Talk:Socialist Labor Party of America

message: This is an interesting topic; the article deserves a lot more work. Much of it is unclear and the information is minimal. Needs expansion and refinement by experts. Spleeman 09:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for more work to be done 

message: The opening paragraph which explains the SLP's position on dictators, etc. is continually removed. But there is no reason for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2008
:It actually states the history of the SLP's relationships with dictators (or rather their lack of such).  It ought to be verifiable, and would be stronger with a third-party citation to support it.   I'm inclined to leave it in there, stripped of the sniping at "other US leftist groups", which has nothing to do with the SLP itself.  -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: 1. There needs to be a great expansion of the historical commentary -- early history, the 1899 split, the SLP and the Russian Revolution, and the SLP through the 1920s in particular.
2. There needs to be names of some of the leading luminaries brought into play -- Kuhn, Sanial, Olive Johnson, and so on.
3. There needs to be photos of party leaders -- DeLeon, Kuhn, Johnson, and Haas at a minimum. I think I have the latter 3 and DDL shouldn't be a tough "get".
4. The page shouldn't be an ad for the party. There's room for a discussion of "DeLeonism," obviously, but this was first and foremost a Marxist party, with DeLeon being its most influential member. This word "DeLeonism" is a recent creation, I believe. I think a more accurate phrasing would be "revolutionary industrial unionism."
5. A discussion of the industrial union ideas and their relationship to the IWW is needed.
Not sure how soon I can get to all of this but I hope to eventually if no one else picks up the ball.
Tim Davenport ---- Corvallis, OR ---- Carrite (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further review, the discussion of the 1899 split is really really bad and I'll take that on pretty quickly here. Photo of DDL now up. The SLP comrades should back off this page a little bit, it's still a long ways from Neutral Point Of View. Nobody is gonna kneecap ya, but this sounds too often like an ad rather than an encyclopedia article.  Carrite (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff that needs to be done 

message: the introduction to this article has the following statement in it;
:While the SLP maintains it is a socialist party, most observers agree their program is clearly anarcho-syndicalist.
That isn't exactly true, they propose they become the governing party, and you can't be anarchistic if you believe there should be a government. I don't think that sentance needs to be in there at all. --Mike Oosting (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[anarcho-syndicalism?]]" 

message: REQUEST:  Please remove the text "Dissolved  September 1, 2008" from the sidebar.
REASON:  Although the SLP closed its national office in September 2008, the party has not "disolved".  Publication of the party jorunal "The People" has moved online, where it continues (14 issues have been published since the alleged "dissolution" date given in the sidebar), and the party continues to accept both new members and contributions.
:http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CxP-Socialist_Labor_Party_of_America.htm
:http://www.slp.org/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk • contribs)  20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the correction. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not disolved 

message: I don't know who claims the party stopped answering inquiries in 2014, but today I wrote to the party's email address (as on their party website) and got an answer right away from party secretary Robert Bills, who says the party certainly hasn't dissolved and that it hasn't stopped answering inquiries either. Now, I knowthat "own research" doesn't count in Wikipedia articles, and I don't know how you would classify such an inquiry -- but fact is: the party is not dissolved and it does answer inquiries. I will change this, unless someone objects with convincing arguments. --Vesteinn (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasn't stopped answering inquiries 

message: Should there be redirects for Industrial Party (United States) and Industrial Government Party (United States) to this page? I've seen those names pop up on the old election data and wondered why they didn't already lead here. Have any other parties gone by that name in the US? Boux22 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please redirect those articles here. That is standard procedure.--User:Namiba 14:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect for other names the party has used 

message: It was changed and mentioned by a user with no account that Robert Bills, the old national secretary was removed in 2021. Thier are no sources or any information that I can find online to back up this claim. The website hasn't been updated in years, and while I have sent an email, no response. Really I cant find anything from this party past 2011, has it been dissolved since then? or de jure dissolved?(talk) 15:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Secretary Change? 

message: The Wiki Pages for most other notable Socialist Parties including what their stances on WWI and WW2 were and Vietnam if it existed that long. KuudereKun 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it an Anti-War Party or not? 

message: Line 1 of table "Presidential Tickets" is incomprehensible:
1. The article says the party "nominated its first candidate" for president in the 1892 election.  Then why is the 1888 election listed in the table?  1888 isn't mentioned in that paragraph.  Either delete line 1, or explain its meaning.
2. Not only is 1888 not in that paragraph, the year 1888 isn't mentioned anywhere in the article (except once, incidentally).  If line 1 is legitimate, expand the scope of the article to cover your subject.  For that matter, what other sub-topics are missing?
3. You say Simon Wing was the party's first presidential candidate.  Then why isn't he the 1888 candidate?  Again, either delete or explain.
4. In the 1888 election, what sense does it make for a party to run for president without a named candidate?
5. Column 2's heading is "Presidential nominee," singular.  But the contents of row 2, cell 1 is "Slate of independent electors," i.e. a group of men, plural.  Change the heading, or change the cell's wording, or both, to agree grammatically and logically.
6. What sense does it make for a group of men to run for a single office?  Either yadda yadda or yadda yadda.
7. "Electors" [sic] don't run for president.  They elect the president.  What sense does it make for a party to run electors, not a candidate?
8. For that matter, what do you mean by electors?  Do you mean electors for president, or electors for the party's candidate?  If the latter, are you saying they never, say, got around to naming a candidate, and that's why you don't name any?
I give up.  Fix this entire thing.  I'm going out for coffee.  Ya want some?
Jimlue (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Table line garbled