Talk:Fourth International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleFourth International is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 22, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 29, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
June 19, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

VANDALISM[edit]

Can somebody please remove the "funny" part (obviously vandalism) from the beginning of the article, since I don't know how to do it? (When I click "edit this page" to remove it, it doesn't appear there) 89.205.18.166 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that was quick. The funny quote isn't there anymore. Thanks. 89.205.18.166 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Fourth International (1963)[edit]

We've hand an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fourth International (1963). Until recently this page has been reunified Fourth International. The feeling of other editors was that Fourth International (1963) was a better name. However, this could be POV by suggesting that the International was created in 1963. These is agreement that the FI/USFI is the organisational/legal continuity of the FI of 1938 (but not necessarily its political continuity). Thus we need to balance two difficulties: maintain separate pages is, in some way, and anit-FI POV. But merging the pages would require some. We keep on coming back to this proposal and, while it may not please everyone, I think it's the only way to prevent this issue reappearing. Please vote for or against (or, maybe?). --Duncan (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For. As long as it's heavily stressed that there are other organizations claiming to be the FI (the Lambertists do, but as the "reproclaimed" FI), and that other organizations claim that while they are not the organizational continuity of the FI they are its political continuity (assorted "anti-Pabloite" tendencies), it isn't any less POV than calling it 'Fourth International (1963)' or 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)'. For disclosure I should mention that I am an informal supporter of the FI, but have taken the NPOV question very seriously with this matter. Cadriel (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against. On considering Warofdreams's points, I really think we need to put this under the title 'Fourth International (United Secretariat).' There is no NPOV title because there is no neutral way to refer to the organization. Anyone, including those intentionally taking a non-hostile approach to the FI, refer to it by the United Secretariat when they need to be clear. Cadriel (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against - as Duncan says, the (US)FI is often recognised as being the organisational continuity of the FI, but this and in particular its political continuity is disputed by other groups. When we looked for examples of mainstream usage a couple of years ago, I found "a general pattern, (1) of pretty poor research and general confusion as to the nature of the FI, and (2) of identification of the continuation of the FI as lying in various places, typically including but not restricted to the USFI." I'd want to see evidence that this has changed, otherwise the more neutral presentation is to keep the status quo, with this article on the FI, including a discussion of views on its continuation or otherwise, and have seperate articles on the organisations which claims to be its continuation or revival, or to represent its heritage. Warofdreams talk 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warofdreams, honest question...how do you think is the most NPOV way to present the FI that was formed when the US SWP and several Latin American sections of the ICFI reunited with the sections that had stayed with the ISFI in 1963? Duncan has claimed that it's anti-FI POV to use 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)' or 'Fourth International (1963)' for this, so we're having trouble reaching consensus on what to call the article if it's left out of 'Fourth International'. Cadriel (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (US)FI dislikes any attempt to differentiate it from the FI founded in 1938, so there won't be any way of disambiguating which they would regard as neutral. This isn't an argument for merging, as the (US)FI's opinion is only one; it is shared by more people than the claims of other groups to be "the" FI, but it is also disputed, by members of other groups which claim to be the FI, by people who don't recognise any group as being the continuation of the FI, and by many mainstream sources which state there are several FIs. If we accept the desirability of an approach which allows that the identification of the two groups as identical is disputed, then we have to disambiguate, and we should use the most widely recognised term. I suggest that Fourth International (United Secretariat) would be ideal, as it makes it clear that the group's official name is the "Fourth International", but also make clear which group is being referred to. I'm less keen on United Secretariat of the Fourth International - a possibility, but it suggests that the whole title is the group's official name, or on Fourth International (1963) - only a small number of people who recognise it as the "Fourth International" would agree that it was founded in 1963. Warofdreams talk 14:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, was happy with reunified Fourth International, since that basically segments the history of the FI into pre- and post-reunification of the factions. But the current version, which says the FI was founded in 1963, is anti-FI POV. Of course it was not only the American sections of the IC which back back in: the Indian, Swiss, Japanese... all of them other than the SLL and OCI. --Duncan (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very keen on reunified Fourth International, as nobody really ever called the group that, but it does make it fairly clear which group is being referred to. Warofdreams talk 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For: only the 'USFI' claims to be the organisational continuation of the FI formed in 1938. The other Trotskyist internationals - Posadists, Lambertists, Healyites - would say they have refounded/reproclaimed the FI due to what they see as the political degeneration of the 'USFI'.Haldraper (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For. Because we can't find an NPOV name for the article about current FI, we have to merge them. --Duncan (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this argument. If we agree that the articles should remain separate (and I'm not sure that we do), then the question of how they should be named is secondary. For example - the group which split from the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1989 believes that referring to it by any name other than that of the SPGB is incorrect, but the approach taken was to create a separate article on them from that on the SPGB, then decide how best to name it; eventually, Socialist Studies (1989) was settled on. Warofdreams talk 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Warofdreams, but you need to come up with a name that isn't regarded as POV by either supporters of the (US)FI or other Trotskyist internationals. I don't think you'll be able to hence the need to merge.Haldraper (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of silly that we can't even discuss the group without reference to the United Secretariat, yet it would be a major offense to call the article in question 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)'. There is no NPOV resolution to this question, as the proposed merge would be pro-FI POV and 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)' is anti-FI POV. Usage has to be paramount, and the fact is that people refer (although now incorrectly) to the international in question as the "United Secretariat" in order to disambiguate it in almost every case I've ever seen of a discussion of Trotskyist internationals. This is because it's historically rooted in the faction split between the ISFI and ICFI in 1953, and is a clear and unambiguous reference that, unfortunately, some FI supporters find objectionable. If some action has to be made, I stand on 'Fourth International (United Secretariat)'. Cadriel (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so there's no consensus on merging in the article. So that means we need to move the 'USFI' article back to it original title of reunified Fourth International until we get consensus on some change. --Duncan (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The imagery of "4"[edit]

In many Soviet and Chinese propaganda videos and songs, a "4"-shaped symbol is seen. It's supposed to be the silhouette of a spike bayonet attacked to a Mosin Nagant rifle. Is this in any way related? Example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.50.236 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. RolandR (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Inaccuracy about Lutte Ouvriere's position[edit]

The article states that Lutte Ouvriere claims that the Fourth International "failed to oppose the second world war". The article linked does not say this, it says that the Fourth International did not survive WWII, but that its programme did. (If you wanted to translate the verb "resister" here with "to resist" it would be in the sense of passively resisting a fatal illness. (I am French and I have a friend in LO.)) There is also some confusion in the numbering of the link: link number 71 (instead of 72) is the intended link, there seems to be an offset because the next link (73) should be 72. I would have edited the article if I was allowed. Could someone with the privileges please correct this, in my opinion it is a serious misrepresentation of Lutte Ouvriere's position.

Sipaliwini (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This was a serious mistranslation. I have corrected it. The link is correctly numbered: they are autonumbered. But if a reference is already cited, then the template uses the same number. Not to worry. --Duncan (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

III and IV International[edit]

There is a great mistake on the last paragraph of the introduction: when it says tha the "Fourth International tried to eclipse the cominterm by organically building itself into something superior in size and scope". It is contradictory with all the information on the article about the Left Oposition and the reasons that made Trotsky decided to be in favor of the constrution of the IV International. It is not correct to say that the IV intended to eclipse the cominterm (or something like that). The Cominterm was dissolved in 1943, five years after the IV International fundation. I think it is correct to delet that paragraph. From brazil --Eduardoalbergaria (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was whack, it's been redacted. Also cleaned up this page. Think something should be said about just how fractious the remnants are such as in this this recent example where a convention of anti-capitalist groups are accused of supporting capitalism. The common thread is the attribution of motives and intentions to a cartoonish degree with common trope and implicit theme that only they are legitimate leadership of the working class. Don't want to step in anything here though so limiting myself to this comment and the response to this thread. Lycurgus (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material deleted from the talk page should surely be archived. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was archived, can't you see at the top of the page? Lycurgus (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought that was an old archive. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no unified Fourth International, the article implicitly claiming that there is by its title is a distortion, something should be done about that but perhaps the action called for by this thread is all that can be done at this time. Lycurgus (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the comment by Lycurgus. If he has some references to suugest that the reunification did not happen in 1963, or that the reunified organisation no longer exists, then he should bring those to the talk page. --Duncan (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current text of the last ¶ of the lede explains it Duncan. It was composed by others, I only made a slight editorial change of a flagged sentence. In short, the various Marxist/Trotskyite organizations by virtue of not being up intellectually to the task confronting them, tend to function like cult groups with various readings of the works of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. as their scripture. As such each see's itself, whether they say so or not, as a privileged guardian of The Truth. This fractious tendency was present in the socialist movement from the start but in the present time when the potential for world revolution is exponentially greater, it too is much greater which is why there is no cohesive IVth and why the current lede properly refers to it in the past tense, in spite of the superficial efforts of the various conventioneers to deny same. The failure is the intellectual failure of these groups to bring something like a scientific socialism forward to the twenty first century a severe strategic shortcoming which might have been overcome tactically if these groups did not have the character they do. Lycurgus (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in question[edit]

As with many articles read mostly by partisans of a specific ideological point of view, this article fails to sustain the neutral tone that Wikipedia seeks to attain. The following sentence, which employs loaded words such as "hounded" and "repressed," is a case in point: "Throughout the better part of its existence, the Fourth International was hounded by agents of the Soviet secret police, repressed by capitalist countries such as France and the United States and rejected by followers of the Soviet Union and later Maoism as illegitimate—a position these communists still hold today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.9.138 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. The verbs "hounded" and "repressed" could be replaced with "countered". The rest of these sentences I would keep as-is, because the sentences overall are just stating the facts. NPOV doesn't mean writing in a way that avoids stating reality. But those verbs could change. Karmanatory (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV in wikipedia means sourcing content from neutral source, preferably from academic one. If a well researched paper/book by well regarded historian used the words hounded, repressed or persecuted, then that is fine. On the other hand, if one can't find any good reference, the content should be removed irrespective of its truth, reality or fact. It is just notable enough. Including non notable content simply for soapboxing or advocacy is not neutral.Vapour (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fourth International. 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:

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) 09:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth International. 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:

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) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourth International. 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:

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) 06:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourth International. 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:

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) 16:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

Sometimes things "creep in" so can someone look at the 9 links in the "Further reading" section for integration or trimming? Otr500 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I know that a merge with Fourth International (post-reunification) has been discussed before. But, I think what past discussions have failed to take into account is the Fourth International split into two groups that reunited in 1963. The other so-called "Fourth Internationals" that dispute this group's legitimacy are splinter groups who's claims are nothing more than opinions. The fact that there are not separate articles in the majority of the other Wikipedias is further testament of this. Charles Essie (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is more than a matter of opinion; your opinion are that the other groups are "splinter groups" and one is not, but there are other opinions (some other groups have claimed to be the Fourth International, many do not accept the post-63 group as the Fourth International. The clearest approach is to discuss the groups in two separate articles and briefly discuss the claims to continuity in each, as we have at present. Warofdreams talk 14:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real question is whether or not they're the same organization. If they're not than maybe Fourth International (post-reunification) should be moved to Fourth International (USFI). If they are, than this should be made more clear if they're to remain separate articles. Charles Essie (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

troubled by both density & length[edit]

Having scanned this for the first time, here's problems I immediately see — there are likely more.

  • The opening paragraphs are sort of an infodump of "concepts that will become important later in the course" rather than summarizing what follows.
  • The writing in the lede is overall mind-boggling. Use short phrases, and give "the average WP user" a chance at grasping the core purpose of the article in, say, one read of sixty seconds or less.
  • The end of the opening paragraph seems to be saying "there was more than one FI." Needs rephrasing for clarity.
  • Speaking of which, DO NOT use icky-precious "insider" terms like FI except in explicit quotations and in explanation of such usage. Spell all crap out, literally.
  • Effort should be made to keep the reader aware that an international is the organization, not the meeting that founded it. Elsewhere, I have seen authors use the two meanings interchangeably, to great confusion.
  • Seeing as Leon Trotsky and Trotskyism are already happily bloated, there is no good reason whatever to spend time blowing more kisses here; e.g., there's NO NEED to rehash Trotsky's exile & murder except as it SPECIFICALLY affected the structure or organization or mission of the Fourth International.
  • The page spends so much time setting up the background that the meat of the text about (duh) the Fourth International doesn't begin until fully TWO-THIRDS of the way through. It seems like the punchline to a long-winded joke rather than the focus of an encyclopedic article.

For starters.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preceded by Third International?[edit]

Usually in wikipedia articles about political organizationss, "Preceded by..." is used when an organization can be considered the "heir" or the continuation of another, even if is not the formal sucessor (in these sense, Cominform was "preceded by" Third International, or the Socialist International was preceded by Labour and Socialist International, and the LSI by the Second International); but the Fourth International was a different thing - a split from the Third (and a split that occured when the Third was still in existence, unlike, for example, the Third who was created after the Second disbandend).--MiguelMadeira (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful for the infobox, and the text explains the situation in detail. The organisation saw itself as the heir to the Comintern, even though that was still in existence - obviously the Comintern didn't have the same view! Warofdreams talk 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA sweeps[edit]

The article has several issues with the FA criteria, including lack of citations for material (inline references, at least one at the end of each paragraph, are required for FAs). Another issue is that many of the sources are of dubious reliability and/or written from a Trotskyist and/or Marxist perspective. While WP:BIASED sources are not inherently unreliable, it raises questions about WP:NPOV. Independent scholarship that may be helpful in improving reference quality:[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Alexander, Robert Jackson (1991). International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1066-2.
  2. ^ Luparello, Velia Sabrina (2018). "The Fourth International and the Debate on the National Question in Europe (1941–1946)". Critique. 46 (2): 241–257. doi:10.1080/03017605.2018.1456623.
  3. ^ Getty, J. Arch (1986). "Trotsky in exile: The founding of the fourth international". Soviet Studies. 38 (1): 24–35. doi:10.1080/09668138608411620.

(t · c) buidhe 23:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a section listed all the parties that were members by Country?[edit]

That's one of the main things I tend to expect form Wiki Pages for Internationals? KuudereKun 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth_International&oldid=1207281149"