Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia)/Archive 1

earlier unsigned comments

This article is too 'colourfully' worded and biased. Someone needs to revise this article in terms of the Wiki article guidelines.

I agree .. most of this was almost definitely written by member of SA

Yes, I have tried to clean it up but to no avail. I once went to an SA meeting a few years ago and there were no 'workers' save for one academic. They all basically a student group, hence their intense involvement in student politics. That also leads me to question their claims regarding continually growing membership. It seems that they have always been a rather small and extreme group.

- There were articles in The Age and other Newspapers about this group, I dont have the time, but someone ought to put the allegations of anti semitism up, since it's the most major publicity that the group has got thus far.

I'm very good friends with an excellent writer, who is an ex member of SA. I will ask her to review and correct the 'beliefs and ideology' section so it doesn't read like one of their pamphlets. The issue about antisemitism I would love to write up myself, as my partner (a lef-wing israeli academic) was barred from meetings of one of their recruiting fronts, SAWAR, during the Israel/Lebanon conflict - but that fact takes any chance of an NPOV away for me :)

In reference to the above comment about numbers & workers, two points: any SA member will tell you to your face that they don't care who signs up, they're all about numbers...and they firmly believe that the workers are too self-concerned and ignorant to start the revolution; the middle class students will save us! svunt 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sort it out

People editing this article need to understand what Wikipedia is. You seem to understand the principle of neutrality, but not that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is to say a tertiary source. Everything on Wikipedia should already have been published elsewhere and hence be verifiable and ultimately cited. mgekelly 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to Sydney University regarding SA defeats at their strongholds in the 2006 elections. Firstly, Sydney Uni is hardly a stronghold of Socialist Alternative, and secondly they actually did quite well for SA. They polled 11%, after breaking off from Keep Left this year. The Keep Left candidate was defeated for President by 37 votes, and I'd argue the overall left-wing campaign wouldn't have been as strong without SA's campaign doing well. Also, the left didn't decide not to deal with SA at Sydney Uni, they made a preference deal with Student Power (Grassroots Left). Ben Raue (Talk) 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

UMSU 2006 Elections

Someone seems to think that the UMSU negotiations aren't important enough to list here. As a concession, I've modified that section to be sympathetic; please don't remove it again. I feel for anyone in SA who thinks they got messed about, but denying what happened won't accomplish anything aside from bad blood. EvilFuzzyDoom 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my previous comment? Content should only appear on wikipedia where it is verifiable and referenced. This is official Wikipedia policy. The person who removed that unverified, unreferenced content was acting appropriately, regardless of their specific motivations. mgekelly 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the problems with the majority of articles on politics - their is no reference, other than what is "common knowledge". It is common knowledge at Melb Uni that SA ratted on their deals with the other left factions. Since the contents of the deals are private, it is unlikely, unless the deals are leaked, that it can be verified.Theusualsuspect 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Other than publishing the deals themselves, which are not publicly available, the only evidence is the candidates' list. AFAIK, noone has actually published anything relating to the deal that was broken, and it's the kind of thing which may need to slide. However, it's somewhat noteworthy.EvilFuzzyDoom 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please clean up this article!

It reads like a promotional pamphlet. I think this article needs to be completely re-worked by someone who isn't a member of SA. We can't let any persuasion start using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. 155.143.227.132 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick cleanup, but didn't make it through the whole article: as a Wikipedian, I found it too insulting. If anyone feels anything should be replaced/reverted, I think they should (out of fairness) propose it here first. The grammar is also absolutely terrible. 155.143.227.132 11:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. The material you removed seems to be of a factual nature, which is rather well-known in the relevant circles, and which is in principle verifiable. This is in contrast to information placed in the article about back-room deals at universities, which may well not be. There certainly didn't seem to be anything grammatically wrong with it.

Your self-description as a Wikipedian seems surprising given the lack of edits from the IP you are using, though I accept these data may be misleading. mgekelly 13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The material I removed seemed to be of an irrelevant and propagandistic nature. I'm sorry that I wasn't more consistent in the first place. Although the fact that you are unable to pin-point the many grammatical flaws in this article is probably due to an inability to notice them, I still think this article begs a more thorough grammatical examination. I do, however, accept your arguments and opinions, but I still think that it reads too much like propaganda and needs to be fixed. I have thus tagged this page for an NPOV check. This way you can keep your version (for the moment) and we can leave it to other Wikipedians to assess its bias.

Yes, my contribution to Wikipedia have been few and far between, thus far. But I don't think that diminishes the value of my opinions, nor do I think that it bars me from being able to take offence from the misuse of Wikipedia. I am mildly disconcerted by the way you think the quality of my opinions depend on the quantity of my contributions. 155.143.227.132 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the section on anti-semitism under a new "Controversy" heading: it seemed as if it was being used to make the media look like it was attacking SA's "Beliefs and Ideology", which isn't very encyclopaedic. As you will notice, I have also expanded it. It is fully referenced and I have given no preference to either 'side'. Also, by moving it to a new "Controversy" heading, I've created a distance between accusations of anti-semitism and SA's "Beliefs and [Ideologies]", which I think is much fairer to SA. Bbarone 02:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a regular user of Wikipedia, but reading from an admitedly pro-SA perspective, the "controversy" section read in a heavily biased way. Most of the tactics used by Socialist Alternative were judged to be "heavy handed" or "aggressive" rather than described for what they were, and left to the reader. I modified this to read more neutrally, as well as adding some referenced evidence of their popularity amongst at least some sections of campus. I feel it's more balanced this way.

Original point

I hark back to my original point: this article is just too 'colourfully' worded, making it sound biased. Just get rid of some (most) of the adjectives and adverbs. They are making it sound too promotional and not ecyclopaedic - this, I think, is the main problem. Bbarone 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed some of your grammar. 155.143.227.132 03:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the SA response to accusations of antisemitism. The main point is that to attack Israël is not to attack Jews, Israêl claiming incorrectly to represent Jews in general. Johncmullen1960 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism?

I have moved the passage hereunder to the talk page. Obviously for a Left wing group an accusation if antisemitism is very serious, and this passage cites one article in one newspaper - it's not enough to merit inclusion.

Furthermore, the article from The Age does not make any specific allegations of any sort against Socialist Alternative (read it folks!) The only specific accusation is that SA members didn't allow the Israeli ambassador to speak - a time honoured form of protest which has nothing antisemitic about it.

I don't know the law in Australia - perhaps, like in other places, it is illegal to put out antisemitic propaganda. IN which case SA would have been prosecuted. In the absence of any real evidence, it is unfair to leave such smears. They were left for a couple of months, which is enough for the accusers to have backed up the accusations with evidence. Johncmullen1960 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see anything notable enough to have this controversy issue. It is not something unique to Socialist Alternative, that a group of right wing zionists label any critic of Israel as anti-semitism. If no better grounds for the accusations can be provide it should go. Bertilvidet 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

((==Controversy== In an article published by The Age on September the 4th, 2006, Members of Socialist Alternative were accused of engaging in anti-semetic behavior and of exploiting ethnic tensions in order to increase their numbers. [1]. SA was likewise accused of being unsympathetic to semetic groups during the highest period of anti-semitism since the 1940s [2][3] and demonstrating on university campuses where the majority of this was occurring[4]. However, SA claim that they are not anti-semitic as Israêl does not represent jews, it simply claims to do so. "We take a firm stand against all forms of racism" Vashti Kenway (Students Against War and Racism, SA member). Any official outcome is yet to be seen.))

Now that some excitable sorts are accusing me of vandalism, why don't we vote on keeping this section or not ? I don't know how to do that, but please tell me Johncmullen1960 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the section has been cleaned up a little. Nevertheless it remains very POV, along the lines of "they claim to have stopped beating their wives." Johncmullen1960 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that this Age article is the most prominent bit of mainstream news coverage that SA has ever received, I would say that the allegations of antisemitism are noteworthy and should be kept.Theusualsuspect 11:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Apollo someone put back an old version of the controversy section, which had many faults, some of them listed above. I have deleted it, but perhaps Apollo has an opinion (beyond the insults he put on my user page!) Johncmullen1960 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the sequence again, as I still stick to my above comment, which has not been challenges. Bertilvidet 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted before, this is the only prominent mainstream news coverage of Socialist Alternative. Rather than delete the section, perhaps you should re-write it in what you would consider more non POV. Theusualsuspect 01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Coats

isn't this a statement of one person of an organisation that does not necessarily reflect the organisation, I'm using a similar argument to here [[5]] that individual member's views or actions do not represent the wider organisation (unless endorsed as official organisation policy) Michellecrisp 04:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They do reflect on the organisation, when an individual is acting in a capacity for that organisation or the conduct has been displayed by quite a few other members of the organisation. Alans1977 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be cited if others have acted in the same way. Michellecrisp 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Gicven the high levels of groupthink within this group, we can safely assume that any public views on Israel expressed by any member of this group also accurately reflects the entire's sect's views. Besides, the article only says that members of the group have strong views on Israel, and provides Coat's views as an example. Apollo1986

References

I have removed the prod tag on this particular article, for it seems there are enough references. I'm glad to see that finally enough material is becoming available online to support this sort of article. If the people here can document the other articles of the australian left, all the better. I've tried to support these articles for canadian groups, and not found enough material to be convincing. Remember that you may well have to defend each of them at AfD & it is probably better not to try to keep ones that there arent sources for. I'll help what I can, but don't judge by me. DGG 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been adding some secondary verifiable references. It is likely there are book references that could be used as well. Many details in this article need secondary references or at least primary sources, and I have marked several as needing citations, and deleted a little bit of the POV language.--Takver 06:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Vandalism

In the name of stopping vandalism, Johncmullen1960] the Communist has once again vandalised this article. He has been warned that if he continues, he will be reported to the relevant authorities. Obviously he is not a fan of the hilarious Horseshoe Theory. Apollo1986

Vandalism is not just disagreeing with Apollo1986 (this is not even his real name, he thinks he is the Sun God). Horshoe theory may be hilarious, but hilarious theories are not encyclopedic Johncmullen1960 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This section, which I have mostly deleted, did NOT correspond to the reference quoted. It is obvious that shouting down a minister, on campus to support official government policy is not equivalent to "drowning out political viewpoints they do not agree with". The Horshoe "theory" accuses communists of being really fascists, and cannot be taken seriously in any way Johncmullen1960 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouting down a minister, who is on campus to defend/support official government policy, is drowning out the government viewpoint. Current government policy is a political viewpoint that SAlt disagree with. Agreed with the Horseshoe rubbish.Alans1977 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Userw who disagree should join the discussion, and NOT simply restore the contested paragraphs.

Anyone who has ever gone to university in Australia knows that SA are rather militant and do employ shouting and loudpeakers. I cannot think of why you would want to delete this section, unless you support the group. But that is not a valid reason to delete info about them which may not make them look good. Please remember that wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so you should stop acting in a way which is partisan by deleting info about the group you do not want others to read about. Apollo1986

No. I am looking through the references you have added. The Age article and one other which I have looked at so far do not accuse SA of antisemitism. They accuse them of having an uncompromising position on Israel... fair enough.

Otherwise, accusing a revolutionary group of being "rather militant" is not serious. That is their job. We can rewrite for consensus I would think.Johncmullen1960 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact NONE OF THE SOURCES YOU ADDED ACCUSE SA OF ANTISEMITISM; they accuse SA of uncompromising positions on Israël, which according to many supporters of Isrâel amount to the same thing as being antisemitic. This is a long ideological debate to be taken up in the pages on zionism etc. Many SA members are Jewish, and the idea that they hate Jews is just not true.Johncmullen1960 13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johncmullen1960. We need much stronger references than those which are used in the article, such as yahoo postings. Removing unreferenced material is not vandalism. --Duncan 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So calling Jewish students "Zionists (who) felt the need to assert their racism and fetish for genocide and mass slaughter of Arab people" is not antisemetic? And calling Israel a racist nation is not either? Please, give me a break. Maybe if you are uncomfortable with calling it what it is, we can instead quote their words directly, and let readers make up their own minds. Apollo1986

I appreciate that you feel that this group is anti-semitic. However, that is not relevant. Our discussion is about reliable references:

• Your quotation is from an email cited by a blog. It is not an reliable reference.
• The blog references what it claims is an email from an individual student activist who may or many not be a member of this group. It is not a reliable reference of the views of Socialist Alternatives.
• You may find it useful to re-read the email. Ostensibly, the email is referring to individuals who aimed to suppress the SA stall: that is not a guide to SA's views about all Jewish students, or even that individuals views towards Jewish students.

I am very interested to discuss any references that you feel would be useful. However, please discuss them there first, and win consensus before you edit. That is how Wikipedia works. Do not revert the article to reintroduce claims without reliable references. --Duncan 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The email reference (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nat_education/message/6863), regardless of how it was discovered is written by a member of SAlt. This could be dismissed as being the views of just one member, except for similar things being expressed by many individuals in SAlt. e.g. Paul Coats comments.Alans1977 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Making negative generalisations about Zionists is not the same as making negative generalisations about Israelis/Jewish people. Commenting on Israel as a state in a negative manner is not the same as commenting on Israelis/Jewish people in a negative manner. Alans1977 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apollo, even on the discussion page, your quotation is dishonest and partial. the SA person said that the fact that zionists had turned over a socialist stall was because "zionists feel the need to reassert etc." This statement of an SA member may be true or false, but it is not antisemitic.

Some of us think Israel is a racist state, others don't, this is quite irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Yes, you are right, Apollo, the best thing to do is to quote the EXACT WORDS OF the SA people quoted in The Age, and people can make up their own mind.Johncmullen1960 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation?

Should we request mediation over this page? That Blog reference, and the suggestion that SA is unreferenced statement that SA is anti-Jewish, are bing reintroduced repeatedly despite attempts to win consensus on this page. That is not the way Wikipedia works. Edit wars are repeated visitions should be avoided by using the Talk and other resolution procedures. Unless we can find a way forward on this page, then I will request mediation. --Duncan 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation may be desirable if its stating the facts that you object to Apollo1986

Indeed, the issue for Wikipedia is that things that appear to be facts some into three classes: those supported by reliable references, those supported by other references, and original research. Wikpiedia only uses the first set, and not the last two. --Duncan 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How does one request mediation? Could be a good idea.Johncmullen1960 06:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty easy: Read this. First we should requet more comments from other editors. --Duncan 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No alternative to consesus

I've removed the disputed text once more. Does anyone where know Apollo? I am concerned that, perhaps, they are not familiar with the Talk page and the editing notes and are unable to follow the discussion here. As it stands, re-introducing the disputed information will not lead us forward. We need to reduce this disputed section to the claims that that supported by references. For example, it is misleading to suggest that critical comments against specific Zionists who mobilised against an SA table are criticism against Jewish students per se. Nor is one interaction like that notable. My suggestion is that we give this discussion a week, and see of the reversions continue to be unagreed by the consesus on the page. If they do, then we should request comments more widely from other editors. --Duncan 10:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, The Age comments that have been deleted, talking about the highest levels of anti-semitism since the 40's, are all correctly referenced. Why were they deleted? As for the drowning out different views, there is a referenced example of this. Those who have been to university campusses in Australia know that this is how this group generally behaves. The question is, why does a Frenchman who probably has never been to Australia keep deleting this? And why do you, Duncan, keep deleting it also, when you are not Australian either? And finally, why don't you delete all the unreferenced info in the article, seeing as though you say you don't support unreferences info?

P.S. The article from The Age does not accuse Socialist Alternative of anti-semitism, but the reference to disrupting the ambassador's visit has been retained.--Duncan 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your response. There seems to be a lot of double standards here aimed at censoring legitimate critical views. So much for Wikipedia neutrality and impartiality. This is a left wing conspiracy, nothing more. Apollo1986

And one more thing. Saying that SA have labeled Jewish students as having a fetish for genocide is a STATEMENT OF FACT. It is you who by calling them Zionists is being misleading. We do not know that they are, all we know is that SA have said they are. You reveal your own anti-semetic bias with that statement. Lets stick to FACTS, not left wing agendas. remember, this is an encyclopedia. Apollo1986

I think you need to be careful about assumptions that people are unqualified to edit Wikipedia on the basis of the nationality. Our policy is to assume good faith. My concern is that The Age citation is used to support claims that are not present in the source. As I wrote above: For example, it is misleading to suggest that critical comments against specific Zionists who mobilised against an SA table are criticism against all Jewish students. Not all Jewish students are also Zionists at that university who moved to close down that stall. If there if is other disputed material in the article, then let's discuss it here. --Duncan 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Have removed this text.Apollo you need to read the sources more carefully. As for "intolerance of other views", this is not a serious accusations; All political organizations, left right or centre that ever do anything notable have been accused of being intolerant of other views. Indeed if the members of these organizations didn't care what views people held, why would they join a political organization? Johncmullen1960 08:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

please stop the censorship, this is not Communist China

Duncan, my only point in repsect of nationality is that people who have never been in Australia and seen this Australian Socialist group in action are hardly qualified to make judgments about the truth or accuracy of statements in relation to how that group behaves. Again, its funny how you and Johncmullen1960 very selectively edit 'unreferenced material'. As for the rest of your latest rant, it is quite unintelligible.

As for you Johncmullen1960, you clearly do not recognise the difference between trying to persuade others of your views, and shouting over opponents so that they are deprived of an opportunity to respond to your claims. The most important difference is that one method is democratic and tolerant of other views, the other is not. Of course all political groups care what people in society think, but that dosent mean that all of them actively try to silence or talk over those who have different views. The simple fact is that almost all moderate groups are tolerant of other groups having different views, and therefore that activists of different persuasion to SA do not use loudspeakers to down out their opponents. I will finally also note that your lame justification for SA's conduct would legitimise the censorship efforts of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Communist China. Apollo1986

Thanks for your prompt reply. As we have discussed above, Wikipedia is not only looking for things that you consider to be true: Wikipedia's policy is that statements need to be supported by reputable references. For that reason, my nationality does not influence by ability to edit. There are other resources here at Wikipedia, so please use those outlines of our policy if you can follow my comments. I can especially recommend the policy that one should assume good faith. I will look forward to seeing on this Talk page any references you have to support your proposed additions.--Duncan 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, if a blogger accuses SA of anti-semitism, then it is a fact that the group has been accused of anti-semitism. It follows logigally from the first proposition, much like if I said I was in Melbourne, you could therefore conclude I was also in Australia. Therefore the blog should be included. It's a fair reputable blog besides, and one which has broken stories the mainstream media has later picked up on.
PS: you may not like the fact that I do not always reply promptly, however, you still have not replied to my original question asked nearly 2 weeks ago: why is it that you very selectively edit 'unreferenced material'? Why not delete all info you see in wikipedia that is not entirely referenced? Why is it only info which shows criticism of SA that you decide not to include on the basis that its not referenced? You would find you would delete most of the content in most articles. Apollo1986

Don't misunderstand me: you are quite prompt enough. I am saying what I mean. I'm not sure that have been able to explain effectively what Wikipedia's policy is about references. Perhaps you could read this this example and our general policy. Blog are generally not reputable sources. I'm not sure what examples you are referring to when you say the page has been selectively edited. If you could highlight some examples, then please do. You can tag unreferenced statements with the fact tag, after you've looked to see if you can first find a reference easily. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I do not only delete unreferenced material on this page, but also edit other pages. Of course, no-one has the time to edit all pages. We just happen to be meeting here. --Duncan 13:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, looking at your own contributions, it does seem that most of your recent contributions are either on this page, or on similar pages, such as the Labour students page, where you are adding in the same blog reference. --Duncan 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already explaioned why the blog is good enough. How many times do I have to repeat myself? This group has been accused of anti-semitism as a result of some of their statements, and this is well recorded by The Age and Andrew Landeryou. Apollo1986 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:02, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Apollo, you can't simply impose your own view that a blog is good enough for Wikipedia. Including a blog as a reference contravenes Wikipedia policies on WP:RS and WP:SPS. otherwise, people would self publish stuff on blogs and post them as valid references on Wikipedia. Blogs are also unacceptable for referencing people's opinions on Wikipedia. This policy has been stressed to you a number of times, continually including blogs as references in the future may be an example of POV pushing. Michellecrisp 06:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Michellecrisp is summarising Wikipedia's policy well. --Duncan 07:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, consistently using Andrew Landeryou's blog is definitely violating the NPOV policy of undue weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each Landeryou is hardly an objective source of information nor does he represent any accepted encyclopaedic view. Michellecrisp 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My recollection of the policy says that blogs are generally unacceptable, not always. For reasons already explained, the use of a blog to represent an opinion is fair use. I reject the idea of undue weight, because the counterveiling SA view is also presented. Readers are informed of the controversy, the views of both sides and are left to make up their own minds. That dosen't seem like NPOV to me. Apollo1986 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

The notion of fair use is about permissibility under copyright law. However, the issue remains that blogs are self-published material and are often not notable. Undue weight is about balance in the whole article and the section, not about whether something is notable or not. Just because the other point of view is mentioned, that does not mean the balance is right in the section: For example: "Ann, Bob, Charlie, Dave and Alan say Oprah is a Martian, however she claims to be human." Furthermore, is the size of the section on anti-semitism representataive of this issue to the group as a whole. For example, the page on Socialist Action (US) is terrible since it lists splits but gives no flavour of that group's nature. --Duncan 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that every time I answer your objections that new ones are manufactured. Anyway, it has previously been noted that the accusations of anti-semitism are the biggest publicity this group has recieved to date. Again, examine The Age article, probably the first ever mainstream news article abt this group. Therefore, the accusations of anti-semitism are representative. If anything there should be a much larger section on this. And your example of undue weight refers to ridiculous claims abt Oprah being a martian. This is much more serious, as this group's remarks can certainly be interpreted as being anti-semetic. Finally, the blig used to reference is a notable one, just ask the Victorian ALP. Apollo1986

Happy to be of help. Of course your point about fair use was new, so it was polite to address it. I think we've already discussed the notability and reliability of blogs, but I remain open to any new references. I'm not really producing new reasons, by trying to better explain Wikipedia policy. For example, because of your enduring stance on blogs, I am not sure that you have read our policy on Reliable sources. --Duncan. 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"These sorts of attitudes"

I have remove this form of words a second time from the article. Since my note wasn't noticed, I thought I should expand on it here. The formula about these sort of attitudes are weasel words and unclear. In fact the article referenced relates to one statement in and issue of SA's periodical (I don't know if that is a statement by a Sa member). Since that is a specific reference to SA's anti-Israel stance, the reference does not support generalisations. Indeed, in itself opposition to Israel is not anti-semitic. --Duncan 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you really object to the blog, I will use the Age instead. I have also fixed the 'weasel words'. BTW, it is not a fact that "in itself opposition to Israel is not anti-semitic". Once again you are mixing fact and opinion. In fact, most ppl would hold the opposite view given how many neighbouring terrorist groups want to destroy Israel and its people. --Apollo1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 05:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

For example, I don't think many reliable sources consider Neturei Karta to be anti-semitic. --Duncan 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Karta are one of the very very few Jewish groups who do not believe in Israel's right to exist. Even Antony Lowenstien, the ultra leftist, believes in Israel's right to exist. And your argument still does nothing to diminish the unthinkable consequences which would result from Israel being dismantled. I believe that 'these attitudes' is acceptable because we are talking about this group's attitudes towards Jews and Israel more than anything. I feel that explaining it all in terms of 'opposition to Zionism' is unsatisfactory, because their use of such strong language would, in many people's minds, convey a level of passion that can only be associated with hatred, prejudice and racism. Believing that all Jews who support Israel's right to exist are bloodthirsty "With a fetish for the slaughter of Arab people" expresses more than just a view, it expresses an attitude. This isn't just opposition to Zionism, clearly. Apollo1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

• Good, we seem to agree that opposition to Israel is not in itself anti-semitic.
• The consequences of dismantling Israel are speculative: making assumuptions would be original research.
• If there is strong language in reliable references, then we should cite it if the references are notable.
• References that show that SA is opposed to Zionism or Zionists do not prove attitudes to Jews in general. The quotation you cited from the email does not make a statement about all Jews, but about those individuals who moved to supress the SA stall. It was a statement by an individual, in email, and is in itself not a reliable references of the group's views. The references to the Australian council of Jewry, which you removed, made only a reference to an article in their paper which opposed the existence of Israel. That may or may not have been an article that reflected the opinion of the group: we don't show that in the reference. Wikiedipa cannot convey that one statement means something else: that is a logical fallacy. Not all Jews who support a Jewish state are Zionists: such as Leon Trotsky, who opposed Zionism but favored the right of the Jews to a state. Some anti-Zionists support the demand for two states. And some anti-Zionists think that Zionism, in so far as it denies the Palestinians a homeland and is a state for a chosen few, is necessarily built on violence. And so on... These anti-Zionist views are, in themselves, no evidence of hatred of Jews as Jews.
• What do "these attitudes" refer to? They should only refer to the attitudes reflected in the references, and we should specif what those attitudes reffered to are, not suggest innuendo. --Duncan 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Further a lot of members of SA that I have known and meet have argued for a one state solution (who knows weather that would work out or not) based on there having been a lot less conflict between Palestinians and Jews before the mass colonisation of Israel/Palestine/_or_whatever_you_want_to_call_it_ by refugees from antisemitism in Europe during and after WWII, not the removal of jews from Israel/Palestine/_or_whatever_you_want_to_call_it_. They often argue that Palestinians and Jews alike are accorded equal rights (no restrictions of freedom of movement, etc. based on ethnicity). Preferably they would like there not to be any state at all, but they believe that they have some grasp or reality and therefor argue for a state in which Palestinians are not surrounded by razerwire and subject to unjustifiable intrusions upon the right to live their lives free from state interference (as long as they are not harming another). This is often expressed by them calling Israel an apartheid state. Alans1977 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's useful. Thanks. --Duncan 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have not replied until now is that I very much feel like I am repeating myself, which is quite annoying. Yes, it is POV to assume that the dismantling of Israel would lead to genocide. However, that is a legitimate view that would lead, and had lead people to accuse SA of anti-semitism. Therefore the view should be included in the article, with Sa's counterveiling view. To repeat, they insulted Jewish students at Melbourne university who may or may not be Zionists. But the use of words would, in many people's minds lead to the impression of anti-semtism. Hence even more reason why this view should be included, with SA's rejoinder. Apollo1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view. While that may be a legitimate view, we would need to find a reliable reference that was notable. There no notable references that accuse SA of antisemitism. Indeed, the occurance that Jewish students organise to close down a stall could suggest that the stall is operated by anti-semites, however such an assumption would be POV, especially when not supported by references. There are many reasons which could drive such an activity. I appreciate your frustrations, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a stated policies. I feel that we have gone as far as we can until we get new, notable references. Even then the balance of the article also needs to be a consideration --Duncan 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why is only the stuff critical of SA requiring references? Again, blogs are perfectly acceptable when it comes to representing viewpoints, and the Age makes the same point, so we should use the Age instead if you like. Again, and to repeat, we can in fact represent views as long as the counterveiling view is also present. That is what I have done. You have accused me of attempting to silece the SA view, but if you in fact look at the preceding para of my edit you can clearly see that SA's view is expressed for all to see. Apollo1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Confrontations with Zionists

While the references supplied discuss anti-semitism, none of them report claims that SA is accused of anti-semitism. I have therefore reworked the article to state exactly what the sources state, and retitled it. --Duncan 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

campaign tactics

I have taken out the short paragraph on campaign tactics. It was negatively worded, but more important it doesnt seem to me to be notable that a campaigning political group sometimes uses megaphones and leaflets.

I have been at a number of SA stalls when visiting Australia and the paragraph does not correctly describ e them - moreover there are no serious references. john on holiday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.251.121 (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am an Australian (who has been engaged in university politics, which is where SA are mostly seen) and I have friends who are in SA and they do engage in the type of behavior described often enough for it to be notable. They have a political justification for their tactics (whether you agree with that justification or not) and that was also noted in the paragraph you are referring to. The paragraph is reliably referenced and I am going to restore it. Please do not remove the paragraph again unless you have a better reason than your experience upon _visiting_ Australia. Otherwise please discuss it with me. Alternatively we could ask for mediation. Alans1977 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Constant re-insertion of POV language

If this sort of partisian behaviour continues I think we'll need to have mediation. Just because the facts may be taken to be unfavourable, that is no justification for denying them. Alans1977 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific about hich language is POV, and why? I guess we should ask for comments from others before we move to mediation. --Duncan 12:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make it less pov "yelling into megaphones" is obviously POV. The reference to "drownin out" is completely misleading - shouting down A MINISTER is not equivqlent to refusing free speech. Finally How could a slogan possible not be repetitive ?! john on holiday Incidentally, no problem about mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.128 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is properly referenced. Just because you do not like the way it reflects there is no reason to constantly remove it. Further if you want to be taken seriously, why do you make edits without being logged in? Alans1977 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We report in neutral language what a reliable source says. Hornplease 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

I have just reverted a large, unexplained cut from the article by Apollo. If we are discussing the content here, then clearly we have a content dispute. However, it's not clear to me that there is a ongoing discussion. In that context, large unexplained cuts seem to be to be vandalism. Do others have a comment on this? --Duncan 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Which points lack references?

Why is this article tagged as needing references? Clearly we need references for points which are not self-evident or easily confirmed. However, I see that this article does have a number of references. Can someone point specifically to point that need references, using the {{Fact}} tag? I suggest we remove the references needed tag, and then replace with fact tags. --Duncan 09:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags, pending any futher concerns. --Duncan 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Campaign tactics

Have removed paragraph on campaign tactics because it is very POV ("yelling", "barging" etc). It is also not notable. That political groups leaflet and use megaphones is not encyclopedic information. john on holiday Johncmullen1960 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would call drowning out political viewpoints which diverge from ones own, with loud repetitive chanting of slogans, to be quite noteworthy when it is behaviour the group is known to engage in. It is not POV to say this, as they quite clearly justify behaviour, described in this exact way, in the reference provided. Have any of you who object to this paragraph actually looked up the reference? http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1572125.htm Alans1977 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is completely misleading and POV to equate shouting down a MINISTER - that is an official representative of the government - with opposing freedom of speech. Shouting down ministers has a long and honourable democratic tradition. Johncmullen1960 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would be good to see references to that claim. Here in Britain, such attempts have been very rare, even in the student movement. --Duncan 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK if people think it is important, leave it in. But I have changed the POV vocabulary, while leaving all the information.Johncmullen1960 08:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Duncan 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something in this: the radio interview with SA is quite telling. In essence, they seem to be extending the no platform tactic not only to zionists, but even to the governing party. That is a notable and original position on the left. I imagine that other left groups might even have distanced themselves from that tactic. --Duncan 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, at the Australian National University (where the shouting down of Tony Abbott occurred, which I happened to witness), the other left groups did in fact distance themselves from that tactic. In reply to Johncmullen1960, it's not just a minister that they drowned out with repetitive chanting of slogans, they have done the same in many political fora that I have witnessed. They have been known to do it NUS conferences (e.g, in the Australian Liberal Students' Federation (ALSF) article their is an incident noted where Liberal students were chanting "We're racist, we're sexist, we're homophobic" during the 2005 NUS conference. They have aruged that this was a sarcastic response to Socialist Alternative chanting "Racist, Sexist, Anti-queer, Liberals are not welcome here", which is exactly what they were chanting/shouting over and over when Tony Abbott was present at ANU in order to drown him out. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO7knUNlJso&watch_response for the NUS conference 2005 incident and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Liberal_Students%27_Federation#NUS_Conference_2005 for discussion about it),whenever someone who is a Liberal student talks. They have done it my universities Students' Association's general meetings and on other occasions I can't recall right now. I can't cite those other incidents right now, but it is a political tactic they engage in. It's not just ministers. Their justification tries to say that they are not in fact denying freedom of speech (whether you agree with their justification or not is a matter for you), because political viewpoints they attempt to drown out already get disproportionate representation. Alans1977 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, until someone has more info Johncmullen1960 07:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

John, this does square up with the radio interview (if you've listened to that). Goodness me, that is a terrible tactic. --Duncan 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed square up very well with the radio interview. Regardless of how it reflects on them, I believe it should stay as it is a accurate representation of their political tactics. Alans1977 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance in 'Beliefs and Ideology'

An editor has put a tag on this Beliefs and Ideology section to say it lacks balance. Are there an specific points there? nless there are, I suggest we remove that tag. --Duncan 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Alans1977 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

DuncanBCS

Duncan,

There is no evidence cited that "SA ... has a considerable number of worker members active in their trade unions." and that sentance has rightly been removed. Further there is no evidence cited that "SA ... have many Jewish members, inclduing Dr Rick Kuhn." Just because they say something about themselves it does not make it true. Sure Dr Kuhn might be Jewish, but that does not mean that 'SA have many Jewish members.', therefor that sentence has also rightly been removed. Please discuss it here if you disagree with my intrepretation. Alans1977 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is reasonable to say that SA say they have a number of Jewish members. This in itself is not surprising - they also have a number of members brought up Catholic. It only becomes important in the context of the (in my view) ridiculous claim that it is an antisemitic organization. It is not reasonable to expect SA to prove they have a number of Jewish members. Johncmullen1960 14:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about Israël from their website. This is because outside the context of the political analysis made by SA, the accusations cannot be understood. The Trotskyist tradition has always opposed antisemitism, and, Trotsky being jewish, could hardly have done otherwise. Johncmullen1960 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections there. Alans1977 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Kuhn is Jewish: that can be easily referenced. I am happy with a formulation like "say they have a number" since one is a number, and it's clear they have at least one. They might not have more than one; after all, it's a small organisation. While organisations with members of Jewish descent are less likely to be anti-semitic, it's not a proof that the organisation does or does not have anti-semitic policies. --Duncan 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Alans1977 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Union Solidarity

There is no reference to any existent entity called Union Solidarity and no references to members of SAlt being involved in such a group. Similarly there is no references that back up "... and responses from the students range between support and disgust". Article restored to previous edit. Alans1977 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ALP and Coalition ideology

Do people think it's more precise to classify the ALP as social democratic, rather than center-left. By the same token do people think it's more precise to classify the Coalition as neoliberal, rather than center-right. If anyone has any input into this please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Description_of_ALP. Alans1977 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

re: dubious, Class composition of SA membership

I find it dubious that SA's membership is currently majority worker, rather than majority student. Even then, its a relatively trite comment on class composition as it doesn't deal with background, geographic location, occupational category, and student-workers. This is particularly true given SA's organisational function and main locus of activity. I'd love to be proved wrong, but a citation would be necessary, and I doubt given SA's ideological background that they'll publish a member audit. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

partisan interventions

Soemone has been having another go at introducing partisan anti SA sentences. Please discuss non-referenced allegations first on the discussion page. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitism?

I am not a member or supporter of Socialist Alternative, but the section on anti-semitism is poorly referenced. The title of the section is "allegations of anti-semitism", but there is no mention in the section of anybody accusing Socialist Alternative of anti-semitism, but rather of opposition to Zionism. If anybody can find a notable source in which Socialist Alternative is accused of anti-semitism, please incorporate it in the article and include references. I will leave the page for a week before retitling the section to "Allegations of anti-Zionism". This should allow for enough time for somebody to find a quote which accuses Socialist Alternative of anti-semitism.

The distinction is critically important. There is a clear and important difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, with even Israeli Jews opposed to Zionism while clearly not anti-Semitic, and yet the two are sometimes merged together. This leads to those real cases of anti-semitism being lumped in together with legitimate anti-Zionism, watering down the issue.

I am not saying that SA have never been accused of anti-Zionism, I am simply saying that if the section is titled to be about accusations of anti-semitism, then the section needs to be about accusations of anti-semitism. --Sumthingweird (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. There are some attempts to introduced unreferenced weasel words, and we should not do that. --Duncan (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to repeat, after today's edit, that there are no references that accuse this group of anto-semitism. --Duncan (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a quote which was previously deleted which some would interpret as anti semetic. I have also added info about their violent confrontations with Jewish students in 2006. Apollo1986 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

That's a bit better. --Sumthingweird (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

John, As for you Johncmullen1960, you clearly do not recognise the difference between trying to persuade others of your views, and shouting over opponents so that they are deprived of an opportunity to respond to your claims. The most important difference is that one method is democratic and tolerant of other views, the other is not. Of course all political groups care what people in society think, but that dosent mean that all of them actively try to silence or talk over those who have different views. The simple fact is that almost all moderate groups are tolerant of other groups having different views, and therefore that activists of different persuasion to SA do not use loudspeakers to down out their opponents. I will finally also note that your lame justification for SA's conduct would legitimise the censorship efforts of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Communist China. Can you please stop changing allegations of anti-semitism to anti-Zionism? There is no question they are anti-Zionist. But the group has been accused of anti-semitism, and this is the controversy. Apollo1986

Socialist Alternative and indeed much of the far-left have a long history of fighting antisemitism; from the Battle of Cable Street, the struggles against German fascism and opposition to the antisemitism of Stalinist Russia to shutting down the fascist bookshop in suburban Melbourne. It is thanks largely to the actions of the left that an environment in Australia has been created where the persecution of Jews has become unacceptable. Yet when the left oppose the persecution of Palestinians by Zionism, which is a political movement that is not a religion or ethnicity and cannot claim to represent every Jew, they are labeled as antisemitic. It's indicative of absolute bankruptcy of the Zionist extremists, who thrive on racial divisions in society which they use to justify their hard-line, racist, agenda that when their are no more visibly obvious enemies to blame they create them in the very people opposing such persecution from the start. They are willing to jeopardize the gains of the anti-racist movements of the past by slandering it's activist. I think that it is absolutely disgusting, especially considering that if their is a real revival of the far-right, and antisemitism does become more acceptable, the actions of these Zionists will have harmed any possibility of resisting it. It's just obvious that these Zionists have no interest in ending antisemitism, and care little for the plight of Jewish people who stand against all forms of racism including that of the Israeli state against Palestinians. I am removing this entire section, and will continue to do so in the future. It has just created a space for Zionist lies and slander. The content of the Age articles were based on absolute fallacies and if it is allowed to continue then it is only fair that a section of the article on Zionism be devoted to the accusations of attempted collaboration between Zionists and Hitler outlined in this article [6] regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not.--The.eye.altering (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that probably wasn't a helpful intervention, The.eye.altering. This isn't a broad discussion on Zionism/anti-semitism or the Left, but on the activities of one particular group. It appears that there are now sufficient references to determine that SA have been accused of anti-semitism, a charge which they deny. This no longer seems to be a point of contention among editors. However, I am concerned that this section on anti-semitism allegations seems to be taking up a lot of space in the article despite the fact that this is not particularly central to the group's identity. I think we should stop editing that section of the article until this discussion is resolved. Can anybody here think of a way forward? --Sumthingweird (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The allegations of antisemitism may not be particularly central to the group's identity, however it is what the group is noteworthy for in recent history. That of itself is some justification for the amount of space it takes up in the article. Alans1977 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to revision before The.eye.altering, engaged in an act of vandalism. Alans1977 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan, this is a controversial page - please be careful when referring to other users. I've fixed some spelling mistakes in your and Apollo's edits. I would disagree, however, that Socialist Alternative is notable for being an anti-Semitic group. They are notable for being a socialist group which has a notable presence on university campuses, and also as a faction of the National Union of Students. The article currently does not reflect this and therefore it needs some work. I understand that the debate over anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is touchy but we can't allow it to spill over into this page and cause a mess here. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that Socialist Alternative is notable for anit-Semitism. I said that in recent history that they were notable for 'allegations of antisemitism' and outside of universities I'd maintain this to be the case.

As regards you referring me to the page about 'No Personal Attacks', my comments are not personal attacks but statements of fact. Looking at the page history can confirm this[7]. What can be seen from the page history is that The.eye.altering removed quite a bit of notable material that was adequately referenced with no explanation, clearly an act of vandalism. Alans1977 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I have retained the section (including the notable material I removed) but inserted some referenced comments by SA members on the issue, argued in their magazine. Can we agree that this documentation of their response is justified and can we agree that any further manipulation of the referenced messages in this section to fit political agendas and any further removal of relevant and referenced contributions to the issue constitutes vandalism?--The.eye.altering (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, nowhere in the article cited is Socialist Alternative accused of using violence against Jews, in a different article it is reported that they had violent confrontations with Liberal students. --The.eye.altering (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The.eye.altering, the issue is anti-semitism, not violence. Whilst SA's responses are certainly valid, they should not be overrepresented. Some of what you have included appears to overlap a little. 10:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Apollo1986

The.eye.altering, if you are going to have the sentence in there that SAlt members 'regard themselves part of a tradition historically at the forefront of struggles against anti-Semitism', using SAlt literature to reference it, particularly when the SAlt literature referenced says that 'Socialists oppose anti-Semitism, and have always been at the forefront of struggles against it', I don't see how you can do that in a non POV manner without balancing it with the second half of the sentence I've added. Most people would see Stalin as being a socialist. You can't have it both ways. Alans1977 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not make that edit and I don't know who did. Second of all, what an absolute distortion. SA's position on the issue as published on their website is relevant to the article. Your addition is not related to SA in particular, consists of your POV of what you think a socialist is (which clearly differs radically from that of the person who wrote the article) and links to an article that has nothing to do with SA at all (except for the fact that the reason Stalin whipped up such anti-antisemitism was as a weapon against his Jewish political opponents such as Leon Trotsky). It is you who is trying to push POV here. Furthermore the statement "According to many Jews, this is a way for anti-semitic groups to voice their views without being branded as racist" is POV too, as it doesn't address SA in particular and doesn't take account of the many Jews who agree with socialist alternatives position. If you want to make these general arguments, make them somewhere else. In this article, stick to what SA has allegedly done or said.--The.eye.altering (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's directly relevant, as the passage refered to by that sentance says 'Socialists oppose anti-Semitism, and have always been at the forefront of struggles against it'. That sentance specifically brings up Socialist Alternative as being part of the socialist tradition. That sentance makes the sentance I added directly relevant. You can't have it both ways. Now the person who wrote the referenced article might have a different idea of what a socialist is, but I'm not saying anything about their idea of a socialist, it is simply irrelevant. As far as the majority of people are concerned, Stalin can be classified as a socialist. On the matter of "According to many Jews ...", I didn't add it. However again it is quite rightly there. If you want to argue that material written by Socialist Alternative should be used in a encyclopedic entry about Socialist Alternative, then any material that contradicts said referenced material is_directly_relevant. There is no two ways about it, again you can't have it both ways. Further "According to many Jews" is not the same as "According to all Jews". If you want to have an article that is entirely propaganda for Socialist Alternative, write it somewhere else, for example the Socialist Alternative website or its magazine.Alans1977 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Socialist Alternative magazine cover

Removed this image from the page, as I believe it to be a copyright violation. Being a member of an organisation does not automatically give that member the right to allow others to use that organisation's copyrighted material. Alans1977 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disparity in numbers

My utmost apologies if this has already been covered however are there any significant factors which has caused a disparity of numbers? I know that there are significantly more in New South Whales than there are in Victoria, however protests before the Iraq war may have caused this. My utmost apologies I'm just looking for an explanation in the disparity in members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.19.237 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Though large in NSW, Socialist Alternative is certainly much larger in Melbourne, where its membership is spread across three branches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.241.57 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Editorial style

At a rough count, 12 out of the article's 18 paragraphs begin with "Socialist Alternative". Obviously, that is indeed the subject matter; but that many repetitions reads quite poorly. I propose that the article be changed to show some variety, see those substitutes I included in the "Activity" section for examples. 121.209.240.44 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFD: Contracted as "SA" versus spelt out as "Socialist Alternative"

With no previous discussion listed, I'd like to advocate that the first use in each paragraph is spelt out, as it encourages better word flow and pacing, and looks less like a ticket stub. I'd prefer second uses to be spelt, but its harder there. Finally, too many sentences and paragraphs begin SA. A sentence should never begin with a contraction if we can avoid it, especially if the contraction forms a sound like "Ess Aye", it halts the reading flow. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

General warning 2009: uncited contributions

This is a general warning to people thinking of making uncited contributions that meet dubious criteria (numbers, assertions of internal positions held, oral statements by members, etc.). Not only will your contributions be reverted, but you will be warned, and action on warnings will occur. Please continue to make great contributions, that are appropriately cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the article to be generally poor on citing. But if you're specifically referring to the membership numbers, then SA is definitely second largest next to the Alliance. But the Alliance is NOT defined as a revolutionary socialist organisation. Far left organisations don't tend to regularly update and release their memberships as there's usually a lot of in- and out-flux. But for people familiar with such groupings in Australia it's relatively well-known that none have the ~250-300 active members that SA does: roughly 160 in Melbourne, 60 in Sydney, 15 in Perth, 10 in Canberra, ~20 in all other cities. DSP membership used to be around the same figure, but since their split with RSP they no longer have those kinds of numbers. -- Franz.87 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Australian left. Your qualifier sounds like a "no true Scotsman". While this article is reasonably cited, its also single-sourced and self-sourced. While an organisation rarely has any reason to lie about, for example, who the public spokesperson is, there is a cachet in claiming largeness. It demands citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you are and that's why I'm surprised you're disputing this, even though you probably know it to be a fact. If not please explain what other groupings have those kinds of numbers of active members. Cheers. -- Franz.87 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it to be a fact, its one of the reasons why I'm asking for a cite. Apart from counting issues to do with Socialist Alternative's orientation to student work and the resulting membership churn; apart from the "no true Scotsman" of "revolutionary socialist", I want something slightly better than "you know it to be true, feel it in your bones." Additionally, its not discussed in the article and shouldn't be in the lede on that basis alone. You're asking now for a devil's proof that they aren't the largest revolutionary socialist group: an unacceptable strategy in demonstrating their size. Do we count issued membership cards, attendance at meetings, cadre? If its as well known as it is, then someone will have moaned about Socialist Alternative's size on their blog, or Socialist Alternative will have made the boast in a recorded medium. And if membership size is important enough to be in the lede, then its certainly important enough to discuss in the body of the article near the student recruiting stuff. But it isn't. And none of the claims are cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An important point hasn't been covered

How are Socialist alternative funded? It seems to me to be highly important as they need a finnancial source to continue their activties. Posters, server costs and other items don't pay for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.19.237 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no mystery to this: socialist groups' members make regular donations and sell literature and campaign materials. But you won't be able to fund much referenced material, except when they run fundraising campaigns. --Duncan (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Donations? That's a strange way of putting it. Socialist Alternative say they run on donations, but to tell you the experience of someone I know who's an ex member of the group, the group says they run on donations even to its members, but if you do not pay your membership fees they actually harrass you and tell you have 'outstanding' fees (technically). The group practically REQUIRES that you pay to be a member. --Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the funding of left-wing groups in Australia is of inherent interest. Please use reliable sources only. What my mate said, or what I know from direct knowledge can't be used for wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This would be slightly more scandalous if it weren't the case that all trade unions and political parties collect membership dues. Nice try though.

They have a dues system. Members payments are determined by their income level. Its in their constitution . Not exactly cloak and dagger stuff.

References

Jewish students?

The following sentence is apparently problematic:

A member of SA from RMIT University wrote a controversial email referring to some [Jewish] students at that university as "Zionists (who) felt the need to assert their racism and fetish for genocide and mass slaughter of Arab people."

The reference provided for this section is here. The word "Jewish", indicated above, has been added and then removed 8 times (if I've counted correctly) in the last month. It would be good if this could be discussed here rather than reverting every few days. The problem with this sentence is that it's referenced by a first party source that provides very little context about what actually happened. Because of this, we must be particularly careful not to say anything that the source itself does not say. Here, the source does not say that the people referred to were Jewish, but instead refers to them as Zionists. Accordingly, the word "Jewish" should only be re-added if a source can be found to confirm that the student's referred to were in fact Jewish. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am sure SA would say that not all Zionists are Jewish, and that most Jews are not genocidal. --Duncan (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, User:60.240.241.57 has changed it to "Pro-Israel" instead. I appreciate the effort to compromise, but this is still unsourced. I do not believe we can add any adjective in that place until we have a second- or third-party source about the event to more solidly establish the facts. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source which suggests that the word Jewish is most appropriate:

"RADICAL left-wing groups at Melbourne universities are exploiting tensions in the Middle East to promote anti-Semitism and recruit members, according to Jewish student groups.

“There’s a real feeling of threat,” said Deon Kamien, Victorian president of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students.

He said Jewish students for the first time felt targeted as Jews, rather than supporters of Israel. “When they walk past socialist stalls (on campus) they feel very uncomfortable, especially when called ‘a f—ing Jew’,” Mr Kamien said."

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=380 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

That's a totally different source, referring to a general feeling across many campuses. This story actually refers to a specific set of interactions, and we have no information about the ethnicity of the participants. They could be been Jewish on boths sides, or on neither. --Duncan (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Semitism Section

Okay, it appears that there's some disagreement about the addition of the italicised part in the following sentence of this section: "They were accused of assaulting students who supported Israel during the Lebanon War, among whom included members of the Liberal Party who allegedly overturned SA campaign stalls." Can I suggest that there be some kind of consensus formed here regarding this sentence in particular and the section generally before any more changes are made? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the remark about the stall here comes from this article, which says:

"In Sydney last month, a Jewish student was pushed to the ground and others spat on. At Monash, a Young Liberal member staffing a stall supporting Israel was grabbed by the throat and threatened, while the table was kicked over."

This suggests that it was in fact a pro-Israel stall that was knocked over, although the source doesn't officially say that the culprits were SA members. Accordingly, I think the italicised part in my post above should probably be removed from the article. I'm going to remove it for the moment, but if anyone feels that this is inappropriate, please post here if you re-add the section in question. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for this [8] revert. Any comments? --Duncan (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To keep neutrality in the document I have removed the word "zionist" from the title of the "allegations of anti-semitism". Wikipedia should remain neutral and having that word adds a bias. Theradeon (talk)

Okay that explains the one word in the heading. I don't understand the revert to the rest of the article. --Duncan (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft Request for Comment

Editors on this article disagree about the inclusion of certain content. They want external opinions and have agreed to see the consensus of this discussion as binding on their edits.

[Editor 1 signature]

[Editor 2 signature]

[Editor n signature]...

Background In Australia, student unions exist at a National, State, and University level. Office holding positions are elected through complex mechanics on a yearly basis.

Content of the Request Should members of the Australian Socialist Alternative organisation who are office holders in a student union be included in this page:

1. If they hold office at the National level, in the National Union of Students
   1. As a President, General Secretary, Treasurer, Education Officer, or Vice President of NUS
   2. As any other elected Officer
2. If they hold office at the State level
   1. As a President, General Secretary, Treasurer, Education Officer, or Vice President of a state branch of NUS
   2. As any other elected Officer
3. If they hold office in a local University student association
   1. As a President, General Secretary, Treasurer, Education Officer, or Vice President
   2. As any other elected Officer

I see why you;d want to do this, because this list of 2010 student union holders is deeply not notable and poses the question of what happens in 2011. However, wikipedia is not a directory. In itself, being election to student union position may not be notable at any level. --Duncan (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest this request for comment be put forth as the "Notable Members" list seems to be self promoting rather than informative. None of them seem particularly noteworthy. However, if one holds high up positions on NUS or President/etc positions on student council or are actually of relative celebrity, then yes, they are notable. It seems they only hold notability in this article as they are known in the organisation or have used their position in the organisation for personal notoriety and self advertisement. --Theradeon (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert War

Both Alans1977 (talk · contribs) and RedUnderTheBed (talk · contribs) should probably take a step back for a moment here, both of you are very close to violating the three revert rule. What are the problems? Lets thrash it out on the talk page. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I add relevant notable material that is well referenced and remove unsubstantiated statements of facts and it gets reverted. I don't see what the problem is at all. Perhaps RedUnderTheBed (talk · contribs) could care to enlighten. Alans1977 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

if controversy over campaigning tactics is to be included it should at least be under a relevant section Marxwasright (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Alans1977 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

"The ex-members had been expelled from the ISO after a debate about how to increase membership." This is the funniest thing I've read all week. Long live the People's Front of Judea! --MQDuck (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is amusing. --Duncan (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

what the fuck is the point of this particular discussion stream exactly? Marxwasright (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

retrieving marxism from the stalinists

user: 60.240.241.57 i re-inserted differences between other left groups as the intro is meant as a summary of article's main points. the section on theory and ideology already covers sa's position on stalinism and state capitalism. i don't think one sentance in the intro about this is problematic. i agree sa aren't solely defined by other left groups but should have no shame in differentiating itself from backers of one party dictatorships, which the i.s. has been trying to do for decades, no matter how small the left is. Marxwasright (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if your claimed "differences" with other left groups amount to slander? You've learnt something from the Stalinist school yourself comrade... 220.233.11.201 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"I know very well how often you repeat that you are criticising Stalinism and fighting it. But the fact is that your criticism and your fight lose their value and can yield no results because they are determined by and subordinated to your position of defence of the Stalinist state. Whoever defends this regime of barbarous oppression, regardless of the motives, abandons the principles of socialism and internationalism." -Natalia Sedova Trotsky Marxwasright (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire article appears to have a large number of weasel words, has a distinct lack of NPOV, and the "notable members" section doesn't seem to meet the standards of COI in the slightest. Does anyone have any suggestions of what could be done about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartofunformed (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of current members

You say that an article needs to be notable to have a place, this is correct, however the article's content should be notable as well. Putting non-notable 'current members' in it is pointless and bulks the article up without reason. The current student union officials are not notable what so ever, prove to me how they are? I will continue to remove those people from the list until you can prove their actually notable. --118.138.192.123 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While article subject must be notable, article content does not have to be notable: check the policy. Red linking Biographies of Living Persons who are non-notable would be bad. Additionally, while student union leadership positions don't produce notability; the volume of student union leadership controlled by a student union faction is an important topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No discussion before the last edit, edit summary the same justification given above. Going to WP:AN/I. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socialist_Alternative_.28Australia.29_and_IP_conduct_in_relation_to_the_inclusion_of_office_holders_in_Student_Unions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will leave this up to the admins to decide, but it seems that other people agree with me on this, (ie. steve) I do not wish to go against the rules of Wikipedia, I just wish to have articles contain only appropriate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.192.123 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's an opinion forthcoming from Administrators Noticeboard that's firm on the content stuff, I'd be happy with that. However, if that doesn't solve the content issue, perhaps we can call for a Request for Comment process from uninvolved editors on the issue that we'd all agree to abide by, and seed the process with clear opinions and options? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I'm now using this account. I'm unsure how to call for a request for comment, but I believe that would be a good idea. I honestly do not think that the student union members (except for the NUS members) should be listed. --Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. First we should craft an RFC question. Then we'll lodge a Request for Comments through the labyrinthine wiki system. Hows the following (feel free to edit it): Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Weiniger appears to have written only one article for On Line Opinion, (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5694), and their website lists some 1,000 authors (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp). If he is notable, it seems unlikely that it is for this one article. Cause for revision? --Dnasin (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems the wikipedia article's misrepresenting Weiniger's involvement in the publication, so sounds like a good revision. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Google searches for "Fleur Taylor" + "Refugee Action Collective" return no relevant results past 2005. The most recent reference to her in an organisational capacity appears to be from late 2004. This seems misleading. Cause for revision? Dnasin (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

re: patrick weiniger; true, weiniger has only 1 published article on online opinion but note the 16 comments relating to his controversial article, the numerous letters to the sa editor about the same article, and also note the letters in one of the same sa editions about another controversial weiniger article: The problem with conspiracy theories and the ongoing controversy around that article. Marxwasright (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally speaking it seems like some of the 'Notable Members' are only mentioned in places such as Socialist Alternative and Wikipedia entries. I'd request this part of the article be revised and the actual notability of the members shown from 3rd party sites. Just because SA seems them as notable does not mean they are. Seems like shameless self promotion to me, regardless if its for a good cause or not. Theradeon (talk)

Tom Bramble, Tom O'Lincoln, Azlan Mclennan, Ezekiel Ox, Marc Newman, Alistair Hulett and Sandra Bloodworth - These names seem to be the only really notable members/ex-members. Being an activist does not make you notable for wikipedia. --Theradeon (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NLIST. The two criteria for each name in the list are sufficient notability that you would otherwise mention them in the article text if the list didn't exist, and verification of their membership of Socialist Alternative, via references in reliable sources. This is a slightly lesser criteria than the general notability guideline for either politicians or creative professionals (eg. journalists), but it is just as important.

You could argue the first criteria either way for most people in the list, but the second one is pretty black and white. Most of the names in the list are unreferenced. Even if you know the person personally, you can't add their name here without a reliable source verifying their membership of the organisation. Absent this, the unreferenced names should be removed. Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would argue the first criteria (sufficient notability to be mentioned in the article without the list) would lean against most names in the 2011 Student Union Office Bearer list in particular. For example - as it stands now Rebecca Hynek is listed twice and yet a Google News (and Google News Archive) search for "Rebecca Hynek" doesn't match any documents. Can her notability be indicated in any reliable thrid party source? Australian Matt (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the above and WP:NLIST, I have removed those names from the list that are completely unreferenced and for whom no claim of notability has been made. There is also a WP:BLP argument here - "material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." Going forward, it would be great if people referenced any names they wanted to add, rather than just posting them and not returning.

A number of the remaining names also stretch any notability definition and are referenced from sources that wouldn't meet WP:RS. But that's a separate discussion - for fringe political groups reliable sources can be a challenge and the notability criteria for in-article lists are somewhat less than for article topics.

As always, comments and criticisms welcomed as part of the ongoing discussion on this page. Euryalus (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I'm having trouble seeing why we need lists of current office bearers at all (referenced or not).  -- Lear's Fool 12:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Me either. I'd also add that this reference for Patrick Langosch being an SA member doesn't mention Socialit Alternative at all. Can anyone find an alternative reference? if not we are back in the BLP and NLIST territory mentioned above. Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Length of article

Does anyone fee that this article is too long? It is longer the sites on Bolshevism, Trotskyism and almost as long as the site for the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. When the long lists of ALP and Greens notable members are subtracted the pages for these mainstream mass membership political parties is only slightly larger than that of Socialist Alternative. Surely, such a small organisation so lacking in popular influence deserves much less space? honestly, most of this content does not meet any requirement of notability, the history of factional divisions, philosophies of party building, etc are, to be frank, quite irrelevant. A brief and accurate summary could be accomplished in a few hundred words, and this would accurately reflect the place Socialist Alternative occupies in the wider world

Yes, I do think the article is too long, but you'll need to show why sections of the article aren't worthy of inclusion in and of themselves, instead of comparing it to other articles. Australian Matt (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jade Eckhaus

As Australian Matt and I have pointed out, the source cited does not say that Eckhaus is a member of Socialist Alternative. While further discussion would be fine, repeated addition of this unreferenced, controversial material about a living person will almost certainly lead to either blocks or the page being protected.  -- Lear's Fool 04:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition of members

The addition of a number of members is inappropriate. Not only is it unnecessary to add non-notable individuals such as student union office-bearers, per WP:BLP, we require reliable sources for their membership of SA. Simply having written for SA publications does not establish membership (current or otherwise).  -- Lear's Fool 14:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Trade unionism in australia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Trade unionism in australia.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

israeli working class

i removed the following section mainly because it is out of place in the "Palestine solidarity" sub-section of "campaign activity". it would be more appropriate in somewhere such as "Theoretical origins" section. it was also not sourced:

"SAlt considers the Israeli working class incapable of opposing their governments treatment of Palestinians, comparing Israelis to poor white Southerners in the US and arguing that they have a stake in the persistance of racism that cannot be overcome through class-based struggle."

Marxwasright (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

2015 extreme lack of WP:NPOV and WP:RS

Papers published by political parties do not appear to meet WP:V or WP:NPOV. This article appears to have next to no WP:3PARTY, WP:RS or WP:NPOV sources, and an abundance of first party sources and OR. I'll likely start to clean the page up and remove a lot of this over the next few days- if anyone else has suggestions of where to find reliable sources that meet the criteria, that would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal amalthea (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist Alternative (Australia). 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 https://web.archive.org/20100521051144/http://www.sa.org.au:80/where-we-stand/140-todays-debates to http://www.sa.org.au/where-we-stand/140-todays-debates

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 12:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist Alternative (Australia). 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/20121113071310/http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200203/s516688.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200203/s516688.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Socialist Alternative (Australia). 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/20100913023538/http://www.marxistleftreview.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=27 to http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061424/http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w36/msg00025.html to http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w36/msg00025.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205152606/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au:80/news/news-2/3382-only-way-to-get-rid-of-us-is-to-introduce-marriage-equality-rally-goers-say.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/news-2/3382-only-way-to-get-rid-of-us-is-to-introduce-marriage-equality-rally-goers-say.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107121802/http://www.vexnews.com:80/news/3682/left-on-left-violence-arab-militant-student-radical-fined-by-socialist-left-comrades-for-neglecting-his-job/ to http://www.vexnews.com/news/3682/left-on-left-violence-arab-militant-student-radical-fined-by-socialist-left-comrades-for-neglecting-his-job/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722104509/http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=921 to http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=921
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418203601/http://www.counterpunch.org/kuhn09212006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/kuhn09212006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004220133/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/89/br_13.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/89/br_13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706113415/http://www.vulgar.com.au/united.html to http://www.vulgar.com.au/united.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911083604/http://www.marxistleftreview.org:80/ to http://marxistleftreview.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911083604/http://www.marxistleftreview.org:80/ to http://marxistleftreview.org/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.studentsforpalestine.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521052234/http://www.sa.org.au:80/in-depth/171-from-little-things-big-things-grow to http://www.sa.org.au/in-depth/171-from-little-things-big-things-grow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Socialist Alternative (Australia). 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/20120307183337/http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/6418/Here-she-is-your-Absolut-choice.htm to http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/6418/Here-she-is-your-Absolut-choice.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202035417/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/national/3441-most-influential-melburnians-ali-carl-and-sally.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/national/3441-most-influential-melburnians-ali-carl-and-sally.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050724084930/http://www.vulgar.com.au/renton.html to http://www.vulgar.com.au/renton.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marxistleftreview.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.studentsforpalestine.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sa.org.au/in-depth/171-from-little-things-big-things-grow
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216201842/http://redsites.alphalink.com.au/marching.rtf to http://redsites.alphalink.com.au/marching.rtf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist Alternative (Australia). 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/20140116181651/https://www.greenleft.org.au/events/47404 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/events/47404

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Recentism issue

I've noticed the page has a lot of WP:RECENTISM issues. The history section of the party stops at 2006, and a majority of the content in other sections is about events from 2004-2011. A lot of the organisations that the article states they disagree with simply do not exist anymore. The page is also insanely long, including very specific interpretations of issues by the party's members rather than the party's views themselves. Does opposing the Liberal and Labor party really need to be included in nearly every section? I'm adding cleanup tags to the top of the page and will attempt to fix issues with the page. Catiline52 (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Number of times Socialist Alternative magazine is reference

Does anyone else find it problematic that this article references the Socialist Alternative magazine 34 times to back up statements of fact about Socialist Alternative? Alans1977 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When I have the time I'll remove non-independent sources - but it'll take some time and patience. Australian Matt (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And by all means if anyone else is keen - go for it! Australian Matt (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the only publication in which an organisation puts out its positions be referenced in an article dealing with the politics of said organisation? Most of these links to the magazine are citations for claims made by Socialist Alternative - not AUJS or the Labor students, but Socialist Alternative. Many back up direct quotations. No where else will you find references for SA's work as one of the main forces behind the Equal Love campaign, nor are you likely to find information about the group's union activity in a non-SA source. The reason is simple - small far left organisations are limited in their influence and therefore receive very little media exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.241.57 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong if quotations are putting forth the opinions of the organisation when that is made plain that is what it is, the political stance taken by an political organisation. However a lot of the references to the Socialist Alternative magazine in this article are put in to back up statements of fact. So what we have happening is statements of fact favourable to Socialist Alternative's political position for which Socialist Alternative is the author of the references given for those statements. So if I write something saying I'm a nice guy and make that writing publicaly available, it's reliable evidence of me being a nice guy (rather than it being evidence of my opinion of myself)? Any such referencing would ensure a fail in any university essay. Alans1977 (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the self-published sources are still a concern - are there any responses to the note above from Alans1977? Australian Matt (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is big problems with this article, and I think the self referencing is just scratching the surface. I found claims that were not backed up in the citations, including claims that would've likely been made by people familiar with or close to the organisation. This reeks of self-publishing even beyond the scope of what can be referenced on their own websites.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative student club being deregistered by Monash University Student Union

@All that is solid melts into air and @144.6.64.97. Please discuss here any changes to material concerning Socialist Alternative being deregistered from Monash University Student Union as a club. Please refrain from introducing biased, unreliable sources. AlanS^talk 06:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have started a discussion of this at the NPOV noticeboard AlanS^talk 07:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Flag (newspaper)

I've started a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether the Red Flag newspaper is a reliable source for this article or at all. AlanS^talk 10:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative citations

It appears as though every citation which is to the Socialist Alternative website is broken. This is why so many Socialist Alternative sources shouldn't have been used in the first place. AlanS^talk 07:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Victorian Socialists

@All that is solid melts into air, you need to discuss the changes you are making here please. AlanS^talk 06:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Socialist Alliance statement you have cited is not a reliable source for any facts about the make up of Victorian Socialists. It is a ridiculous claim to suggest that VS is made up "almost entirely of Socialist Alternative members". How more NPOV could you get!

You appear to be obsessed with pursuing some kind of agenda given your consistent bias towards uncritically referencing material that appears critical of this group, while ignoring or attempting to downplay anything that appears to favour them even when it appears in sources you yourself have cited. I advise you take a step back and calm down. I note that your attempts at finding other editors to back up your campaign have failed. I'm relatively new here, but I'm surprised that someone who has supposedly been on Wikipedia for so long could be so unbalanced. All that is solid melts into air (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please keep things civil and don't make accusations. Now for starters how do you propose that Socialist Alliance is any less reliable that Socialist Alternative given that they were part of Victorian Socialists? Why do you expect that citations from them should be removed while citations from Socialist Alternative remain? You need to address the content. AlanS^talk 13:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You have raised so much fuss about this article using sources from Red Flag and the Socialist Alternative website, despite the fact that those sources have been used fairly uncontroversially to inform about the organisation in a neutral manner, yet you think a press release from a political group which is openly hostile to the group being discussed should be considered a reliable source for a statement of fact such as "Victorian Socialists is mostly made up of Socialist Alternative members".

There is a clear difference between the two things:

1) an organisation's own publications being used as evidence for their own political positions and for their involvement in campaigns which nobody in their right mind would question as being fabricated.

2) the publications of an opposing organisation being used as evidence for a statement of fact that is contradicted by more reliable sources such as the ones I added about the number of VS volunteers

It would be like citing a Labor Party source as evidence of an opposing force being made up of "socialist student radicals" alone. It's classic red-baiting, maybe you should try reading up on that. All that is solid melts into air (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Addressing your points:

1) I'm not using their article to address their political positions. I'm using their article to address that they left Victorian Socialists.

2) Again, refer to 1. Also I'd like to add, why are sources from VS more reliable than any other socialist sources that have direct involvement? My source references that Socialist Alliance left Victorian Socialist which is notable. The source you try and replace it with is not a notable source in the context.

Ps, I would suggest you not leave statements like "It's classic red-baiting" when discussing content with others. AlanS^talk 13:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)