Talk:Political international

origin of word
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)

I assume Libertarians have edited this to make their international first.
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)

Original research, sourcing, title, and notability
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.
 * 1) support the article under its current title and definition, by finding sources for it and adding them, and developing the content; retaining only organizations in the list section that are often identified as a "political international" in reliable sources.
 * 2) blow up the article and recast it under the current title with a different lead sentence defining it more narrowly as pertaining to the series of organizations started by Karl Marx in 1864 as the First International and limited to the topic of socialist and communist groupings or conferences held subsequently over the years, as the French and Spanish articles do.
 * 3) change the title to something descriptive, and find sources that show the topic exists and has coverage significant enough to support a standalone article under that title, and grouping the disparate organizations appearing in the list.
 * 4) merge the material someplace; probably Transnational political party which seems to cover the same topic that is defined in the lead here. That article also has a list of parties, also unsourced.
 * 5) delete it.

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 is a coherent concept which is widely discussed, but there isn't a consensus on the best term to use - I can see "international organisation of political parties", "international party group", "transnational political organisation", etc. The term "political international" or simply "international" is associated with the left, but is as good as any. So options 1 or 3 work for me, 2 arbitrarily omits the non-left wing groups, while transnational political party is a different topic - one party active in multiple countries. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Given the three options you suggested as possible titles, including "transnational political organisation", our article on Transnational political party appears to cover that ground already, but your last statement says you view "transnational political organisation" and "transnational political party" as distinct, but at the least, there seems to be a very large overlap, do they justify separate articles? Secondly, you say that "2 arbitraily omits the non-left wing groups", but is that arbitrary really? The articles linked at fr-wiki, es-wiki, and uk-wiki (and maybe others, I haven't checked them all) are all limited to left wing groups, and that makes historical sense as a well-defined, coherent topic, namely the history of the First through Fourth Internationals following their establishment by Marx in 1864. Unless I missed it, currently en-wiki does not have an article on that topic, and we should. Rather, it is this article which seems to me to be incoherent, at least under the current title and content, one of the two must go. If it retains the current content including Islamist and conservative organizations, then at the least we would have to define what the topic of the article is, choose a different title, and ensure it is not so close to Transnational political party as to leave no daylight between the two so editors know which one should get what kind of content, and so that readers aren't confused. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not attached to any particular title; having a look on Google Scholar, "party international" seems to have a bit of use. The problem with an article covering the history of the First to the Fourth Internationals is that, although each regarded itself as the successor to the earlier ones, the Second and Third didn't recognise their successors, so the succession is best covered in the Fourth International article. Warofdreams talk 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)