Talk:Revolutionary Communist International

La Riposte is no longer the French group

The French group is no longer La Riposte, it is now Révolution. This can also be seen on IMT links page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.118.11 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was a split where handful of people left, but kept control of the website because of a legal technicality. The name is now "Révolution", but it's the same organization, and has similar tactics and perspectives. The Italian section also changed their name from "FalceMartello" to "Sinistra, Classe, Rivoluzione". Chilltherevolutionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilltherevolutionist (talk • contribs) 00:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

the requested quote

reference should be replacing [citation needed] in following sentence: Labour leader Neil Kinnock described Militant as "a maggot within the body of the Labour Party".[citation needed] the requested quote on Kinnock calling militant maggots can be found

here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3E1C:DC00:7992:A2F6:1DD5:9885 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source provided doesnt attribute the quote to Neil Kinnock or anyone else, its not possible from this to attribute the claim to anyone. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 12 April 2015 (

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m50rq6BgQg

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19851128&id=X8BAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1aUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3439,6365598&hl=en

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Labor-Party-Opens-Inquiry-Into-Militant-Liverpool-Branch/id-45ab97a54e8d5bc614c75d2b0042c147

https://books.google.be/books?id=RlmyF6ZXKzYC&pg=PT66&lpg=PT66&dq=Kinnock+calling+militant+maggots&source=bl&ots=JB9pYzKci0&sig=plejpQj6gdU6nwIEfMaDjAF53pw&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=oHQtVdSuCOu9ygOm1ICIAw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Kinnock%20calling%20militant%20maggots&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3E1C:DC00:6511:7693:F59D:264C (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

thx

Names

Is the move and renaming of this page quite correct. the CMI's usage is actually "international Marxist tendency": not the proper noun "International Marxist Tendency". That suggests that the CMI name is used for internal use only, as RSL was and CWI was for many years. --Duncan 11:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point - my rename may be in error, but it'd be difficult to prove that they still call themselves the CMI. The CMI name can be found on their website, but not in any articles written since 2004, since when they have been capitalising "International Marxist Tendency". Warofdreams talk 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The official name is now International Marxist Tendency in English (and Corriente Marxista Internacional in Spanish). You can ask them. :-) Sooner or later some official document will be issued stating the name change and we will be able to add the citation. --MauroVan 13:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think both names are in current usage, whatever the official one is. Trious 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that IMT had 1 MP in Pakistan, and 2 MP's classed as supporters, not members? Can someone please clarify this for me? 217.43.65.118 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more along the lines of 3 mp's and 2 or more supporter mp's in pakistan, gonna need to check up on it though

---

Yes, it's the way that it is actually one, but two are sympathizers. however, this year is election year and it looks good that "the struggle" will have 10 mps afterwards on a ppp ticket. -- Icaras 09:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"they currently have no group in Israel"

Re: today's cut. Really? What about the group around Yossi Scharwtz?[1] I thought they have 20 people there? They certainly have a phone number there [2] --Duncan 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a group in Israel, btw who added the part on the expulsions? While it's true that people have been kicked out in Denmark from a group that was supposed to have freedom for tendencies and factions the same cannot be said about Austria, to my knowlegde supporters of Der Funke in Austria are stil working in the Juso, am gonna delete the part about Austria in a few days if there is no sane objections and maybe add some sources on the danish incident.80.167.85.23 12:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw the whole paragraph on expulsions are in it's wording quite unobjective, personally I was in the SUF in Denmark from the beginning, everybody knew I was also IMT, the mere iclination that I should somehow have "infiltrated" that organisation is just BS. The expulsions was clearly political and inside the SUF there is brewing discontent among more ordinary rank and file against that insane step. So the whole paragraph should be rewritten imo.80.167.85.23 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes, as long as the affiliates are not grouped into categories this is senseless. you can't compare a small propaganda group who is in discussions with the IS and will probably join or not join with a branch like the pakistani section who want to recrute 5000 membres by ende of this year... it is not important where and how many national branches you have and how many comrades are organised in them, but a struggle of ideas. so, it would be better that - like on the german page about the imt - you have a short review of the imt's positions on cuba, pakistan, religion, middle east, china, venezuela... than to sum up the link-section of the idom website. - Icaras 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

de:Internationale Marxistische Tendenz

de:Internationale Marxistische Tendenz has been deleted. If you want to have a look at the discussion, see: [3] --redtux (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add one point-The IMT fucking ownsXD

other leading members

I will just add Pat Reed and Lal Khan being other leading members of the IMT 76.68.153.215 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No reference to anyone called Pat Reed online so will delete. If you have some kind of basis for asserting that there is someone called Pat Reed and he is a leading member of the IMT then by all means change it back...

First pan-american marxist school

I updated the page with info on the first pan-american school. I think it is significant enough for the article as it was a breakthrough for the organization in the american continent, as revolutionaries from all over america gathered in Mexico. Please don't delete it, I will add some details about the importance, if people have questions about it's importance and its worth mentioning in the article.

venezuela

I feel like the work of the CMR in Venezuela needed to have its own paragraph. Also is anyone interested in making the article a bit better?

Can someone who is good at writing and knows the positions of the IMT in main topics please write some of the IMT positions down?

This article is very small compared to articles for other trotskyists internationals and i feel it can have more and better quality content. Thoughts? Trotskyistmaniac (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan etc

I am doing my part on improving this article, by adding some stuff about Pakistan, also added a picture of the congress. Feel free to give me feedback for the recent edits. Trotskyistmaniac (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No criticisms?

This article has serious POV problems and reads like promotional material for the IMT. 174.138.198.182 (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are your specific criticisms? I'll try editing the article... 74.15.233.100 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What critical material actually has encyclopedic content? The Fourth International (Post-Reunification) article has a couple of criticisms stemming from internal debate on the line taken by the International. The Committee for a Workers' International and International Socialist Tendency articles don't have any specific critique built into them. You could probably get factional back and forth about the IMT's position on a number of countries (Venezuela, Pakistan, Mexico, Israel/Palestine and Ireland) that are generally divisive questions in Trotskyism today. I think you could make a go with well-sourced polemics - for instance, there's been a sort of long term polemical exchange over Venezuela between Alan Woods and the CWI's Tony Saunois - but a general "criticism" section is likely to amount to little more than sectarian caviling, which is really not NPOV. Cadriel (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I though that their MP in Pakistan had been expelled, and the group split. Is there any truth in this?

Also is there any truth in the impending split with the Spanish group?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/tabqati-jeddojuhd-imt-t90875/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/potential-split-imti-t124832/index.html

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rosa, the IMT in Pakistan did not split. The MP in Pakistan lost his seat and became a mediator for workers struggles. When he was called by the organization to justify this position (which is essentialy anti-worker) he did not use his democratic right. Therefore he was expelled, but there was no split... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.232.73 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A few people left with him, but that was about the end of it. They did not form their own group, and thus by definition it was not a split. Furthermore the relatively small number who left can be seen by the fact that the attendance at the section's 2009 congress (6 months after the expulsion) was higher than at the 2008 congress (6 months before it).

As for Spain, there is an internal debate happening on the international level with regards to the strategy and tactics of the Spanish section, but the idea that it could lead to a split has no basis in anything other than rumours posted on the internet by people who apparently have an axe to grind. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There has not been a split in Spain, as of this moment. Whether there may be one in the future is a matter of speculation and thus not a subject suitable for an encyclopedia entry. However: (1) There is a major factional dispute underway and (2) there have, stemming from this dispute, been splits in Venezuela and Mexico. These are clearly notable matters in the context of an article on the IMT. These facts were referenced with a link to a discussion which includes lengthy extracts from documents by the IMT leadership confirming the splits. I think that perhaps Sickle and Hammer, who removed these facts, might quite properly be described as having "an axe to grind" himself or herself.Zinlet (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting assertion. I would be very surprised if these "IMT documents" proving the split have any basis in reality. Of course what I think is not relevant to the topic at hand. Wikipedia has a policy about reliable sources which for some reason does not accept anonymous posts on internet discussion boards as a basis for factual information in an encyclopedia article. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the facts are improperly referenced, the correct thing to do is to add a reference needed tag rather than immediately deleting them. Unless of course there is some reason to believe that the claims made are false. I note that you do not yourself claim that they are false. You are merely operating as a supporter of the IMT and attempting to remove or downplay any facts which are inconvenient for your organisation. That's your role on this page, and it has nothing at all to do with a concern for accuracy. Still, I can wait. No doubt a range of various publications and websites will be carrying the gory details in the near future.Zinlet (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that Sickle and Hammer is back at work transforming this article into his very own version of Pravda. All mentions of setbacks, difficulties and splits must be removed! The IMT marches ever onwards! The South West sector reports record pig iron production comrades! In his last series of edits s/he removed all reference to the split in the Pakistan section which cost what is by far the IMTs largest section almost half of its membership along with its former MP. And he removed all reference to the fact that the Spanish (formerly 2nd largest), Venezuelan, Mexican and Colombian groups have left the IMT and set up their own new international, the Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria. As quick looks here: http://www.elmilitante.net/content/view/6152/268/ and here: http://www.elmilitantevenezuela.org/content/view/14/ will demonstrate.Zinlet (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying that the Pakistani section split in half over a year ago, but somehow it's impossible to find any reference to this new organization of over 1000 people, including a former MP, anywhere in the press or on the Internet? Are you saying that four sections of the IMT have set up their own international, without either side making any public acknowledgement of that fact, and that at least two of these sections decided to pretend that they're still part of the IMT? (see: http://www.militante.org/enlaces & http://www.elmilitantecolombia.org/enlaces.html ) Sickle and Hammer (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While there is no proof that the Pakistani section had a split with half of its membership forming a new organization as Zinlet suggests, the fact that elmilitante.net which is the site of the former Spanish section, removed its links to the IMT and other IMT sections, means a split. But I would advise that because this is an encyclopedia entry, we should wait for the official announcements from each side and then create the part about the recent IMT split. 76.68.155.169 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

here is a video on the Pakistan split. By the way the person who made this video was expelled for making it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFNCVuNBQ2I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.41.39 (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, Sickle and Hammer, you didn't time that very well. As of today, the two organisations, El Militante Mexico and Colombia, that hadn't got around to changing their website links have now updated their sitse. All of the links to and newsfeeds from the IMT have disappeared and their links pages now start with the "Corrienta Marxista Revolucionaria", linking only to the other CMR organisations. I'm really not sure why you want to fight such an obviously lost battle. I am also correct about the Pakistan split, but I'm more than willing to wait until I can point to the appropriate documents on that too.Zinlet (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

There is no reliable source to indicate that any more than a small minority of the Mexican section has joined the new CMR, and none will be forthcoming because indeed the vast majority of the Mexican comrades decided to stay with the IMT. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- - Sickle and Hammer, yo say that "There is no reliable source to indicate that any more than a small minority of the Mexican section has joined the new CMR". And I answer you: There is a reliable source to indicate that the majority has joined the new CMR: the CMR fraction holds the mexican apparatus and web.

That is not a reliable source. That is original research. There are other possible reasons why the old website was retained by the CMR faction. If the Mexican section was not a registered or incorporated organization, then the domain would have been owned by an individual. And if that individual was part of the minority faction, there would be no way to compel him to give up the website to the majority after a split. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland

The story of baning polish IMT website is not true. There was only one case of ban on a communist website - an ultraleft site was banned for praising stalinist war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.160.10 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding Independent sources

I was looking for some additional independent sources and found the following possibilities, , , which might be of use for the main article but lack of language skills (Spanish) and lack of time prevents me from processing. I hope it is appropriate to stick them here on the Talk page and if anyone finds they are of use - go ahead! Others I found which have been incorporated on the main page are:

• The Western Mail: I did wonders for the image of Wales in Latin America because I am now always referred to as 'the Welshman', Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) - Tuesday, December 7, 2010, Author: ROBIN TURNER
• Daily Mail: The Welshman behind Chavez's throne, Daily Mail, The (London, England) - Monday, December 6, 2010, Author: Robin Yapp in Sao Paulo and Philip Sherwell in New York

--DartmoorDave (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page move reverted

I've reverted the page move from "In Defence of Marxism (website)" back to "International Marxist Tendency". The article is plainly about the international political tendency, not the website and would need to be entirely rewritten if the subject was the website.

It's another question whether the tendency is little more than its website in reality - there's little proof in the article about other activity - but the 2012 AfD decided the article was worth keeping. So be it. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of sourced info regarding the existence of other activity, specifically in regards to the section in Pakistan which is quite active and had a member elected to Parliament (Ali Wazir), but who was denied his seat after what the IMT has characterized as a backroom deal between the government in power, and Islamists. (His seat was given to a right-wing candidate after a suspicious recount). I will be adding more info to the article over the next few days. The Greek section now has members in the leadership, which is certainly noteworthy. Chilltherevolutionist

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

In the section 'National Sections' it is stated that the IMT's group in the Netherlands is among the biggest. This originated after the edit when the page "Vonk (Netherlands)" was merged into the page of the International Marxist Tendency. This is not based on anything. As a member of the group in the Netherlands, I can state the group is among the smallest sections. Please remove the sentence mentioning the group in the Netherlands. 178.85.170.121 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I have left in the country, but removed that these are the biggest, as there's no source. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International Marxist Tendency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120530075105/http://venezuela.elmilitante.org:80/ to http://www.venezuela.elmilitante.org/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100210070459/http://www.elmilitante.net:80/content/view/6152/268 to http://www.elmilitante.net/content/view/6152/268/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Marxist Tendency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207044612/http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090607/focus/focus3.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090607/focus/focus3.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/804/oil-slick-divisions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvement and more NPOV needed

Take it as a friendly comment: This page looks a bit too much like promotional IMT material + IMT trivia + a few anti-IMT smears by embittered opponents or splinter groups. I guess we can improve on that and make it more informational on what this political group is actually about. Mv (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The previous comment was mine, actually. I always forget which is my English-language handle. MauroVan (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit War

There seems to be an edit war going on in this article over the 2022 sexual misconduct allegations section. The section has seemingly been added and deleted multiple times and edited seemingly by both sides. I’d suggest that either the section stay deleted or be properly expanded upon and sourced as so far the edits do not seem to uphold neutrality, some quite clearly attacking the IMT and others blatantly defending it. An impartial decision on the section needs to be made 81.109.150.134 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The allegations of rape (2012 in Pakistan; 2022 in Canada) are not based on reliable sources. In both cases, the allegations never appear to have been substantiated or litigated. It is not the business of Wikipedia to cast unfounded aspersions on organizations based on such flimsy evidence. I believe these sections should be removed. I invite @Firebarns: and @Darkspoet:, along with any other interested editor, to explain why they feel this material should be retained. 19:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The organisation itself has acknowledged the rape allegations in 2022 Canada.

https://www.marxist.ca/article/fightback-responds-to-allegations-lessons-for-the-movement

There are also allegations from 2018 also in Canada at York University where they were banned from a union for calling a victim of rape perpetrated by a member of Socialist Fightback a "slanderer." https://marxist.ca/article/sectarian-witch-hunt-against-fightback-at-york-university-stalinist-censorship-campaign-sabotages-student-occupation-and-university-strike 2001:56A:FA71:1300:A98D:E392:F2F1:A135 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the allegations, while not adjudicated or validated through legal proceedings, merit consideration given the known challenges that many sexual abuse survivors face in engaging with legal systems, such as potential obstacles and financial burdens. Additionally, sourcing entirely neutral perspectives on these allegations may be inherently challenging due to two primary factors: firstly, the IMT may not command sufficient influence to prompt extensive reporting from major media outlets that might employ a rigorously neutral tone; secondly, the nature of the allegations could naturally elicit varied journalistic analyses and interpretations. Notwithstanding, secondary sources that discuss these allegations and their subsequent impact do exist, with [4] and [5] serving as pertinent examples.

Moreover, the IMT has acknowledged these allegations and has issued responses, further substantiating the relevance of including this information in the article. The IMT’s responses can be found at [6], [7], and [8]. These responses, while originating from the subject of the allegations, provide additional context and perspective that may be valuable to Wikipedia readers.

It is also noteworthy that the article currently bears a template message indicating an excessive reliance on primary sources, with a substantial portion of the content derived directly from the IMT's official website, Marxist.com. While the overall quality and reliability of the article’s sources warrant enhancement, this does not negate the necessity of addressing the allegations within a controversies section, provided it is executed with due diligence to neutrality and verifiability. UnitedWeStand999 (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more dishonest to omit the section entirely, than to publish something that mentions the allegations. I'll review the controversies section once I have time, but it should stay up for the meantime JjStrawb (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually it looks fine at first glance, although the number of citations is comically high. Maybe the page should be locked, at least until the first time of University has ended and the IMT is trying to make fewer first impressions JjStrawb (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. it is more or less just vandalism to delete the whole section. If anyone has better sources and corrections, they should edit the specifics. I can not agree with people just removing the whole thing. UnitedWeStand999 (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I created a new submission for the Controversies section that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality, objectivity, and unbiased reporting. Each statement made in this section is supported by referenced sources, ensuring verifiability and adherence to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. The language used is factual and avoids any derogatory or inflammatory terms. The information is presented in a straightforward manner, without taking sides or portraying any party in a negative light. The citations are from reputable sources. Individuals with further information or different perspectives are encouraged to make selective edits to maintain the integrity of the section, rather than opting for wholesale deletion, which would undermine the principle of providing a balanced view of the subject. This approach is aimed at preventing an edit war and upholding Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability. Any disagreements with the content should be addressed through incremental editing while preserving the factual nature of the information provided. This ensures that Wikipedia remains a reliable and unbiased platform for knowledge sharing, reflecting a fair and balanced account of the controversies surrounding the IMT. Hammer161 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Revolutionary Communist International?

why has this article been renamed to a name that is not currently being used by the organisation. The organisation is called the IMT at present and surely the name of the article should reflect that? 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6129:FB9A:B0EF:B0C5 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They have announced a name change and that is what the lede says. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

but they haven't changed their name yet! It seems incredibly premature to change it already 137.50.171.9 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They've announced the decision: "We are dispensing with our old banner, and will reforge a new Revolutionary Communist International (RCI)". Wellington Bay (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've put in a request to change the name back for the time being. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversies

Hi @Wellington Bay,

I've re-removed the controversy section. At present all but one source seem self-published and discusses the actions of other people (labeling them sectarian and suspicious amongst other things) so fall afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF on point 2 (and likely point 1 as a result given it's allegations about IMT conduct). The controversy itself, given that it seems only source-able in their own publications and one minor wordpress Marxist blog, seems non-notable so probably best to avoid unless reliable third-party sources are available to cover it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When do we change the article name?

Recently, the IMT has announced that they will be changing their name to "Revolutionary Communists International." sometime in June. They've already begun rebranding their websites, socials, etc.

When do we change the article's name to mirror this? Right now, it's currently in a weird spot of being both outdated and correct. Corbasm2 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

June, when it becomes official. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay Alright. I call dibs. Corbasm2 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we then probably remove the table and instead just note that generally sections use the standardized naming scheme currently being unrolled (unless they don't for legal reasons)? Whether the name 'Party' or 'of {{ country }}/Organization' is chosen, seems to depend on self-perceived significance. Sladniebieskiego (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of them haven't changed their names - and removing the table would mean no list of which country has an IMT section. Most of the other pages on political internationals have tables so I don't see an issue with this one having one. I removed the column of websites though since that is not a standard feature of these articles and is basically promotional. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection status and ongoing editing war

I don't see a reason for the article to be protected despite "vandalism". The RCI wikipedia article isn't a popular page shouldn't the issue be discussed?

I believe this editing war is about the accusations against the Swedish section. Whether to include it or not should be discussed? TrotskyChilde (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith Shouldn't it be moved to the Swedish section's page? TrotskyChilde (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added protection because this article has been the target of vandalism and either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Proposed edits to the article can still be discussed here, and I'm taking no position on whether content should be moved or not. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

TrotskyChilde, edit warring is disruptive and forbidden by policy, and edit warring has been going on for quite some time on this article. If edit warring resumes after the semi-protection expires, then the article will be semi-protected for a longer period, or even fully protected. The solution is for the various editors to come to a consensus about the dispute here on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Alan Woods role

The info box lists Alan Woods as the sole leader of the RCI, however his own page describes him as "one of the leading members".

In reality Woods is part of the International Secretariat or IS and has the same organizational power as the other members. Notably, he writes/edits Marxist.com extensively and I believe he's the oldest member with the most experience in the movement. That being said the misconception that he is the sole leader is sorta understandable.

I'm between removing the leader info altogether or replacing it with "Leader: International Secretariat" if I can find a source that it is the leading body of the international.

Thoughts on these options or others? Jojobigbobo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

Replace the paragraph: "In 2024, the Swedish section of the international, Revolutionära kommunistiska partiet, was faced with a controversy as two former party members alleged that they had been sexually abused by a member of the party's executive committee. The RKP states that the individual was asked to resign his position on the executive and was subsequently not re-elected to the party's central committee. The former members also accused the party of encouraging them to "give away their savings, distance themselves from their families, drop out of education and engage in sexual relationships with older party comrades."

with: July 2024, the swedish section of the international, revolutionära kommunistiska partiet, was faced with a controversy. In a article written published by Dagens ETC two former party members interviewed alleged that they had been sexually abused by a member of the party's executive committee, and as a sect as members are encouraged to "give away their savings, distance themselves from their families, drop out of education and engage in sexual relationships with older party comrades" and has a paralell courts for allegations. RKP stated that the individual was asked to resign his position on the executive and was subsequently not re-elected to the party's central committee. They also responded with an article titled "why does ETC hate Communists - the importance of facts in serious questions", that the Dagens ETC article is based on "lies, half-truths, distortions" in order to create "an emotional state that makes honest discussion impossible". They respond with accusation of a parallel court system as an "astonishing claim, given that this how all parties operate" in regards to allegations and diciplinary actions. The articles continues with claiming Dagen ETC article was politically motivated pointing their previous critical article about RCI founding congress which also accussed them of being a fundementalists and a sect. TrotskyChilde (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope this bring an end to the conflict by adding the RCP response article showing both sides but it makes very long for event in single section of the RCI. If it should be mentioned at all it should be done in a balanced manner but another option is mention in the swedish section's page and only briefly here with a link to that page. TrotskyChilde (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

We would probably need an admin or an RFC over this issue. My understanding is that RR removed the Swedish Revolutionary Communist Party's response because of Wikpedia's policy on reliable sources and verifiability as the response is self-published and hasn't been quoted in any mainstrem media. The policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2. It does not involve claims about third parties;

3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

So while self-published claims are allowable under certain circumstances, the problem here is the RKP's response fails point 2 and may fail point 1. On the other hand, in media in general there is usually a "right of response" when accusations are made. I don't know whether Wikipedia policy recognizes such a right. Has etc or another publication outside of the RCI published the RKP's response? If so, we can cite that publication but I don't think we can cite the RKP or RCI directly. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done A reliable source is needed. An RfC would not be appropriate for this content dispute. Yue🌙 06:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It was quoted by another publication https://magasinetkonkret.se/lat-hogern-behalla-sin-kommunistskrack/

I have heard the RKP taking TrotskyChilde (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you suggest a specific edit using the Konkret article as a source? Wellington Bay (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

ETC allegations editing war

@Rambling Rambler @Wellington Bay

@Flintinsects

It is ridiculous that every attempt to put forward RKP response regardless how it has been sourced is deleted.

I would agree with @Flintinsects that: "Even if it is true, these are not significant events in the history of the movement and are far from the wide layers of information"

You cannot find such allegations on the Wikipedia pages of other political parties despite such scandals are very common. The Swedish section's page decided to remove any mention of the ETC article as it is ETC's word against RKP.

- Either the paragraph should be removed

- Shortened putting forward clearly RKP's response

TrotskyChilde (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@TrotskyChilde: You wrote: "You cannot find such allegations on the Wikipedia pages of other political parties despite such scandals are very common"

Please see Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)#Internal_crisis_in_2013–2014_over_allegations_of_rape and Workers_Revolutionary_Party_(UK)#Gerry_Healy_expelled. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claimed issue is already literally dealt with in the existing section:

"A Malmö-based publication, Magasinet Konkret, while critical of the RKP, noted that the alleged abuser was asked to resign, while the party denied the other claims."

Instead what you did was edit the page twice where you first removed details of the allegations made against them while adding fluff about the group's "explosive growth" with inappropriate sourcing, and then edited again with an edit summary where you just claimed that the publication publishing allegations can't be trusted.

You're clearly someone editing for WP:NOTHERE reasons (the use of Trotsky in an account name sort of gives it away), so I'm just going to put this at admin noticeboard as well and get this dealt with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased against the organization

This is an organization with many thousands of members and dozens of sections, participating in countless movements. For instance, their canadian section has been the driving force behind a recent pro-palestinian student strike involving 50000 to 80000 students. But to the main editors of this page (especially @Wellington Bay and @Rambling Rambler), the specific political positions (especially what differentiates the RCI from other "Trotskyist" organizations) and the activities of the national sections of the RCI aren't deemed relevant enough. Yet mostly unproven allegations of misconduct against members of their national sections are deemed relevant enough for a whole section on the page, making up a third of the article, with some of the allegations having no sources but posts on X. The deletion of essentially all information on the actual activities of the international and the focus on "controversies" is clearly anything but neutral and an attempt to smear the organization. Anfreas (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm agnostic about the material that was recently added - I simply copy edited it.[9]. I notice though that you removed my Conflict of Interest query from your talk page without comment.[10] Could you please clarify if you are a member or in any way affiliated with the RCI? Wellington Bay (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not biased against the organisation at all, it is completely supported by what has been reported in reliable, independent sources as is required per Wikipedia policy. You are a very low contribution account with a notable amount of reversions, including on this article, where you have attempted to remove material that meets our policies for no reason other than your own claimed personal knowledge. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is better now that you removed the poorly sourced "controversies". Thank you for that Anfreas (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)