highly misleading, as they seem to imply that parties after having lost their registration have either banished (by being put in the "former parties.." category) or changed their political character as political organisation just because of legal formalities. If Rune.welsh feels insulted by my comments then that is sad in itself, but at the same time he should respect that blanketting of articles is an unfair behaviour towards other editors if a proper deletion process has not taken place. --Soman 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a clear-cut definition: in Mexico to be a party you need to be recognized by either IFE or the state Electoral Institutes. Anything else is a lie and misleading, as it implies that these groups can actually participate in elections. If they don't have registration they are not a party, but they may still be a political organization. We have a cat for that too; see Category:Mexican political organizations

No, no. To be a party you need to be a party. Political parties predate official recognitions. Political parties may conduct activities, campaigns, try to influence the political system etc. (in order words function as political parties) without necessarily contesting elections. Rather you should state that in order to contest elections as a political party you need registration by IFE. Which of course is something completly different. --Soman 10:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the United States of America doesn't have anything that even approaches the equivilant of the IFE. Does that mean that there are no parties in America? Clearly official recognition shouldn't be the only standard that we use. --Descendall 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk about being recursive. Political parties in _Mexico_ need to be recognized by IFE. Mexico is not the US, and to pretend that the same one-size-fits-all definition exists that must be applied to all political groups in different countries is simply untrue. We don't have an article saying that the only definition of President is that being used in the US; actually we have separate articles for the separate uses of the term in each country that use it. Socialist Convergence is not a political party in Mexico and that's a fact. Since the group is active and registered in Mexico all other considerations are simply academic. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between political parties and political organisations in Mexico is well worth noting in the article. Given the bar for becoming a registered political party is set high, it is likely that all registered political parties are deserving of Wikipedia articles. But I cannot see why it would logically follow from this that registered political organisations are not. Perhaps some are marginal and ephemeral; if so, an article may not be appropriate. There is plenty that can be said about this particular organisation, and it should be verifiable, so I cannot agree with the general principle of a merger.

Regarding the proposed merger following Wikipedia "policies and guidelines"; I would also disagree. Aside from debates about notability, grouping together parties with no connection other than their legal status will not produce a useful or clear article. A more useful to gather information is by ideology. For instance, liberalism in Mexico is designed to contain information on various liberal parties (although it doesn't seem to have been fleshed out); an article on socialism in Mexico or even Trotskyism in Mexico would be a more appropriate place to summaries information on very minor socialist or Trotskyist groups. Warofdreams talk 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely my point: some orgs are not at all notable and thus don't deserve an article. However simply having a website shouldn't be a criterion for inclusion. The compromise I set above (about this being one of the largest Trotskyist orgs in the world) is aimed precisely at justifying with a source why this should be a separate article. It seems that Duncan is working on that and I'm eagerly waiting for his results.

Regarding the separate articles on Trotskyism and such, that is a quite sensible compromise and I would support such move. I could probably dig out some primary sources once I return to Mexico later this year. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that because this is so controversial, this article should not be redirected to a more generic article unless it undergoes a articles for deletion process. --Descendall 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that we are moving towards agreement on this point: the suitability of an article on this party is a collective judgement for editors, rather than something determined by which status is allocated to it by the Mexican government. Warofdreams is right to suggest that we are talking of an organisation with 5,000 supporters on paper, and certainly a smaller core. However, the scope of its press also suggests that this isn't a tiny organisation. --Duncan 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that if we editors agree the sky is yellow on a regular afternoon we could pass that as a verifiable fact in the sky article. Socialist Convergence is not a party and that is verfiable through the only body that matters for that in Mexico, namely IFE. Yours is not and so far I have not seen the evidence I've asked for a while ago to support your claims. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed you asking me that. Sorry. What's your request? I'm not claiming that Socialist Convergence is, or is not, a party. I am simply disputing the idea that only organisations recognised by the Mexican government can be given a Wikipedia entry. --Duncan 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. The sky would only be yellow if the Mexican government decreed it to be so. As long as a party is actually operating, it's a party. It doesn't need to conform to whatever barriers the government puts in its way. To take this to an extreme, note that the first words of Batasuna, which not only fails to meet the legal standard to sit in parliament but is subject to an outright ban, are "Batasuna (Unity) is a Basque political party." It would be absurd to say that Batasuna suddenly stopped being a political party the moment the decisive vote was cast to ban it. --Descendall 17:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, note that Tomato is in Category:Fruit, Nix v. Hedden notwithstanding. --Descendall 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a party?

I have posed this question at Talk:Political party. --Duncan 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I left my opinion, take it or leave it as you may. --Descendall 03:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I do note that Wikipedia:Categorization says "unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." I don't know how that changes my argument if at all. --Descendall 04:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think this is a good point. We have bundled up the existence of the article and its category, since one was used as the basis for the other. We should separate them. It does seem useful to use self-definition in these circumstances. SC is an association that wants to stimulate the development of a new socialist party, but it doesn't consider itself to be the core of that party. --Duncan 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Relation to the 'new' PRT

Yesterday I heard a report on Mexico by an FI member recently returned from there. I get the impression from him that SC is the same as the 'new' PRT. Can anyone confirm that? Perhaps I wasn't paying attention. --Duncan 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)