Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Socialist Alternative (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 morte thing. Saying that SA have labelled 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)