Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)

Sam Wainwright

Wainright is no longer a member of the Council of Fremantle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeezylord18 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Second councillor in Merri-bek (ex-Moreland) Council

Updated the page to reflect Monica Harte's election on countback to replace disgraced ALP councillor Milad el-Halabi after he was forced to resign due to being charged with vote tampering. Ref: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/second-socialist-elected-moreland-after-labor-property-developer-steps-down

I note the totals in the sidebar are current but the section listing current councillors was not. Khardankov (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement on ideology - needing input

Hi folks, @Helper201 and I are having a disagreement. See our discussion so far here:[[1]]

Helper201 has removed Marxism from under 'ideology' in the infobox, arguing that Marxism's article does not explicitly define Marxism as an ideology.

I argue that Marxism is an ideology in this context and that the article not giving Marxism as a political ideology is not reason to reject Marxism as a political ideology per Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The original article gave two sources for this claim. and I have provided three more which purport Marxism to be an ideology:[2], [3] & the Oxford Handbook of Political Ideology (pg. 62)

Helper201 has not given a source for rejecting it as an ideology and has stated that "There's likely good reason if users are objecting to it being labelled an ideology."

References

FropFrop (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop, can you provide better sources than those from Socialist Alliance, liberationschool.org and

WP:BRITANNICA, preferably academic secondary sources. Socialist Alliance and liberationschool.org are primary sources, whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica is a tertiary source. While there is nothing wrong with some use of both types of sources (if reliable), in different contexts, there is no agreement on Encyclopaedia Britannica's reliability (refer to the wikilink for that source) and for claims about ideologies/political positions I think we should generally favour academic secondary sources where the authors are subject matter experts. I disagree with @Helper201's claim that it needs to be referred to as an ideology in the Marxism article as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, however I do think you need to provide sufficient sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources from Socialist Alliance were to prove that Marxism is a core component of their ideology. While a secondary source that describes the ideology of Socialist Alliance would be nice, I don't expect such a thing to exist as they are a fairly minor party. In any case, considering that it is just to prove the descriptive statement that Marxism is a part of their ideology, I think these primary sources are acceptable in this context (WP:PRIMARYCARE).

If the primary sources were instead used to describe what Marxism is, then yes, I'd agree that it would be best to steer clear. The three sources I provided were to just to show that Marxism is considered an ideology and are not, imo, what should be used as sources for the claim that Marxism is a part of Socialist Alliance's ideology.

FropFrop (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the contention that Helper201 raised was to whether Marxism was a core component of Socialist Alliance's ideology. From my reading of things the contention that they raised was whether Marxism is an ideology. Presuming my reading is correct then sources from Socialist Alliance and liberationschool.org are not going to be reliable on that question, they're only going to be reliable for what those organisations believe about themselves. That only leaves one source that you've provided which is WP:BRITANNICA and there is no consensus on the reliability of Encyclopaedia Britannica. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I also provided the Oxford Handbook of Political Ideology. Is that source acceptable?

If someone considers themself a particular -ism, I think it is unreasonable to dispute the fact that the -ism exists. Hence why I'd argue that the sources are valid for this context. I wouldn't ask a self described liberal for a source on whether or not liberalism is an ideology, for example. FropFrop (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop, looking at the chapter list of Oxford Handbook of Political Ideoloty, Marxism isn't listed under the Ideological Families and Tradition section. There is a chapter chapter in the History of Ideology and of Ideological Studies section named Marxism and Ideology: From Marx to Althusser. However that chapter from my brief reading is not about whether Marxism is an ideology, but an account of ideology found in the writings of Marx. I think you'd be better of using Socialism then Marxism. TarnishedPath^talk 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Have a look at page 62, it gives/describes Marxism as an ideology.

In any case, what do you think is invalid about accepting a standard definition of ideology? Also, why require a third party as a source for whether or not ideologies exist when it is a simple descriptor (which makes it fair to do imo, as well as according to WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYCARE)? FropFrop (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The elements intrinsic to total ideologies, aimed at the creation of a new order, were also to be found in the principal anti-nationalist and internationalist ideology, namely Marxism. Seems adequate to me.

As to your question about WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYCARE, from WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I don't really think calling Marxism a ideology is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact; particularly given Marx and Engles negative view of ideology. Just because something has -ism on the end it is not a given that it's an ideology and the presumption that it is would be original research. So yes having a secondary of tertiary source, I would think, be good if we're going to try and build consensus on whether we can describe Marxism as an ideology in the article when there have been other editors who have disagreed.

In any case I would be supportive of using that source, along with a primary source form Socialist Alliance to show that's how they describe themselves.

@Helper201 thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 04:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taking place at Talk:Marxism. Given that Marxism is debatable as to whether it can specifically be called an ideology, I think it would be better just kept to the main text of this article rather than the infobox, unless or until there is a consensus on the aforementioned talk page that Marxism is an ideology. I'm honestly not in the mental head space to get bogged down in the finer points about this and that is likely where my stance is to start and end on this matter. Helper201 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what happens at Talk:Marxism is of no great weight to here as what happens there is only WP:CONLEVEL to there. We're able to decide on this ourselves. Given the sourcing I don't see why this should be an issue. TarnishedPath^talk 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Its of importance because my objection is not specifically having Marxism in the infobox of this party but the general concept of having it placed in the ideology section of infoboxes, so it’s better to have a broader and wider consensus rather than the limited scope of what is taking place here. Helper201 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The breadth of discussion there is also likely to be narrow. Again WP:CONLEVEL at another article does not determine what happens everywhere else. TarnishedPath^talk 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 Please explain what your objection to giving Marxism as an ideology that is not invalid per one of the cited guidelines. It is not good enough to go 'no consensus' when you give only invalid/irrelevant reasons to object to its inclusion. FropFrop (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've given my reasons which I think are fair. You can always open an RFC if you want to find a consensus. Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's effectively what this thread is but I'll make another thread in good faith. FropFrop (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 that WP:LOCALCON at another article does not describe it as an ideology is not a valid policy reason for your reversion. WP:RS from an academic book in which the author is a subject matter expert of politics has been presented to demonstrate that it has been described as an ideology. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology? FropFrop (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes and yes.

@Helper201 has been removing Marxism from Socialist Alliance (Australia) article's infobox because it is not explicitly described as an ideology in Marxism.

Imo, this is a poor argument as the lack of this explicit description is not evidence that it is not an ideology, nor is the potential decision at Talk:Marxism to not describe it as an ideology a reason to not do so here (per WP: CONLEVEL).

Additionally, sources have been provided that show that Marxism is considered an ideology and that Socialist Alliance hold Marxism to be important to their perspective. The source showing that Marxism is considered an ideology (and that has not been disputed) is the 'Oxford Handbook of Political Ideology' (pg. 62), which states The elements intrinsic to total ideologies, aimed at the creation of a new order, were also to be found in the principal anti-nationalist and internationalist ideology, namely Marxism. See the prior topic thread for the primary and disputed sources.

A third point is that if Marxism needs to be defined as an ideology in its own page for it to be referred to as such in other articles, then taking a look at Ideology and List of political ideologies shows that Marxism is an ideology. The argument given by Helper201 is invalid per WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I am including this argument to show that even if we ignore WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source the argument falls short.

• The former as it states that An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic, thus - as Marxism describes itself as a political philosophy - Marxism is also an ideology.
• The latter includes Marxism in the list of political ideologies.

FropFrop (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I think the RfC question is a little bit more complicated then it needs to be and only needs to ask whether we should describe Socialist Alliance's ideology as Marxism. Any discussion on whether Marxism is an ideology can happen as part of arguments for and against. Per references which were used to support calling the organisation's ideology Marxism it is clear that there are two articles published by the organisation in which it is clear they describe themselves as such and a third references published by Oxford University Press where the author (Emilio Gentile) is a subject matter expert in ideology. The chaprter by Gentile clearly describes Marxism an ideology. This is clearly sufficient referencing for us to describe the ideology of the organisation as Marxism. TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References