Talk:International Socialist Alternative

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Socialist Alternative article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ideas[edit]

The article goes into painstaking detail about the events leading up to the CWI split. But it says very little about the ideological basis of the split. It would be good to add some explanation of the key ideas of the ISA and how they differ from other organisations. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you stopped trying to use Wikipedia to promote websites of a group you appear to belong to and stopped using POV descriptions. And no, I'm not affiliated to the ISA, however if you are a member of either organization you may be in violation of WP:COI. Sowny (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more encyclopaedic content[edit]

I think someone should put in the intro a reference to publications and campaigns, historical relevance (e.g. the Repeal campaign in Ireland, elected reps), more factual content. an encyclopaedia article that just describes the split is a bit unbalanced & not very encyclopaedic. 203.59.114.107 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]