This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the origin of this use of "international"? I almost expected it to be French, and hence italicized. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
We should do some sort of objective ordering, by either age, alphabetically, or by total membership. There is no reason for the Libertarians to be first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.62.19 ( talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Everything in this article appears to be original research, from the definition in the lead, where the given source never once uses the term political international in 54 pages, to the other two references, which never mention it either, to the long list of organizations which supposedly are examples of political internationals, only they are not sourced (less one solitary example, self-sourced to their official website—which never uses the term), and following a sampling of a dozen of those linked organizations to the articles about them on Wikipedia, those articles never use the term political international, either. If there even is a notable topic here at all, it doesn't appear to be called political international (a Scholar search turns up only false positives, i.e., coincidental colocations having other meanings). Possibly an article could be written about loose transnational networks of political parties mostly on the left, but it would need a neutral, descriptive title and not one that suggests a term in use that does not exist.
The possible paths forward I see for this article are:
Based on initial searching, I think #1 is unlikely. This article may have been translated from French or some other language where the term makes sense, although none of the three sources in this article seems to support that idea. It exists in 18 languages, and of the sampling I checked, the Ukrainian one is the oldest, going back to this version from 2004, where it is called just uk:Інтернаціонал (lit. 'International'), and defines it as "international associations and communist movements, as well as the proletarian anthem" and as having been created by Karl Marx in 1864 for the first "international society of workers". This topic is covered in our article, International Workingmen's Association and is also known as the First International. Then there was a Second International (1889), Third (1919), Fourth (1938); and apparently, repeated calls for a Fifth (1938–2008). All of them relate to socialist/communist/workers' parties and not to other party groupings such as conservative or Islamist groups, so this lends some support to #2, if we want to go that route and if an article on that topic doesn't already exist. In that case, we'd have to determine what the relationship is between that article and Transnational political party, and what the scope of each is. Both the French and the Spanish articles are about this narrower topic; the Russian page ru:Интернационал (intɛrnacionál) is not linked to them, and is a disambig page instead. [b] [c]
Maybe #3 is possible, but someone would have to do the research to find a title that is descriptive, and which unites disparate organizations that fit the title. Maybe merge as per #4, but I wouldn't sign my name to a merge of unsourced content nor encourage anyone else to do so either; so maybe merge and stubify down to a single, defining sentence or one-paragraph article if a few sources can be found to justify it.
There doesn't appear to be any particular editor or editors who are main contributors or I would ping them; it just appears to have grown haphazardly since its creation, but now its time to justify it per our policies. Currently I think #2 is the best option if there isn't already an article about that, otherwise deletion. Mathglot ( talk) 19:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the origin of this use of "international"? I almost expected it to be French, and hence italicized. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
We should do some sort of objective ordering, by either age, alphabetically, or by total membership. There is no reason for the Libertarians to be first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.62.19 ( talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Everything in this article appears to be original research, from the definition in the lead, where the given source never once uses the term political international in 54 pages, to the other two references, which never mention it either, to the long list of organizations which supposedly are examples of political internationals, only they are not sourced (less one solitary example, self-sourced to their official website—which never uses the term), and following a sampling of a dozen of those linked organizations to the articles about them on Wikipedia, those articles never use the term political international, either. If there even is a notable topic here at all, it doesn't appear to be called political international (a Scholar search turns up only false positives, i.e., coincidental colocations having other meanings). Possibly an article could be written about loose transnational networks of political parties mostly on the left, but it would need a neutral, descriptive title and not one that suggests a term in use that does not exist.
The possible paths forward I see for this article are:
Based on initial searching, I think #1 is unlikely. This article may have been translated from French or some other language where the term makes sense, although none of the three sources in this article seems to support that idea. It exists in 18 languages, and of the sampling I checked, the Ukrainian one is the oldest, going back to this version from 2004, where it is called just uk:Інтернаціонал (lit. 'International'), and defines it as "international associations and communist movements, as well as the proletarian anthem" and as having been created by Karl Marx in 1864 for the first "international society of workers". This topic is covered in our article, International Workingmen's Association and is also known as the First International. Then there was a Second International (1889), Third (1919), Fourth (1938); and apparently, repeated calls for a Fifth (1938–2008). All of them relate to socialist/communist/workers' parties and not to other party groupings such as conservative or Islamist groups, so this lends some support to #2, if we want to go that route and if an article on that topic doesn't already exist. In that case, we'd have to determine what the relationship is between that article and Transnational political party, and what the scope of each is. Both the French and the Spanish articles are about this narrower topic; the Russian page ru:Интернационал (intɛrnacionál) is not linked to them, and is a disambig page instead. [b] [c]
Maybe #3 is possible, but someone would have to do the research to find a title that is descriptive, and which unites disparate organizations that fit the title. Maybe merge as per #4, but I wouldn't sign my name to a merge of unsourced content nor encourage anyone else to do so either; so maybe merge and stubify down to a single, defining sentence or one-paragraph article if a few sources can be found to justify it.
There doesn't appear to be any particular editor or editors who are main contributors or I would ping them; it just appears to have grown haphazardly since its creation, but now its time to justify it per our policies. Currently I think #2 is the best option if there isn't already an article about that, otherwise deletion. Mathglot ( talk) 19:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)