Talk:Progressive Labor Party (United States)

message: some words that could use explanation.
'class enemy'
'rightist opportunist'
'rightist'
'militancy'
etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.246.14 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  labels 

message: This article requires the history stored at Progressive Labor Party (USA)/history merging in when the block compression issue is resolved. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Noel (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History merge 

message: I shifted this one back from Progressive Labor Party (USA) since PLP is not an exculsively US party. --Soman 08:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is true, it is mainly and originally so, and this is the obvious way to differentiate from the many other parties unconnected with it using the same name XmarkX 06:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: * Progressive Labor Party → Progressive Labor Party (USA). This was originally at this location, but was wrongly moved - there are many organisations bearing this name around the world unconnected to the party described here - I intend to make this a disambig page.XmarkX 06:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
* Support Philip Baird Shearer 19:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I've come up with a temporary fix. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be moved back to Progressive Labor Party, since PLP has branches outside of the USA. Also, which other parties carry the name PLP (which would motivate a disamb page)? There is the Swiss one, but that name is not used by the nationwide party. --Soman 06:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping that XmarkX will be able to show examples of other uses. For now please leave it where it is rather than trying to move it, especially using a copy/paste. violet/riga (t) 10:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 69.138.67.42 has made an awful lot of changes to this page without any comment or discussion. It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the new text. DJ Silverfish 16:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  69.138.67.42 

message: Before we make new chabges to the article, perhaps we should discuss them or at least provide a rationale for changes in this talk page.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I added the signatures to the above anonymous posters. It was a little confusing when they were unsigned. DJ Silverfish 17:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing posts 

message: The final section on present day PLP activities mentions the ROAR fight from the mid-1970s but then jumps to news about PLP members getting arrested circa 2005. Clearly a lot of fleshing out needs to be done to give a real history of PLP over the past 30 years, including both external activities and the internal discussions that have marked the evolution of the ideas of this group.--November 8, 2005
==
OK, so what would you add? My suggestion would be to add some stuff, and if it's accurate it stays; if it's inaccurate, it goes. Originally, I was going to put how the KKK told The Hartford Courant sometime in the 1980s that PL was "the reason our boys are afraid to come out in public, wearing their hoods." But, I could not find a citation for that quote, even though I know it occurred, so I have not included it thus far in explaining PL's recent activities. The inclusion of activities from the late 1980s to 2005 is somehwat problematic at points because there were points over that span of time where most of PL's work was done through its self-proclaimed "mass organization" (really just a front group, but you get the idea), the "International Committee Against Racism" (InCAR), and there is no Wikipedia article on InCAR, and I can't write one because I joined PLP not long after InCAR was dissolved and PL decided to start pursuing fully open, communist militant anti-racist activities by itself again. So, there is obviously a lot that can be added about PL's activities in the interim span of time you're talking about, and anyone that wants to do that should feel totally at liberty to do so. Slander won't be tolerated, but anything else is fair game. 71.246.68.146 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Expansion on Present-Day Activities 

message: Bill Epton left in 1970, presumably because he disagreed with PL's new line on nationalism. I can rephrase it to reflect this, but it seems rather nitpicky. Plus, we don't want to give the impression that EVERYONE left in 1969. Most of the people that left, according to the Assata chronology linked in the page, did in fact leave in the early-to-mid 1970s, not in 1969 or 1970, and presumably, they left because they were fed up with the party's internal workings rather than because they opposed PL's break with nationalism, as Epton did. So while it would seem to be no problem to change the wording to reflect Epton's departure in particular, we have to be careful the wording doesn't get changed around so it seems like more people left at that time (1969-70) than actually did. 71.246.74.62 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Epton 

message: Is it just me or did anybody miss the simple fact that PLP sounds very much like an Anarcho-Communis and Council Communism?
There seems to be a vein of libertarian Communism running through the article.
Should I add the places where anarchism, anarcho-communism, council communism, and libertarian communism are illustrated? (anon post by Jedi kit fisto)
:PLP comes from a completely different place than Libertarian Communism Anarcho-Communism or Council Communism. The party definitely does not claim any of these labels. The similarities may be superficial. I wouldn't make any comparisons throughout the article. I do hope that some of the more frequent contibutors to this page will step in and address the Anonymous users question here in Talk. DJ Silverfish 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Communism and Anarchist Communism? 

message: # The title of the section itself sounds like from a brochure
# Bashing "The Bell Curve," and stating that there were conferences advocating "scientific racism" is advocacy and opinion of the PL's viewpoint
# "Today, at least in the United States, the party is best known for..." (the PL is obscure and esoteric, needs to be reworded)
# Weasel word, "anti-racist," as if to imply that everyone else is ergo racist.
# Weasel word, Minuteman "sympathizers"
# Is it important to be providing links to their leaflets and every public release?
- MSTCrow 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should not be links to all the leaflets, or any, in my opinion. HOw can this stand as a Wikipedia article without any sources/citations? It's not supposed to be self-promoting, but rely n scholarly work. --Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: The article is biased and appears to rely mostly on internal party documentation, rather than scholarly peer-reviewed sources. Even then, the article fails to provide citations for most of its assertions. I've edited it for basic style and tried to make the language more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Have deleted many inactive links, including to pdf documents that no longer work. --Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and lack of citations 

message: Parkwells's edits were so extensive that they broke apart the tone and flow of the article, and the user's assertion that the article as it stands is vastly POV shows a lack of respect for the many, many edits that have been made to the piece over the last three years. I have reverted the article to its pre-Parkwells state until the same edits can be made in a more collectively-sanctioned way.
This is not to dispute the fact that there is still POV in this article. But after so many shifts and changes that have improved the article as much as it has been improved over the past three years, to come in and rip it apart and tag up nearly every other line with  is tatamount to vandalizing a work of art. Have some respect. Be more humble. If you want to change something, do it democratically. What you want is not necessarily what others may want. And the way to deal with that is to find out first. 66.108.43.105 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't change the substance of the article, but did copy editing for style, concision and some attempt at objectivity. The article is unsourced and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as it is. The language is not neutral, but has far too many highly colored adjectives and adverbs, as if it were a polemical, self-justifying piece rather than an encyclopedia article. If you had left my edits up longer, people would have had a chance to see them. I understand other people have edited; that doesn't mean they achieved NPOV.--Parkwells (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  parkwells edits 

message: The Early History section appears to go through the 1970s. In the next section, however, which starts off with changes in the 1980s, there is a paragraph lower down dealing with academic target Arthur Jensen and activities in the 1970s. To make the chronology consistent, much of this should go into the Early History section, wouldn't you agree? Also, relabeling the second section "Changes since 1980" would make it easier for a reader to find what area they wanted to focus on. --Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section breaks - from Early History to Changes 

message: :Image:Fist.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Fist.gif 

message: There is too much verbiage - probably emanating from PL supporters - which is unnecessary and unenlightening. Half of this article could be removed without lessening the informational content. When there is concrete information, it is too particular, with no recognition of a wider context.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: So what is this article doing still on the C-Class end of the scale, and since it is, what specifically can be done to fix it? Let's keep this new thread as action-oriented as possible, please. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume some citations would be a solid start.--Chris902 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-Class 

message: I agree that the info box should not include entire paragraphs and that everything (talk) re-added can be summed up with "communist revolution." If a more detailed explanation and nuance is needed then it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Just as importantly, a reversion of a substantial section of text is NOT a minor edit. Please don't tag it as such.--Chris902 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and accepted, but at the same time, forgive me for being more than a tad suspicious of someone whose User Info expressly self-identifies as the polar-opposite of a communist. Meaning, if you attempt to engage in any anti-communist behavior at any point in the name of 'neutrality', I do still oversee this page and I'll make sure those types of re-edits don't stand. A capitalist can't come to a communist page and tag it up any more than a communist can do the same to the free market type articles. Politics do matter, because they color what a person sees and senses. I'm not denying a human ability to be objective at-will, but the tone of your page makes no more attempt at being objective when it comes to political leanings than mine does. So I'm just saying, I'm wary of you, Chris. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait... what? Where does my user page suggest anything about my politics? Unless being a fan of semi-pro sports makes me a defacto capitalist I am not sure where you're coming from with this. I don't feel it necessary (or appropriate) to explain my exact politics on a wikipedia talk page, but I don't see any issue with users editing pages concerning right wing, social democratic and revolutionary left organizations so long as their edits are good. My edit history makes no suggestion that my politics are "the polar-opposite of communist." I think you may have mistaken me for another editor. I would also remind you that you don't WP:OWN this page.Chris902 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerest apologies; I did confuse you with another editor. I confused you with the editor who originally deleted the longer text in the box, which wasn't you, whose page explicitly says he is a staunch [right-wing] conservative, anti-abortion, etc. Sorry about that. On Wikipedia, I usually encounter editors who will make a singular edit and then those same people will come back to defend those edits later. This was not one of those cases and I apologize for my misdirected remarks.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box 

message: There is a lot of good info on this page (as well as some that is very unnecessary, but the lack of citations is a serious issue. What can be done to add citations? Kikodawgzzz, you seem to have added much of the info - where did you get it from? Adding citations to such a lengthy article is a lengthy but necessary project and I'd be more than willing to hunt down page numbers or whatever but at the very least I think that new info should not be added without proper citations.--Chris902 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This article exhibits a chronic lack of sources and reads like party propaganda. It fails the fundamental Wikipedia principles of verifiability and neutral point of view and the page's content seems to be tendentiously guarded. This article needs to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just go ahead and speak as one of (if not the main) contributor to this page over the past 5 years or so. I am a former lifelong-PL member with extensive experience on the inner workings of the party who is more than willing to publicise this party's weaknesses—and over the years of editing and "guarding" this page's content, I have discovered that leaving it unattended causes swings in one or the other direction: either unsourced anti-communist crap is added from detractors, or PL defenders still in the party come along and try to wipe away the more critical sections or minimise them. It's a real shame at either extreme, and the point of Wikipedia is balance. Another point of Wikipedia is objective truth. I've tried to satisfy both as much as possible, and I'm always struggling to try to do more, and better. And yes, the current version is not perfect but from what I can see it's sure a hell of a lot better than what it was in 2005/06. (Go back and look at the archives.) And of course, nothing and no one is preventing you or anyone else from editing the page like you believe it should be edited. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many problems with this article.  Mainly the lack of sources and it's presentation; see WP:Soapbox.  If you would like to help make this article NPOV and objective, find secondary sources.  Until then, I suggest that this article needs major edit work. --xcuref1endx (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A year later and it's still pretty much a mess in terms of POV and lack of sourcing. I see a REFIMPROVE flag just came down. That's the absolute minimum marker that needs to be up here. There are zero references for the first 5 paragraphs of Early History, zero references for the 8 paragraphs that comprise "Changes in Thought," zero references for the 6 paragraphs that comprise the section "Inter-Imperialist Rivalry," zero references for the 6 paragraphs that comprise "Present Day Activities." I am restoring that flag which should remain until material is sourced out or removed. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Back for my annual whinefest... This article doesn't even mention Milt Rosen... How terrible is that? Carrite (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, and a year AFTER your whinefest, this still is nearly an unsourced article ... and lacking the refimprove flag you put up.  So I'll tell you what.  Two weeks from now, if there isn't dramatic improvement in sourcing from those "defending" this article against Wikipedia's requirements from sourcing, I'm going to take an axe to every statement worthy of challenge that is unsourced.  It is simply absurd that several years after your first complaint, this article is still in such a state.   Ravenswing   03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with the sentiment that this article needs to scrapped and largely rewritten from scratch, reincorporating existing sourced parts as needed. I first came to this article because I wanted to get a better overview of the group, which I mainly know of via its role in SDS, as well as it's physical attack on Edward O. Wilson in the 70s, but don't know much else about the group. Yet I didn't come away from this article having learned much that I didn't already know, and the long tendentious sections on PLPs theory didn't provide a much-needed overview. Looking around the web, I did come across two worthwhile sources that I think could be the basis for rebuilding the article: , . I'll note that even though the second of the above links is essentially a PL hagiography of founder Milt Rosen, I still learned a hell of a lot more about the early history of this group than from anything in this article. As for other sources, Kirkpatrick Sale's SDS history is a good one, at least for late-60s PL-SDS, and the less-tendentious sources listed under "Further Reading" on the article page. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

text:  This article needs to be completely redone.  It is almost entirely unsourced with a few exceptions pulled from primary sources.  Much like many of these wiki pages for these small political sects these pages tend to be watched over and edited by followers of the organization and becomes obviously POV.  This must be fixed.  xcuref1endx (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly sourced, POV laden 

message: I have added a tag saying the article needs to be updated. Virtually all of the content describes the party structure, it's founding and it's history during the 60s and 70s, with virtually no information about the 80s to present. There is nothing in the article suggesting there ever was some kind of decline in activity or decrease in notability and the website clearly proves they are active to this day! I think it is possible to expand the article with way more information, especially anything in regards to the last 5 waves of elections in the US and any possible actions taken against Trump-supporters. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is frustrating that no one even takes the time to discuss this problem, there is much to be done for this article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Update tag

message: There is a ton of information on SDS online, much of it from the 1960s and early 1970s; magazines and flyers published by SDS and Weather itself, Kirkpatrick's history of SDS. The Washington Post article (note 5 here) is on some well known US- communists - fun to read, but surely not the best source for the history of the 1960s student "Movement". On the other hand, I suspect "Radical America's" multi-part history of SDS to be from someone (James O'Brien) close to the CP-USA. --Ralfdetlef (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDS; PL against RYM 1 and 2