Talk:Socialist Party USA

message: I was just noticing this. I added a trivia section which compares the Socialist Party's logo to that of Ingsoc in 1984. Just an interesting sidenote.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.187 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingsoc 

message: I removed the link for Stewart Alexander as it went to a sports personality who died in 1997, not the 2008 Vice Presidential candidate. Chegitz guevara 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stewart Alexander link 

message: I added progressive Democrats as someone a part of the SP wants to cooperate with, as I think it is important to convey that practically no one in SP uncritically lauds the Democratic Party, and that it's the more progressive wing that some see as tactical allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.100.214 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 January 2008
:By changing "progressive Democrats" to "progressive Democrats", you change a general amorphous group into a specific organization.  Are PDA the only progressives in the Democratic Party?  No.  Is PDA the only Democratic group that some in the SP advocate cooperating with?  No.  This is what your revision implies, and it's simply incorrect.  PDA is not synonymous with the "progressive wing" (which, for what it's worth, is what is specified in the original text); it is a particular organization that claims to be part of that wing.  -David Schaich Talk/Cont 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David's reasoning is correct here; it's as if I changed every wikilink to a U.S. socialist into Socialist Party USA.  I'm reverting the edit which conflates an ideological position with a specific organization.T L Miles (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive Democrats 

message: Just for the record, it appears that the first gay candidate for President was P. Parker Christensen of the Farmer-Labor Party in 1920. Chronicler3 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be glad to correct it if you give us a cite. (Hope you don't mind my giving a wikilink to your comment.)--Orange Mike  |  Talk 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Christensen's article doesn't say a word about his sexual orientation, but note that this article has long specified McReynolds as the first openly gay presidential candidate.  I suspect this was done in consideration of rumors about Buchanan and King, but looks like it would also take care of this as well. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 05:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Gay Candidate 

message: Too many external links it seems like they're trying to advertise Melab±1 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Did they not have or endorse one? Шизомби (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1984 Presidential candidate? 

message: The important thing is that WP articles are ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE, and that they are not unduly self-serving. A published party document, on its website or in its magazine, trumps any outside blowhard making noise via an outside source. Why? ACCURACY is more important than ritualistic following of some semi-mythical "No First Published Sources" rule. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Published Sources" 

message: Would this party be considered a social democratic party or a democratic socialist party? Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A democratic socialist, they are against social democracy. Read their party program. --TIAYN (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no clear distinction between the two terms.  They are sometimes used interchangeably.  For writers who draw a distinction between the two, democratic socialism is always more left-wing.  In Klaus von Beyme's political families they are all grouped under socialism.  I do not think it matters whether we call them socialist or democratic socialist, but we should only have one ideology listed.  TFD (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, TFD; I propose simply putting 'Socialism' as the ideology; this would be broad enough to cover all aspects of the party. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many (often authoritarian) ideologies which use the word "socialism", such as National Socialism, Arab Socialism, etc., but have no relation to the broadest range of the SPUSA's philosophies, that I think you have to put "democratic" in somewhere. From a hard-core Leninist point of view, the SPUSA is technically part of the social democracy (which is not inherently a bad or even right-wing word), but from most other points of view "democratic socialist" is more helpful and descriptive of what I understand the Party's current views and philosophy to be. So I'll put in the latter if it hasn't already been done. See the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Labour Party (UK). And you'll see there that there's nothing wrong with listing more than one ideology (the Conservatives have 5 listed); however, with Greens and anarchists forming significant lines of thought within the SPUSA, listing more than one might lead to so many that an uninformed reader might be confused. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously an American and the rest of world does not see things the way you do.  Your country has two liberal parties and no one says that their ideology should be called "democratic liberalism".  TFD (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social democrat vs. Democratic socialist? 

message: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also links 

message: Medallions and information boxes drop down too low and steal too much space and bandwidth from text already (see e.g. Syracuse mayoral election, 2009). There's no need to add more empty boxes for the SPUSA's "Senate leader" and "House leader", etc.; just say that the party has no governors, members of Congress or state legislators (we don't need to say how many the other parties have between them, e.g. 0/435 = 0/50 = 0/35,000). As for being unsupported in the text or by sources, that's equally true for the empty boxes. DSA has had members (elected on other tickets) in state legislatures (even in Congress); I'm not 100% morally certain that none of the 8,000-plus state legislators belongs to the SPUSA, and would appreciate a confirming or refuting source myself (which is why I added "citation needed" to my own text). As for standardization, the standard party info box was recently greatly expanded, but really applies in that fashion to two (or at most a dozen) American political parties; none of the others has any legislators or governors (and only two have House and Senate leaders). It's nice to fill all those boxes for parties which elect officeholders; no reason for the others when a few words (if necessary) can say the same thing. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box too long 

message: I'm not too proficient with Wikipedia; maybe someone would be so kind to tell me whether there already is a WP template saying "This irrelevant navel-gazing sh*t is of interest to no one but the half-dozen sorry geeks who are both real-life fans / members of the discussed topic and its only Wikipedia contributors. Just. move. on. dear. viewer."
If there already is, please apply it to the article. Might avoid lots of strained muscles of orbit from unsuspecting visitors who start rolling their eyes upon reading the first paragraphs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.19.161 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest I can think of is :WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template needed 

message: Although the name "Socialist Party - Social Democratic Federation," was used interchangeably with "Socialist Party of America," between 1957 and 1962, and with "Socialist Party USA" between 1962 and 1972, the present Socialist Party USA neither politically nor referentially identifies with the reintegrated SDF wing from that period, apart from noting the SDF's involvement within SPUSA texts that are purely historical in focus. Also, given that Wikipedia divides the SPA and SDF into separate articles, it is both incongruous and confusing to readers to hyphenate them as a single organization within the intro the SPUSA entry. Furthermore, given that the combination of the two hyphenated names did not come into place until 1957, it is especially misleading to state that the combined 'SPA-SDF' was founded in 1901.
Though the Wikipedia article on the word 'eponym' has evidently now been edited to suggest that the word should only properly refer to a name's original subject, it also appears that most other dictionaries allow for the word's equal application to derived names from a preceding subject. Additionally, there is no reference provided for the claim, currently made in the 'eponym' Wikipedia article, that the word's usage in that latter context isn't equally proper. The definition of eponym presently given within Wikipedia's separate article on words containing the '-onym' suffix, also suggests that the word can be used in either of these two contexts. Mserard313 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position is unpersuasive. The wordnetweb.princeton.edu's definition for eponym does not apply in this case.  And seriously, why get all hot and bothered about forcing this word into the article?  The word is at best marginally appropriate, but by all normal accounts a misuse of the word "eponym".  The SPUSA is not named after any person, or place.  Various other references in the eponym article also contradict your assertion.  Can't we agree on a version of language that doesn't include the word, or a variation of "eponym", so we don't have to argue this matter every other month? --Puellanivis (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My main objection to words like demonym, eponym[ous] and onomastics is that they're not clear to everyone (I have a pretty broad vocabulary but had no idea what the last one meant at Victoria, so I changed it), while their meaning can be conveyed with other words (cf. George Orwell). English Wikipedia isn't the same as Simple English Wikipedia, but articles that aren't highly technical ought to be easily read (without chance of error) by intelligent high school students and non-Anglophones. [I'd think this would be particularly true of an article about socialism: it needn't read like Socialist Action or The Daily Worker, but neither should a college education be a prerequisite.] —— Shakescene (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SPA-SDF" and use of the word 'Eponymous' in Intro 

message: I removed the claim from the History section which stated that "During the 2010 American Senate elections Dan La Botz of the Socialist Party of Ohio received 25,368 (0.68%) votes in Ohio, making it the best electoral turnout in SPUSA's history." Not only is this claim clearly false with respect to the Party's history, but it did not even represent the highest electoral turnout among SP candidates in the 2010 election. Though the 2010 La Botz campaign did break important new ground in many notable respects, its comparative vote totals were not among them, at least not in the sense asserted in this recently added claim.Mserard313 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove the sentence, reword it.. Question, there isn't any candidate I know of who has gathered more votes then him in SPUSA history. Could you give me one who has received more votes? But back to the point, reword not remove. --TIAYN (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably depends on how you understand the term "SP Candidate." At least three (maybe four) members of the SPUSA, (two or three of whom ran openly) running openly as members of the SPUSA, received more than three times as many votes as LaBotz. Two ran on the Green Party of Michigan, but openly as SPUSA candidates, one ran a non-partisan campaign and was elected to the Soil and Water Reclamation board in Hillsborough County, in Florida. I think there was another running openly as a Socialist in Vermont, but I don't recall off the top of my head. Furthermore, SP member, Howie Hawkins got 50,000 votes running on the Green Party ticket, but he hid the fact that he was a member of the SPUSA. Chegitz (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Election 

message: There is a section of statements that is sourced to a 1986 article by Heilbrunn. Many of those statements contradict the NYT acccount from (December) 1972-(January)1973.
#"Blocking a statement opposing the Vietnam War". On the contrary, the NYT article states that Harrington's statement called for a cease-fire and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, obviously a big difference. The Party passed as statement condemning the bombing of North Vietnam and calling for a negotiated peace, as reported in the NYT.
#Taken over by "the Shachtmanites". Shachtman is not mentioned by the NYT. The National Officers mentioned were Zimmerman and Rustin, neither of them Shachtman-proteges.
Harrington's caucus lost by 2-1 votes, and the Debs caucus was so small that it was ignored by the press.
Orange Mike has noted that he was there and his adherence to the Debs caucus (which had 2 of 33 votes on the National Committee in 1972-3), as he has previously disclosed this conflict of interest. Given his 40 year history with the SPUSA, has it really escaped OrangeMike's attention that this article plagiarized from the SPUSA's promotional literature?
There seem to be similar problems with COI issues. See SPUSA-Florida.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, this paragraph seems to derive from p. 164 of SPUSA officer Busky's book, which is not a reliable source, at least not on U.S. politics (see the sarcasm "because labor was the motor of all social change" on p.164, for example).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This material was added without any references, and certainly no reference to Heilbrunn.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The misleading reference to Heilbrunn was added by User:TIAYN (User:TrustIsAllYouNeed), who also added several paraphrases (sometimes unsourced) of SPUSA positions and introduced the COI/Primary book by SPUSA officer Busky. This edit does raise the question of whether TIAYN is too close to the party, given such edits, and so editing this page appears to be a COI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT 1972 account versus 1986 account 

message: By 1972 Shachtman's Unity Caucus had taken control of the Socialist Party and blocked a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. In the 1972 presidential election, Shachtman's caucus initially backed hawkish Cold Warrior Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, then adopted AFL-CIO President George Meany's position of neutrality between the two candidates nominated by the major parties.
This source is a Washington-Post excerpt from Heilbrunn's book: Here are phrases that Google_Books does not find in the book:
"Schachtmanite", "Schachtmanites", "Unity Caucus", "Socialist Party", "Harrington", "McReynolds".
The following words occur a few times, never related to the above paragraph: "caucus" appears only once, referring to a Black caucus. "Shachtman's" appears on exactly 3 pages, none of which refer to any caucus/SP politics. "Resolution" appears exactly once, referring to the notorious UN's "Zionism is Racism" resolution.
The reference to this journalistic excerpt from a journalistic book (not a scholarly book) seems to be erroneous.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, this paragraph seems to derive from p. 164 of SPUSA officer Busky's book, which is not a reliable source, at least not on U.S. politics (see the sarcasm "because labor was the motor of all social change" on p.164, for example).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This material was added without any references, and certainly no reference to Heilbrunn.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The misleading reference to Heilbrunn was added by User:TIAYN (User:TrustIsAllYouNeed), who also added several paraphrases (sometimes unsourced) of SPUSA positions and introduced the COI/Primary book by SPUSA officer Busky. This edit does raise the question of whether TIAYN is too close to the party, given such edits, and so editing this page appears to be a COI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heilbrunn 

message: At most one of these accounts can be correct. I submit that the 2008 Heilbrun article the mixture of moonbeams and pixie dust (that was improperly attributed to Heilbrunn) is less reliable than the 1972-1973 New York Times, which cites Harrington as saying that the SP's endorsement of McGovern was too weak!
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choose 

message: The preface to Busky's book states that he had joined SDS in 1969 and that he was the chairperson of Philadelphia SPUSA in 1978 and then the state chairperson. When he died, he was the editor of SPUSA's "Hammer and Tongs" bulletin.
I suspect that previous errors in this article were due more to WP editors than to this book, but I shall examine it more closely. Nonetheless, it is good to cite other sources for controversial claims, even if Busky got them in print. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 164 was blocked at Google Books. However, on page 165, Busky states that the SP became SDUSA, which shows some honesty and freedom from wishful thinking. Good for him!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Page 164 is visible at Amazon. Busky states that the Debs caucus's views were being  prevented from appearing in New America, not that all non-majority views were censored, as this article (or the SPA article) previously did (in denial of its contradictory statement  that New America featured disagreement every issue, apparently between Harrington's caucus and the majority).   Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags on this book have been there for over a year now. Probably not good to have these on a Good article. Is it worth conducting a reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busky's book: SPUSA officer disclosed his conflict(s) of interest 

message: The intro sentence was edited to read, "The Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) is a multi-tendency democratic-socialist party in the United States with the aim of enslaving the population."  I removed the ending of the sentence. 75.65.8.84 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Domination 

message: This needs to be changed to centrist from left wing. These are democratic socialists. Meaning they oppose a popular revolution. However, they are not in bed with the corporations. Thus they are centrists. Communist93 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum. Please use the talk pages to discuss improvements to the article that are based on reliable sources, rather than your opinion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position 

message: This article is the main article for the category of SPUSA, which is listed in other categories. It is redundant to list those grand-parent categories again for this grand-child page, so I removed the redundancies.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 2012 nominee Stewart Alexander is expected to be on the ballot in up to five states.  Which states are these? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-08/third-party-ballot-access/56098480/1 Dogru144 (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As of September 2nd, the presidential ballot was still not settled in twenty states: 9 where the deadline for independent or minor party presidential candidates to file had not passed (Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Rhode Island); 5 where the deadline had passed, but some or all petitions hadn’t been checked yet(Arkansas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wyoming); and 6 where courts might either put a presidential candidate on, or take them off (Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Latest report is that 10.5% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in Colorado, Florida, and Ohio, and had declared write-in status in Indiana and Texas. (Source: Ballot Access News October 1, 2012 – Volume 28, Number 5) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  States Nominee Alexander is on the ballot 

message: When I look at the name of the socialist party of the United States (Socialist Party USA), I think of it as "the Socialist Party" or "Socialist Party USA (without the "the"). Saying "the Socialist Party USA" does not seem right, even if the party itself uses "the" in this manner. Perhaps some clarification as to this usage of "the" could be given? Dustin (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "the" when referring to the party 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Socialist Party USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618163639/http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/5714 to http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/5714
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315170458/http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html to http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808182917/http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ to http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618163639/http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/5714 to http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/5714
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since when democratic socialism is a "far-left" ideology? According to this definition, most left-wing European political parties should be described as "far-left". This is absurd. I have changed the political position to "left-wing".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.146.227 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Democratic socialism is not and has never been a singular ideological concept and adherent parties identify with anything from Centre-left to far-left, and even on a rare occasion just the centre! It all depends on how radical their overall policies are or their rhetoric! Thus this is not a valid reason for the removal of far-left from the infobox! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Far-left"? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion