Talk:International Socialist Review

Disambig. page

This need to become a disambiguation page: three ISRs... --Duncan 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:International Socialist Review March-April 2006.jpg

Resolved

Image:International Socialist Review March-April 2006.jpg 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 insure 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) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Internationalsocialistreview.jpg

Image:Internationalsocialistreview.jpg 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 insure 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) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna break this sucker into three — any objections?

This article actually relates to three different publications, each of which has their own history and reason for existence. I'm gonna split this puppy in three shortly, unless someone has a compelling reason why this should not happen. I propose the following three names:

• International Socialist Review (Kerr)

• International Socialist Review (SWP)

• International Socialist Review (ISO)

Any objections? Email me: MutantPop@aol.com or hit my Talk page... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. to the split and the method. Talk for International Socialist Review happens on its talk page, not by email to you. Wikpedia uses consensus, and emailing you is not a consensus technique. Splitting the article would just create three small stubs and require a disambiguation page and reworking links to it. There's no point doing that, and it conceals the fact that the later ISRs were named consciously in homage to the older ones. --Duncan (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how consensus can be developed using an editor's inbox, rather than the article's Talk pages. If this is the method we primarily used editing facebook, then would be some risks that the discussion on content is not collectivised, or becomes a discussion between two people.--Duncan (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just needed to know if there was an objection from anyone, sorry you mistook my intentions. I have no objections to discussing things here, but you have to admit with the last post on this discussion page a January 2008 robot post, preceded by a January 2008 robot post, this is not exactly a hot page for hot discussion of a hot topic. My apologies for the misunderstanding, all I wanted to know is whether anyone gave a rat's ass about the very logical move (first advocated by YOU on July 28, 2006, I note!!!) and now that I know that someone does, no probs talking about it here... I'm alerted, here I am.

So now that you've lectured me about "consensus" here and on my talk page both (neatly avoiding the fact that Wikipedia is also founded on the principle of assuming the best intentions of others, not on assuming the worst and loudly "going off")............ What exactly do you disagree to with regards to the split? I stand by this comment here:

"This need to become a disambiguation page: three ISRs... --Duncan 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)" Do you now disagree with your own analysis? If so, why? Carrite (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your Talk page because that is what you asked. Since I thought the discussion should happen here, I put a similar comment here. I think that's effective. Yes, there's little discussion on this article but I don't think that changes te validity of my feeling that discusson should happen in the open here, where one would expect to find it, rather than by email with you. If that's lecturing, going off or not giving a rats ass, to take your words, then I'm sorry you take it that way. Yes, I have changed by view since 2006, self-evidently, for the reason that I now appreciate how the three are linked, and that what we have now would basically create three subs. I broadly agree with TIAYN's suggestion. If we can make them more than stubs, then it would be useful to separate them. Thanks for using the Talk page. --Duncan (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support if you have enough sources to get all three articles into decent shape, and not stub-class. But seeing your previous editing record i'm pretty sure you will be able to handle it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, create a disamb page and create three separate articles. My suggestion for naming would be ISR (1900), ISR (1956) and ISR (1997). --Soman (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No I think that it would be simpler to just keep it in one article, that way readers don't have to go through a disambiguation page. Just my thoughts.Sbrianhicks (talk Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support split.--Darrelljon (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The case for a disambiguation page being a disambiguation page

Well, as we head for day two of this discussion, I just thought I'd make the case for Duncan2006's suggestion that this page be converted into a disambiguation page and split into three articles.

1. Standard practice at Wikipedia is to make use of simple disambiguation page with a minimum of links. Generally, this takes the form of the name of the target page followed by a short description. What we have here is a disambiguation pages with illustrations and excessive links.

2. As to the argument that somehow the current ISR is related to the original ISR because it borrowed the name of the original... Again, it is standard Wikipedia practice for each publication to have its own page. The conservative Washington Times "borrowed" its name from the New York Times — a direct snatch designed to ensure instant credibility. Yet those two are not on a single page to "emphasize" the inspiration in name selection. For all I know, the New York Times may have ripped off the name of the London Times with similar intent. Same story: EACH PUBLICATION GETS ITS OWN PAGE. Another example, perhaps? Max and Crystal Eastman, the children of a preacher, were directly inspired in choosing the name of their 1918-established publication, The Liberator, by the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's earlier publication of the same name. And what do you know, there's a current publication of the same name... How does Wikipedia deal with this? With a disambiguation page.

3. I'm not adverse to breaking out of the mold with an illustrated disambiguation page with extensive descriptions and links, actually. It's not standard, but I can see the value. What I do object to is the fact that the page in its current form looks like crap. There is a loathsome info box at the bottom trying to sell magazines to people. There is white space all over the place caused by excessive graphics for the content. It's a mess.

4. The reason A likely reason that Wikipedia prefers three stub articles to one gigantic stub article with three parts is because separation makes for easier identification of what needs to be done. The current mess is part of the Wikipedia "Chicago" project and the "Illinois" project, for example, even though only one of the three publications is from Chicago, Illinois. And what will happen tomorrow morning when the ISR (mark 1) coverage is B-class while the ISR (Cannonite) and ISR (ISO) sections remain stubs? Is a quality article on the first ISR going to be in any way enhanced by having two UNRELATED stubs tagged to the bottom? I think not. I'm certainly not going to be a party to such a breach of logic and good layout myself, be advised.

5. I emphasize that the three magazines are completely independent of one another, each worthy of consideration and analysis on its own merits. The main content will be written by different people due to the fact that the magazines were written in three different eras and people today have different periods of interest and areas of expertise. Each of these three individual histories will develop at its own pace.

6. There is one and only one reason for the current layout as it stands, I think: it "advertises" the current magazine based on search traffic from the first two. This is, obviously, not a valid reason for the continuation of the current "over illustrated over wikified" disambiguation page that we have before us.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. This is, as Duncan2006 pointed out, a simple call here. The page "International Socialist Review" should be made into a standard Wikipedia disambiguation page and its content split between three stubs. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support for this. The idea that three publications should have the same article because they have the same name is ludicrous. If that was acceptable, the entire idea of disambiguation pages would be scrapped. Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support; beyond the practical considerations regarding the discontinuity between the three publications relative to when they were in circulation, there is, despite the nomenclature, a discontinuity in not only the role of the publication, but in the dominant theoretical perspectives behind each incarnation of ISR. Consider the following:

The original Kerr publication was similar to other revolutionary left periodicals of the time, expressing a largely undifferentiated revolutionary leftist perspective. The largest difference at that time (correct me if I'm wrong) was between reformist and revolutionary socialists, and not the later paradigm of syndicalist, parliamentarian socialist, and Communist. Since the Kerr publication frequently included voices from the SPA whilst expressing sympathy to the IWW, this represents a distinct stage in the evolution of the left, which was by extension expressed in this incarnation of ISR.

The second ISR was predominantly a forum for Trotskyist opinions, specifically the opinions of the SWP. Given that any single party will, regardless of its ideology, tend to view itself as the paramount representative of a theoretical perspective, the fact that the second ISR was published by one particular party should be reinforced by differentiating it from the others.

The current ISR is published by a research/policy think-tank, and is far more focused on current events and analysis than the advancement of purely theoretical concepts. It seems to be influenced by the "new social movement" interest categorization that arose with the New Left, expressing further differences within the various strains of socialist thought. While its general support of international socialism is still the ultimate unifying factor for its general tone, the focus on particular issues such as race, gender, LGBT movements, etc. represents a characteristic of the magazine that isn't shared by its predecessors.

While the fact that they have all used the same name and have all maintained an international focus, the fact that there are several clear-cut differences in the theoretical perspective and overall function of the publication warrants a disambiguation page.

Finally, from a general/technical standpoint, one could argue that the fact that each incarnation of ISR was published by a different firm/organization itself warrants a disambiguation page. --Apjohns54 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Apjohns makes the case very clearly and in a detailed manner. The connection between the magazines is so minimal that a combined page is not justified. If each publication justifies an article, that's great; if any can amount only to a stub, then we should look at merging the information elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support if we expand from three stubsI do think we have some choice here. For example The Week discusses all three variants of that magazine. And these three variants are rather closer than earlier comments suggest. The Washington Times and the New York Times have different names. I don't really see that as a useful guide. All three versions of the ISR reflect the views of revolutionary socialist organisations based on classical Marxism and the name is reused exactly to make that point. The current ISR is published by the ISO in the same way the second ISR was published by the SWP: by limited liability companies it controls. The idea that the current ISR is qualitatively different from the second ISR doesn't sound right to me. So for the me it's only worth separating the items if we can add more than we take away, which means expanding the stubs. --Duncan (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the history of the first ISR, which looks like it will be wind up a good C class or a weak B quality-wise article by the end of the day. I own bound volumes of the second ISR and have enough interest in that to play with it a little bit next week, if I don't get distracted. I've got no interest or expertise in the third. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm taking the advice above with naming of the article for the first ISR, rather than my previous suggestion. That can always be changed later if necessary. The spread of dates is nice — it's pretty hard to mistake one publication for the other based on that, whereas the distinction between the SWP and ISO might be a fine one for some users... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Above I explained that it was only worth separating this out into three articles if we did not end up with one long article and two stubs. This is exactly what has been done, without agreement on the talk page.--Duncan (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)