Talk:Socialist International/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV?

What is the dispute?? --Cybersavior 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been an edit war, some IPs trying to add a weighting of the SI member parties into the beginning of the text, which of course is not the right place for that. I'll remove the template until someone explains why it should be there. --SoWhy Talk 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Facism portal?

Why is this here? Also, I think this is NPOV. Jztinfinity 03:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Ukraine

Socialist Party of Ukraine is only consultative party not full member party (see http://www.socialistinternational.org/maps/english/europe.htm). --Gutsul 07:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia no longer ruled by Socialists

Please correct the map, the Social Democrat Party of Macedonia is now in opposition in FYROM after the last elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.180.47 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2006

But Germany is...

The card isn't right. Germany is ruled by a CDU/SPD/CSU-government. The SPD is am member of the Socialist International. Somebody should correct this on the card. The German Vice-Chancelor Franz Müntefering for example is a member of the SPD.

That's correct. The German Social Democratic Party is still member of the government, even though they don't have the chancellorship anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.137.37 (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

-The SPD aren't the leading party in the coalition (they have less seats than the combined CDU-CSU number). Maybe we could have another section for SI parties which are in governing coalitions, but actually the "lead" party in power? --Free Socialist 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Socialist (talk • contribs)

Ukrainian affiliate?

Just to note, we need to clarify whether the "Social Democratic Party of Ukraine" listed is the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united), or the Ukrainian Social Democratic Party. --Free Socialist (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland isn't really governed by the SP-PS...

The highest government office in Switzerland - the Bundesrat (Federal Council), is not just made up of one party. There are two members of the Bundesrat from SP-PS, but that does not mean that they have control of the government - it is actually the right-wing SVP with most seats in parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmacd (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica is governed by a SI party

Can anyone update the map and also include Costa Rica as a country being governed by a SI party. See Partido Liberacion Nacional which is Social Democratic party. Eao1970 (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"I Don't think the nationality is important to the article"

the nationalities show which countries donminate to the leadership of the Socialist International Arealsocialist (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Labour and Socalist International

Currently, Labour and Socialist International redirects here, but the article totally focuses on post-53 Socialist Intl. Should the article be expanded to reflect the period from 1923, or should the L&SU have its own page?BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't redirect here. the L&SI is definately notable enough to have its own article. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe's MDC

Is Zimbabwe's MDC really a member of Socialist International? The SI probably need to investigate the reasons and circumstances surrounding the departure of the Zimbabwe SI leadership from the MDC. It would be quite interesting to know the position of SI Zimbabwe on whether or not MDC is a socialist party.

Yes, MDC is a member, see [1]. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the MDC in government? I thought that the coalition talks with Zanu-PF and Mugabe broke up after the violence against the MDC and Unions started up again? --92.20.135.217 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Human rights concerns

90.240.100.38 has added the following section:

The SI includes many authoritarian ruling parties in Africa and the Middle East with poor human rights records. Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party, an SI member-party led by President Hosni Mubarak, banned the progressive Cairo Anti-war Conference in 2009 and has been criticised by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for its persecution of the anti-war movement.

This section fails to meet WP standards for several reasons. None of the sources express human rights concerns about the Socialist International. They are about the Egyptian government. The sources do not even mention the SI, the relationship between the National Democratic Party and the government or even that the NDP is an SI member. (See WP:OR and WP:SYN.) The article does not even mention any other governments.

If you want to include criticism of the SI's membership policy you need sources that explain and actually challenge that policy, and balance it with an explanation of why the NDP is allowed to retain membership. You cannot draw your own conclusions and publish them in WP.

I will therefore delete the section. Please do not re-insert it without discussion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The section does meet WP standards. Egypt is a one-party state, and the party in power is the National Democratic Party, which as you know very well is in the Socialist International. [2] --90.240.100.38 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the policies:
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.(WP:OR).
In other words, the source must state all of the claims made, it is not the role of editors to draw connections. If the Socialist Worker Party or any other source directly criticises the SI then that could be considered.
Also please do not refer to the removal of WP:OR as vandalism. (See WP:NPA). The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not original thought to state that the SI has undemocratic member-parties. It is POV to claim that the SI contains only democratic parties. --90.240.100.38 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the sources do not state that the SI has undemocratic members, although saying they have undemocratic members is factual, it is a synthesis of information drawn from different sources, and ignores any explanation. Your article source says that Egypt is undemocratic and you synthesize this data with data from other sources to form a conclusion. I have however found a comment on this which actually would provide a reliable source, it is from the ANC, which is a SI member. It says:
In contrast, SI has 13 members, including Morocco, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and Yemen. This engagement strategy has been instrumental in promoting a stumbling peace process between Israel and its neighbours, as well as Kurdish rights, such as autonomy in northern Iraq. A price has been paid, however, in terms of granting recognition to parties not upholding democratic principles. The ruling parties in Egypt and Tunisia are cases in point, admitted in June 1989 after showing signs of reform. Even if they have felt unwanted at times, the usual standards have not been applied.[3]
Do you see how this wording is more helpful in explaining the issue? But if you want to explain SI membership then you should cover all its aspects, which is briefly outlined in this article. Incidentally I do not think that there are authoritarian parties in sub-Saharan Africa that are members. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Map

I noticed the map that displays, in red, the nations ruled by Socialist International parties is out of date. I can see this by looking at Australia. Australia is led, in fact, by the centre right liberal/national coalition. RiseAgainst01 (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Labor Party came to power under Kevin Rudd in 2007. replacing John Howard's Liberal/National coalition. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

haha, yeah ironically Australia is right, it's Greece and Germany that are messed up... Germany needs to be removed and Greece needs to be added... i'd do it if i could but i don't have the software--Fshoutofdawater (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The map says that it was last updated Nov 2008. I do not know if Germany was correct because it was part of a coaltion. Thge next person to update it should ensure that it agrees with the list in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I mean anyone who edits it can check my claims but Germany in my opinion never should have been on this map (it was part of a grand coalition as a junior party) but anyway they aren't even in government at all now.... as for Greece that happened yesterday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor who previously updated the map has agreed to update it again but it will take several days. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's great; thankyou.--Fshoutofdawater (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor deleted the map with the notation (removed map which hasn't been updated in years). In fact the map was last updated August 2008. The map actually states this, it will be updated soon, and the major changes, the elections in Germany and Greece occurred within the last week, and I do not know if new governments have yet been formed. So I am restoring the map and ask that any further removal is discussed here. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Berlusconi has been in power since May 2008, yet Italy is still colored in as red. This outdated and factually incorrect map harms the credibility of the article. --Tocino 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. We are waiting for an editor who previously updated the picture to do so now. If you could update it yourself it would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not know how to edit images. I have made a list of countries that need to be changed though. Hopefully someone can edit the map using this information.
The following need to be red:
Brazil
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech
Ecuador
Ghana
Greece
Japan
Nepal
Zimbabwe
The following needs to be light red (consultative party):
Moldova
The following need to be grey:
Bulgaria
Germany
Italy
Lithuania
Panama
Feel free to add any countries that I have forgotten or overlooked. --Tocino 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be best to update the list in the article. But I wonder about your list. Brazil, Cyprus and Japan for example do not have SI parties in government. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes they do. They are junior members of coalitions. For example, the Netherlands, Iraq, and Lebanon are colored in as red on the map, but the SI parties are only junior members of coalitions in those countries, just like in Brazil, Cyprus, and Japan. And the article is updated as far as I can tell. The only thing that isn't updated is this map. --Tocino 01:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, not to be rude to you Four Deuces, but who ever updated this map last year doesn't seem to be awake. I tried to download the map and it didn't work...There must be somthing else we can do ; can't we contact an administrator or put some sort of update tag on or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OUTDATED Map

Okay honestly, all of us realy have been patient with this map. But it is over a year old (right?). I think we need to find somebody on the planet Earth that can update it or just delete it. This is absolutly rediculous. It has been weeks and weeks since we have requested a new map. It seems as though noone is even trying. I tried myself several times but I simply do not know how to make a new map nor do I have the right programs.--Fshoutofdawater (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Change the colors of a country explains how to create maps, if anyone wants to do it. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image removed

I've re-inserted the removed image, the table at the bottom of the page and the image at the top of the page go hand in hand. The image is only one year old. There is no possibility that the image is that far gone from reality that it is not salvageable. There is no reasonable rationale for outright removal of the image. Timeshift (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of USSR/Soviet Union?

Just went through the entire article. I'm surprised that's no mention of the USSR here at all. Did the SI not maintain any relationship with the USSR or other Soviet-backed states or PR China? I find that hard to believe. Can anyone add any such information here? Would be very interesting to read about. Children of the dragon (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Communists formed their own Third International and did not participate in the Socialist International. There was no connection between the two. TFD (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There were some organization of exiles from the Eastern Bloc who were associated with SI. See Socialist Union of Central-Eastern Europe. --Soman (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Socialist International = Communism

Ever since its inception in 1951, the Socialist International has made cosmetic efforts to distance itself from communist socialists. It continues to do so, sprinkling its calls for socialism and global governance with assurances of support for “democratic” principles. However, its democratic bona fides and its supposed opposition to totalitarian socialism are as threadbare today as they ever have been.

During the Cold War, the SI aligned itself with communist terrorist Yasir Arafat and the PLO, the Soviet Union’s premier terror master. It was also comfortable maintaining close fraternal relations with the communist dictatorships of the Warsaw Pact, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Nicaragua’s Sandinista regimes became SI favorites. When Gunther Guillaume, boon companion and closest aide to West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, was exposed as a communist agent of the Soviet KGB/East German Stasi, Brandt was forced to resign as Chancellor. The Guillaume-KGB connection helped explain the incredible political positions Brandt had been taking vis-à-vis Moscow and the communist world. But Brandt’s KGB revelations didn’t phase the SI leadership, who allowed him to continue in office as the longest-serving president of the SI.

Not much has changed there; “reformed” communists and communist parties are welcomed with open arms and hold top posts in the SI. The aforementioned SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society is a case in point. Its members include Aleksander Kwasniewski, the former President of Poland, who was a die-hard Communist Party member until it became expedient to switch to the “reform” label. Likewise for CSWS member Sergei Mironov, who was an apparatchik in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and remains a stalwart supporter of Russia’s top KGB man, Prime Minister -Vladimir Putin. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.230.71 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Communists split from the socialists in 1919. In most countries the socialists are one of two major parties. For example in the UK Tony Blair was the socialist leader and a good friend of the U.S. America's friend, the president of Iraq is also a socialist. The president of Columbia, Uribe, was a socialist, and so are the opponents of Chavez and Mugabe. TFD (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Membership

The Socialist International website has a different list of members, consultees and observers. Although the website is undated, it appears to be recent, as it ties in with the expulsion of the Constitutional Democratic Rally in Tunisia and the National Democratic Party in Egypt.

Member parties
Consultative parties
Observer parties

In addition, the various lists need sorting into alphabetical order (there are a number of errors). Skinsmoke (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Republican People's Party

Repuplican People's party in Turkey is not a socialist party, it is a militarist,racist,nationalist party. How can they be a part of that organisation.They should be exiled.

That, of course, is your opinion. Can you provide a source that verifies that opinion? Skinsmoke (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because...

Members like Mexico's PRI, Egypt's National Democratic Party, Jamaica's People's National Party, and Venezuela's Accion Democratica advocate positions that are more akin to fascism than to social democracy or to democratic socialism.

When did the PRI join the Socialist International? Alan Riding's 1985 book Distant Neighbors mentioned that the PRI was denied membership in the SI. Considering the PRI's neo-liberal orientation ever since, it seems doubtful to me whether they actually are a member. Could someone produce a citation as to whether the PRI are a member of the SI and, if so, when they actually joined?

PRI is listed as a member on the SI's official website. [5] —Sesel 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The SI perhaps isn't as picky as it should be about its membership. Also, a lot of SI member-parties have neo-liberal elements in their programmes. However, I think the use of the term "fascist" by the above critic is very loose (there is a tendency to use the word much too freely whenever one dislikes a party). Also, in the rather unlikely event that Wikipedians do decide to add a link to fascism from the page about SI, a similar link would also have to be made to fascism from the International Democrat Union (the rightwing equivalent of SI), given some of IDU's less pleasant member-parties.-86.133.243.52 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should work this into the artical somewhere. Perhapes we could add a critisism that could voice these complaints against the ambiguity of some of the SI's members. As of now it is rather misleading because it makes out some parties to be much more left wing than they actually are. Reallybadtrip 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you can provide sources that say that. Wikipedia is the place for facts, not opinions. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt and Tunisia?

Why are Egypt and Tunisia still shown as red on the map? Both the Tunisian Constitutional Democratic Rally and the Egyptian National Democratic Party have been expelled from the Socialist International. Egypt and Tunisia should be shown in grey on the map. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they cannot be expelled until Congress.
"5.1.3 Expulsion of Parties
Decisions to expel parties and organisations from membership may be taken only by the Congress by a majority of two-thirds of parties voting."SI's statutes MiguelJCLopes (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On 17 January 2011, the SI issued a press release stating: "A decision has been taken by the President together with the Secretary General, in accordance with the statutes of the Socialist International, to cease the membership of the Constitutional Democratic Assembly (RCD) of Tunisia."[6] On 31 January, the secretary general wrote to the general secretary of the Egyptian NDP stating: "we consider that a party in government that does not listen, that does not move and that does not immediately initiate a process of meaningful change in these circumstances, cannot be a member of the Socialist International. We are, as of today, ceasing the membership of the NDP"[7].
The president and the secretary general, quoted on the SI's own site, are reliable sources for the procedures and membership of the SI. You are not, and your interpretation of the statutes of the SI is irrelevant. If the matter is as clear-cut as you assert, then this criticism will be raised. Unless and until it is, and is reported by a reliable source, this edit is synthesis based on interpretation of a primary source, and is not permitted in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


The Socialist International has released two separate press releases declaring the expulsion of both parties.
Expulsion of Tunisia's Constitutional Democratic Rally -
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2085
Expulsion of Egypt's National Democratic Party -
http://www.socialistinternational.org/images/dynamicImages/files/Letter%20NDP.pdf
I think the fact that the Socialist International has said itself that both parties are expelled is good enough a source for me. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We'll just have to wait until some source notices this blatantly violation of the statutes. 85.247.87.104 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Tunisian Constitutional Democratic Rally as well as the Egyptian National Democratic Party have both been dissolved. Since these parties no longer exist the map should be changed so that Tunisia and Egypt are not shown in red. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Northern Irish Social Democratic and Labour Party should be present alongside the British Labour Party, surely?--139.184.30.134 (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP)

Surprise, surprise! Canada's got a crypto-socialist party, and the May 2011 front page of the Socialist International web site has given its recent federal parliamentary opposition win top billing, falsely declaring Canada to be "polarized".

Time to update the MAP. The Socialist International apparently counts non-governmental and non-party organizations among its fold, including a Progressive Caucus in the USA, and individual Congressmen and women. Although the SI might prefer to call them Congresspersons.

For a bit more info on the Socialist International and the NDP Party of Canada, visit:

http://jack-and-gilles-went-up-the-hill.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.183.222 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proper Referencing

This entire article is based primarily off of self published sources (the Socialist International website, especially). We need to find third-party sources that verify all the same information and replace all self-published refs with independent refs.

Regards, Gold Standard 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Table

The following was the result of a discussion concerning the verifiability of organizations with lists or tables of members:

Resolved: Lists or tables of members belonging to a political international or other organization that are unsourced or sourced by self-published sources must be deleted. When an organization claims it has members it is self-serving, and therefore must be deleted under WP:V. Please note that this applies to all organizations with members, including all other political internationals.

Thus, per WP:V, the table of members on this page must be deleted, and remain deleted, until the table can be properly sourced by independent sources.

Regards, Gold Standard 22:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, new consensus is in the works. Gold Standard 19:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Georgia

The Union of Citizens of Georgia is not listed as observer party on the SI website. I think it might have even been dissolved.--93.215.173.82 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthem

Excuse me, is there any anthem in the Socialist International? I did not find any information on it in the article. --95.26.191.167 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Labour Party

This is missing from the table of full members! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.208.63 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The NZ Labour Party is listed as an Observer member party.--Autospark (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Australia is not governed by an SI party

Australia is no longer governed by the Australian Labor Party. The map needs to be changed. 41.135.147.112 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)jbk

SDLP

Although the British Labour Party is the governing party of the UK, as stated on the main page, the SDLP also forms part of the four-party devolved Executive in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Should it be moved into the 'Currently ruling' section? ElBlogador 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the Labour party (UK) be added as an observer member? http://www.labour.org.uk/socialist-international 194.166.83.196 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A source for anyone who wants to improve the article

The Socialist International by Nikolai Sibilev, 1984. Obviously it reflects the Soviet viewpoint on the organization, but it does have value if used alongside other sources. --Ismail (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Political alignment

There is no reference to alignment, i.e. far left. Should this not be added?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's a political international, and one consisting primarily of social-democratic parties, so far-left has no basis in reality.--Autospark (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Outdated map

The map is not up-to-date. The social democratic party of Sweden is in government. --83.233.136.219 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No SI member party in government in Hungary since early 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.25.32 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Presidium/Governing Body

The list of the presidium ("The current premier of the SI is Luis . . .") is not in line with the referred page (ref#3). Should be updated 2001:569:7500:7600:8C3D:32ED:B964:C62D (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Map needs updated.

This map was created in 2008 and is no longer accurate - both Macedonia and Denmark are no longer governed by SI members. There may be others, those are the only 2 I have been able to confirm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinkeiff (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Page links to a random Youtube video - vandalism or a bug?

I've just noticed browsing that the none of the links work on the page and the entire page is strangely linked to this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzvP2VOq4M. I'm not sure whether this is vandalism or not - the Youtube uploader denies it strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilyfingers (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I think I might have fixed it, but am not sure. iac74205 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Need to Correlate Entries to Expunge Errors

The entry, "Socialist International", has the International Socialist Commission (ISC) founded in 1919 and then joining with the Vienna International in 1923 to form the Labour & Socialist International. The entry, "International Socialist Commission", meanwhile reports that the ISC dissolved itself into the Communist International in March 1919.

One of these two entries is wrong. The ISC cannot have dissolved into the Communist International in 1919 AND have joined the Labour & Socialist International in 1923.

I don't have the requisite knowledge to ascertain which of your two entries is correct.LAWinans (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Map needs updating

Poland no longer has any members yet it's still marked as having some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.143.80 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Logo is uhh had a stroke

It seems to be corrupted and look like it had a stroke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copelonian (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_International/Archive_1&oldid=1169602482"