Talk:Democratic Socialists of America/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Political Position

According to Politico in this article, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/12/aoc-ocasio-corteznew-york-city-394021, the DSA is far-left. The article describes AOC as being backed by the far-left, and then says she is backed by the DSA and WFP. If that could mean anything else I'm certainly not aware of it. This Vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national) describes the DSA as being "radical left," which just means far-left (as supported by Wikipedia, which has a disambiguation page to far-left). Conservative sources like Influence Watch (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/democratic-socialists-of-america/) and Manhattan Institute (https://www.city-journal.org/socialist-surge-in-local-government) describe it as far-left, which should be taken into account unless Wikipedia is just openly denying conservative sources at this point. When I added said information, it was taken down for reasons not explained. There isn't even a citation for the current position, which is accepted as the norm.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

They are using the term in a relative sense, that is, relative to the mainstream of the two major parties. They're not far left in a universal scale. Socialist Alternative for example is more left-wing than the DSA. TFD (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Says who? And since when does Wikipedia use this so-called "universal scale (if one exists)?" We could use that argument on every single political party in every single country. The National Democratic Party of Germany is further to the right than Alternative For Germany, does that mean we should change AfD's position to right wing (unsourced)? The articles say "far-left." That is what we should put.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Until recently, the DSA was a member of the Socialist International, which included such parties as Labour in the UK, Australia and NZ, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of France (all these parties have held office) and Juan Guaido's party in Venezuela. Guaido was a guest of Donald Trump and received a standing ovation in the U.S. Congress. In most Western democracies (the U.S. is a notable exception), these parties form one of two major parties. TFD (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with the citations and would fall under Original Research, which is not allowed. Besides, note that the Social Democratic Germany, as written on its page, left the Socialist International because it was too authoritarian and extreme. Now major parties such as the Labour parties and SPD are part of the Progressive Alliance. --66.215.219.189 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Also according to media bias fact check both Influence Watch and City Journal, which are used in the infobox, have not failed fact checks and are thus reliable sources. Elishop (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check, which btw is not a reliable source, says, "Overall, we rate Influence Watch Right Biased based on the left-leaning sources they more frequently profile, as well as the use of loaded words such as “extremist” to describe liberal policy." IOW they are likely to call the DSA far left when they are not. City Journal ranked "mostly factual," which does not mean reliable. It also says, "They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes)." IOW they are likely to call the DSA far left when they are not. TFD (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Invest In Our New York Act

I recently created an article for the DSA endorsed Invest In Our New York Act. I would appreciate any assistance in improving it. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology and Factions

Currently the ideology section in the info-box lists Democratic socialism, Social democracy, Eco-socialism, Socialist feminism, Anti-capitalism, Anti-fascism, Anti-imperialism and Anti-racism as ideologies and Bill of Rights socialism, Communism, Libertarian socialism, Marxism and Religious socialism as factions. That's absurd. Some of these "ideologies" are not actual ideologies and I doubt that the Communist faction is battling it out against the Marxist faction. I suggest using the umbrella term which is "Socialism." TFD (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree. Socialism is incredibly diverse, and while that list may be a bit long, I am definitely aware of almost all of those ideologies being present in DSA. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Issues with sources in the intro/infobox

As a member of this organization, I don't want to make changes as I think that might be a conflict of interest. But I do want to point out that within a minute of opening the article I see it now contains numerous errors and violations of Wikipedia guidelines. The first sentence describes it as a political faction of the Democratic Party, which the source it cites does not claim. It lists it as a "faction" but without stating of what, making me think they were simply using faction as a synonym for organization. Under ideology, it now lists "social democracy" as one of the main ideologies, but links to an unreliable source (some random guy's Medium page) that doesn't even mention the group. Additionally, multiple ideologies were removed from the list, many of which were well cited and more informative than the current list, which is downright inaccurate. The lead and infobox should be edited to remove references to social democracy unless an actual source can be provided for that, any reference to the group being a faction of the Democrats should also be removed unless a source that really says that is provided, the old list of ideologies should be reverted to, and whoever makes these changes (which again probably can't be me, COI) should read into what a reliable source is BEFORE making the edits, and shouldn't extrapolate things that the sources don't say.Netx444 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that being a member is a sufficient conflict for COI to apply. I'm sure that lots of registered Democrats and Republicans edit their parties' articles. I removed the part about being a faction of the Democratic Party. I disagree with the phrasing "range from social democracy to democratic socialism," since neither term is clearly defined and are often used interchangeably. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on that. TFD (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that DSA actually extends all the way to communism; it has a communist working group. Democratic socialism is not the far end of the party. Toa Nidhiki05 04:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the new infobox choice is good, since what a faction even is is quite vague, "Multi-tendency" should cover all boxes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The two major political parties have members that span the political spectrum. Anyone can register as a member of either party. Similarly, anyone can join the DSA, although they are expected to be committed to socialism. The Communist Caucus of the DSA appears to be fairly small, active only in the Bay area and has not posted to its website since just after the 2020 presidential election.[1] I wouldn't describe it as a faction because their intention is not to take over the DSA, but they are members because they see the DSA as the main left-wing organization in the U.S.: "We want movements to be successful. We do not want to take over movements. This means that we must always participate in good faith within them." TFD (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Burlington a Major city/ First Socialist mayor since the 1960s.

For 2021 it mentions India Walton as being the first major city to have a socialist mayor since the 1960s if elected. I disputed because Sanders was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s. Also I just checked and Ron Dellums was mayor of Oakland from 2007-2011. I understand that major is a vague term, but I feel these two examples make me question how accurate this claim is. Thoughts?3Kingdoms (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that Bernie Sanders has ever been an actual DSA member, though Ron Dellums is a good point. Thing is, David Dinkins, once mayor of NYC, was also a DSA member. That said, it might be worth distinguishing between pre-2016 DSA and post-2016 DSA when it comes to political successes? Kadmii (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say that she would be the first person running as a socilialist to win election. OTOH, she's running as a Democrat, while the previous mayors had run under the Socialist Party banner. You could exclude Sanders, Dellums and Dinkins because Burlington and Oakland are respectively a tiny city and a suburb, while no one knew Dinkins belonged to the DSA and I don't know if it has been adequately documented. It would be helpful to have a source that explained this. TFD (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't call Oakland a suburb of SF. It's a major city with about twice as many people as Buffalo and a downtown with lots of skyscrapers and whatnot. It's not like people in Oakland all just commute to SF or something. The hills on the northeastern side of Oakland are semi-suburban, but most of the city is very urban with pretty high population density, and if you said you lived in the suburbs in the SF Bay Area people would assume you were talking about somewhere other than Oakland. I think it is true that Dellums' campaign and mayorship was not defined by his socialism in the way Walton's campaign was. I don't remember ever hearing it mentioned while living in the suburbs of Oakland/SF (although, admittedly I didn't follow Oakland politics that closely). I think this was a function of the weakness of the socialist movement at the time Dellums was a mayor. He had lamented the fact that there were limits to what he could accomplish given the lack of a strong movement, socialist or otherwise, pushing for the reforms he wanted to implement. I'm not sure how to describe & cite the difference in the relative prominence of socialist politics on Wikipedia, so unless/until someone has a way to do this, I think it's probably best to just say she is the first socialist mayor of a major city since Dellums completed his term as mayor of Oakland in 2011, which is notable enough in itself.

WP:PRIMARY and shrinking the ideology size

Something that I've noticed is that in the infobox the factions section under ideology seems to be using primary sources, are there any third-party sources that can be added instead to the article? I also propose the shrinking of the size of ideologies in the infobox just to a few of them. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Factions are organized groups within parties that contend for power. AFAIK, there are no real factions. The DSA was in fact organized from a faction of the Socialist Party of America. Its policies should not be detailed beyond what is reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I propose shrinking it to only "Democratic socialism", "Social democracy" and "Eco-socialism" if it's sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello - As a DSA member I believe I cannot actually edit this page, but there are actually many organized factions within the organization, called Caucuses. These include the Communist Caucus, the Bread and Roses caucus, Emerge, Red Star, Reform and Revolution, North Star, Socialist Alternative, and more. Wackword (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Wackword

There is no reason why you cannot edit this article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Any additions you make must of course be reliably sourced. This thread btw was about adding factions to the info-box, which many editors oppose because it provides excessive detail for what should be a brief overview. TFD (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Members

The article says 4 out of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are part of the Democratic Socialists of America, the problem is who are they or which state they represent is indicated nowhere. It would be useful to put these informations because I looked for them but couldn't find any.Maxime12346 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed before. Since the DSA is not a political party, the information should not be in the info-box. TFD (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. DSA isn't a party. Membership in DSA is about as relevant as a membership at Costco. These elected officials are likely just Democrats. Asaturn (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY and obvious inflated membership totals (advertising/promo)

The membership is currently listed as over 90,000. If you do the math, according to the actual income from their leaked 2019 budget (https://twitter.com/socialismtrain/status/1363414130435235841/photo/1), this means each member is only paying $2/mo in dues. According to DSA's own membership application (https://act.dsausa.org/donate/membership2020/) $5/mo is the lowest dues for "low income" members, with $15/mo being the "standard" amount. The average for their claim of 90,000+ members being $2/mo in dues is mathmatically impossible, even if the majority of their members were paying dues at the low income level. Without an independent 3rd party source showing actual active membership, it doesn't seem relevant or cite-able to include membership numbers when other facts contradict the org's own statement(s). Including inflated membership levels is biased marketing or advertising/promotion or autobiographical/spam and has no place on Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, OR and SYNTH. Find a source that disputes the figures. You'll likely find lots of sources that show increased membership in the past few years. It's almost like 2019 isn't the same year as the penultimate month of 2021 and those figures (which are not an RS) are from 2018 membership dues. This isn't a "gotcha!" operation but an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Asaturn's point. Using internal membership metrics not backed up by reliable sources and we shouldn't be blindly accepting DSA's claims at face value. Toa Nidhiki05 14:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources routinely report the membership numbers without qualification. Therefore, just as with political parties such as the Conservative Party (UK), we should include the self-reported numbers in the info-box and provide the source in a footnote.

You are comparing 2020 membership with 2019 revenue. if we use the ending membership for 2019 (56,794)[2], the average dues would be $4.37 per month.[$2,976.946/56,794members/12 months.] That is before taking into account that membership increased by several thousand during 2019.

The DSA also offers annual membership which is $20 for students, $27 for low income and $45 for introductory,[3] i.e., $1.13, $2.25 or $3.75 per month. I imagine a large number of members would fall under one of these categories.

TFD (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The math still doesn't add up. All of their members would have to be paying this amount in order to get the low average you come to by their own admitted budget figures. This isn't about a "gotcha!" I'm actually the user who updated their logo! This isn't a personal beef, just an issue with the quality of information. Blindly accepting a claim of membership growth is not helpful to an encyclopedia. Mentioning that they claimed it would be one thing, but the sources here are 1st party and anonymous Google Documents links, and don't meet the standards for including in Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the 2019 report, they raised $2,305,237 from dues. The ending membership was 54,123. That works out to $42.59 per member or $3.55 per month. They had 169 chapters, including 101 high school and college chapters. If we assume that the chapters were of equal size, then they should have raised $647K from 32,000 students [101/169*54,123*$20], meaning they raised $1.858 million from 22,000 non-students, which is an average of $84 per year each, well above the $60 standard annual membership.

As I said, standard practice is to use organizations' self-reported numbers provided that reliable secondary sources consider them reasonable and note in the footnote they are self-reported. If you want to change this practice, I think you should create a centralized discussion. The same discussion has come up numerous times in the Labour Party (UK). Currently the article uses self-reported numbers that were reported in The Times. While we have insufficient information to audit the DSA's membership numbers, a quick analysis shows that they are within expected amounts based on dues revenue.

TFD (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn published on the DSA website does not mean "leaked." TFD (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't published on the DSA website. It was leaked from an internal meeting. The "official" numbers were not released in 2019. The 2020 and 2021 numbers are not released on the website either. They are cited in this article as a Google Docs link, which may or may not be legitimate. To my knowledge, there are no primary confirmed sources for DSA's yearly budget. If we want to include up to the minute membership counts for a random political club (which seems unnecessary and promotional IMO), perhaps they should be included with footnote that these claims of numbers are based on random unsourced Google Docs links? Asaturn (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Our source in the article for the membership count is an official DSA publication. We don't mention their budget, nor do I think we should, unless there's secondary source coverage. I also don't think we should doubt the official numbers based on OR, or unreliable twitter sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn, no, it was published on their website. See p. 26 of Democratic Socialists of America: The Momentum Continues 2019 Annual Report to Membership The report was issued to members on March 31st, 2020.[4] According to Google, the report was either posted or last updated on the website on May 10, 2020.[5] Since your source is time stamped "4:03 AM · Feb 21, 2021," it cannot be a leak. Common sense anyway tells us that Reports to Membership are not closely guarded secrets of the politburo.

I am surprised you missed the elephant in the room: where is the money from George Soros? Where are the plans to indoctrinate children with critical race theory?

TFD (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, The Four Deuces, the now non-existent Andrew Saturn account was blocked between the post you replied to and your response, and is no currently editing as "Renamed user f73EZFoGLNfsepbYlj" so you might not get those questions answered, but moreover it looks like this issue is now moot unless Toa wants to dispute the litany of RSes below since they seemed to only agree with not "blindly" taking DSA's numbers without actually arguing for OR and SYNTH as Saturn had. JesseRafe (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD that membership is always going to ultimately come from the org itself and that that's standard, because where else would it come from? But while it should be OK to use the primary source, do note that reliable sources are also found, but won't always be up-to-date because they're not writing about membership but just including the publication date tallies when writing about the org as regular journalism, such as:

1. 2021 - 95,000 In These Times "DSA, the largest socialist organization by far in the United States, now clocks in at about 95,000 members — a growth of 1,400% in six years. (In 2015, the group numbered about 6,500."
2. 2020 - 66,000 The Atlantic "Membership in DSA chapters around the country has surged in the past eight weeks. An estimated 10,000 people have joined since March, bringing the group’s total membership to roughly 66,000"
3. 2019 - 50,000 The New Republic "With more than 50,000 members"
4. 2018 - 43,000 NPR "DSA's explosive growth nationwide. Membership has grown sevenfold since 2015, from around 6,000 then to 43,000 as of early July"
5. 2017 - 25,000 Vox "In the last year alone, DSA’s membership has ballooned from 8,000 to 25,000 dues-paying members"

References

However, to my initial comment, the complaint is a clear coatrack due to ASaturn's perceived beef with DSA and admonitions to "do the math" are cut-and-dry OR, you're literally asking other editors to do their own research! As well twin bad faith arguments of 1, the apples-to-oranges comparison of 2019 numbers (alleged, terrible source) to 2021 claims and 2, the logical fallacies in the argument such as "let's assume all the chapters are the same size and synth and OR our way from there".
To claim you don't have an ax to grind because you updated the logo (OK?) does not match the incendiary tone of this talk page header. You have a dull ax, but this is not the place to wield it. JesseRafe (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, some DSA members only pay as low as $1/year to be a member. It is part of the organizations policy not to make the dues a barrier to joining. Members can choose how much to pay. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Asaturn: lol! and it is not a leaked document. It is not exactly a secret. I can get you their 2021 budget as well, if you want to see it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Handshake and rose

If someone has reliable sources on the party’s emblem and its local or sectorial derived versions, do contribute to Fist and rose#United States. Keriluamox (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Far left in the infobox

We obviously cannot cite Fox on whether something is far-left in an infobox; in addition to being of generally dubious reliability when it comes to politics, they are particularly WP:BIASED for left-right American politics in particular. Therefore, even in the rare situations where someone feels they might be reliable enough to use when better sources are available, they still cannot be cited on it without attribution - and they can't be attributed in the infobox. The Politico source, which would be the strongest one, doesn't actually say that the DSA are far-left, just that Masto is far-left, which is not the same thing. That leaves only a passing mention in Forward (on an article that isn't about the DSA), which isn't sufficient to justify a descriptor in the infobox on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted essentially the same thing a couple days ago [6] and then self-reverted because I decided it might not be worth taking a stand over. I did find other sources associating the DSA with the "radical left" but that is a slightly different shade of meaning. For now I'm just popping in to say that I share Aquillion's concern. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Would you prefer any of:

• Associated Press an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement's farthest left flank
• The Times of Israel far-left groups like the DSA remain on the fringes of American politics
• Washington City-Paper Over the past couple of years, the DSA—the largest organization of far-left progressive and labor-centered socialists in the country—has significantly boosted its profile
• Texas Observer With about 37,000 dues-paying members spread across 200 local groups, DSA now dwarfs all other far-left organizations in America

— Mhawk10 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The latter three look good to me. The AP source doesn't quite work, as is clear from the quote. But three should be sufficient. Generalrelative (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've re-added it with the TOI, WCP, and Observer sources as citations. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the extra effort. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If we look at the sources, it's clear that the DSA is "far-left" only in the context of US party politics, where conservatives often use the term as a pejorative for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Per WP:GLOBAL and WP:NPOV that type of parochial use of the term "far-left" should not appear in wikivoice. The Times of Israel article uses the term "far-left" once, where it is clearly referring to common perception in the US but not in other countries. The Times of Israel says that DSA was inspired by Bernie Sanders' campaign and describes a DSA activist who was elected to Virginia's state legislature on the Democratic Party ticket. The article says that DSA "has nowhere near the clout of sister movements elsewhere such as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in Britain, or Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain". None of our articles on the "sister movements" in other countries -- Labour Party (UK) (where the infobox gives its political position as "centre-left"), Syriza (where the infobox says "centre-left to left-wing"), or Podemos (Spanish political party) (where the infobox says "left-wing") -- uses the term "far-left". NightHeron (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron and Aquillion. This issue is something which is present in the UK based articles I have researched and written too. In researching the article Momentum (organisation)- an organisation very similar to the DSA- it was common to find right-wing local and national press that described them as far-left. That included the term being applied by political opponents in the Labour Party ([7]). This also receives occasional vandalism of people adding the term to the article. The aims and policy proposals of both organisations are hardly describable as far-left. My concern is that by using the term "far-left" we are regurgitating a pejorative wording on what should be a balanced encyclopaedia. Jonjonjohny (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that the distinction between "left-wing" and "far-left" isn't actually substantial. The real difference it makes here is that "left-wing" links to Left-wing politics, which is a solid article that paints a fairly positive picture, whereas "far-left" links to Far-left politics, which states: Similar to far-right politics, extremist far-left politics can involve politically-motivated violent acts, such as radicalization, genocide, terrorism, and the formation of far-left militant organizations. Of course associating Bernie Sanders or Cori Bush with that kind of thing is preposterous. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing the description in this case –– indeed, that was my initial reaction. On the other hand, though, we do have at least a few instances of reliable sources using the term "far-left" to describe the DSA, and I think many DSA members would have no problem with that as a self-designation (though "radical left" may be a more common way to say it). On Wikipedia it all comes down to the sources, and in the case of the three that are used here it is pertinent to note that they are in no way unsympathetic hit-pieces. Indeed, none seem to use the "far-left" designation in a pejorative manner. They may be a small minority of sources, in which case one might be able to build a case for removal on the basis of WP:DUE balance, but they are definitely in and of themselves decent sources. Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The "far-left" designation has been debated in other cases of people in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, for example, in the case of Ilhan Omar (see [8]). The DSA, as a non-violent organization that is involved in electoral politics within the Democratic Party, is not what is internationally considered to be "far-left". Terminology in the US is skewed relative to international usage, with otherwise reliable sources identifying moderates as "leftist" or even "far-left". Is there any other non-US-based source besides The Times of Israel (whose coverage does not actually support a "far-left" designation on Wikipedia, as I discussed above) that routinely identifies the DSA (or, more generally, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party) as "far-left"? I do think that "far-left" is a pejorative, and certainly would be perceived that way by everyone I've met who's a moderate left-winger. NightHeron (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

left-wing not far-left, for the above stated reasons especially vis-a-vis cohesion with WP's own articles they link to and for a globally relevant use of terms. Moreover, the initial sources cited above were not really the standard-bearer of American political journalism, and if those 4 were the only instances found using the term, given the 1000s of mentions of DSA in the past 5 years, that demonstrates this as an undue categorization, perhaps even fringe. JesseRafe (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

All I'll say is that this is a case where I would be happy to be out-voted. :) Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The DSA is not the equivalent of Momentum or Syria, it is the equivalent of the UK Labour Party and other social democratic parties. In most developed countries, there are two political groups: a social democratic party and its right-wing opposition. The United States is unique in having no major left-wing party. So the DSA is only "far left" in a U.S. context. i would remove the field. At best it tells us where Wikipedia editors place social democracy. TFD (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The DSA is obviously not a generally overall far-left organization, but for good or bad some of its foreign policy-positions in recent years are far out of the American mainstream (against the existence of Israel, against NATO, etc). Your comparison to the UK Labour party may not be as flattering as you think, given Labour's recent problematic history with respect to antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

i was not being flattering, I was being honest. Both Labour and the DSA are broad tent and historically related. The other things you mentioned aren't inherently left-wing. Unlike the DSA, Iran, for example, which does not have a left-wing government, has promoted holocaust denial, literally opposes the existence of Israel and sees NATO as an enemy. The DSA's policy of non-interventionism has had support among the American right as well, such as Taft Republicans. You will note also that some in the DSA want to expel DSA members of Congress for supporting military cooperation with Israel, but they are unlikely to succeed. TFD (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think describe the DSA as far-left. I do not think that DSA's economic policy is much different from European social democracy, I don't agree that the DSA is a center-left in other countries. Among developed countries, European social democracy is not popular in South Korea and Japan. Their left-wing anti-establishment rhetoric and class struggle characteristics, they are perceived as far-left side in South Korea and Japan than their own centre-left/left-wing social democrats. Japan has better labor rights than the United States, but it is a conservative country, so even the Japanese Communist Party does not support class struggle. Labor rights in South Korea are worse than in the United States. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

TED user seem to argue that the DSA is a center-left social democracy. But it is not only accurate, and it deliberately ignores that there are developed countries whose political environment is more conservative than the United States. In short, South Korea's main two parties are more conservative than the main two parties in the United States. South Korea's Justice Party is more conservative and class collaboration, unlike the U.S. Democratic Party's CPC. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To sum up my position, the infobox is a left-wing to far-left party. The DSA's economic policy is similar to European social democracy, but it is much more populist and intransigent on class issues than Europe's centre-left. DSA may not far-left by European standards, but it can be seen as far-left by South Korean and Japanese standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I said, "in most developed countries." Obviously there are exceptions, particularly outside Western Europe. Since you agree that the DSA is the same as social democratic/democratic socialist parties in Western Europe, it wouldn't be seen as far left outside Fox News Channel. In any case, you would need sources for this. TFD (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A point that has been raised above is that there should be a clear understanding of what far-left politics are. It is often used as a pejorative term in liberal-conservative media to denounce people with a different political analysis to them. If the definition of "far-left" is its proclivity to violence, then that neither summarises democratic socialism, the DSA or its successful candidates at all. Users have also suggested DSA is both a social democratic group and yet far-left (‽) because of specific policies that you have neither cited (as I don't know what they are) nor displayed public opinion on those issues. The determining views in the main is ambiguous.

As for their politics being far-left as a relative term rather than objective. That doesn't really make sense when states running referendums on abortion rights, living wage and expanding healthcare all pass, policies which the DSA and its candidates campaign for. In a way, using far-left on this page is massaging a truism that there is no space for socialist politics in America. Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The "European social democracy" I am talking about now means classical social democracy, that is, democratic socialism. I'm not talking about center-left social democracy like Olaf Scholz or Magdalena Andersson. Right now, Bernie Sanders is closer to the Left Party (Sweden), according to a Swedish Social Democrats. # Europe's classical social democracy is on the same line as Bernie Sanders, but in the case of a center-left position among modern European social democracy, it may be more moderate than Elizabeth Warren. If what Jonjohnny user calls "socialist politics" means European center-left social democracy, it has nothing to do with the DSA. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC))

I think you are misinterpreting what I am trying to say with my comments on the use of far-left. The policies in the main that they might be talking about might well be radical social democratic policies, but a short-term political strategy =/= long-term goals. Goals which they are very transparent about. In addition, there is no official source that Sanders & Warren are members of the DSA, so the alignment of looking like "European Social Democrats" needs separate sources. TrangaBellam has the right idea to use scholiastic sources to support the claim, there isn't consensus and would be better than relying on presentations in the media. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact Warren identifies with liberalism as it is understood in the part of the world outside the U.S., although she is closer to social liberalism than classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• These labels shall be sourced to high quality academic sources; not random news-articles or our views on DSA's policy positions. Do better, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC))

• Let me suggest a compromise. The political position of the infobox in the article is to keep it 'Left-wing' but footnote it. It's like a Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) article. I'll write the footnote: "The DSA is considered an academic "left-wing" party, but it has also been specified by some media as "far-left"." I'll edit it as an example. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• I looked up the latest decade of data on the DSA and saw more cases of describing the organization as far-left than left-wing. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  academic "left-wing" party - What? That line makes no sense. We defer to peer-reviewed scholarship in case of anything controversial provided such scholarship exist. I will create a new section on academic sources and start quoting from them. Fwiw, I am not yet certain about whether scholars bin DSA into the left or the far-left. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Then I'll remove this phrase: academic "left-wing" party Thanks. I think the DSA is a 'left-wing to far-left' party. I think the DSA is not far-left by European standards, but can be far-left without using violence. Because American politics is different from European politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  What you (or I) think of DSA's location on the left-right spectrum is irrelevant. I keep on asking for academic sources for either label and you keep on introducing your original research. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• These are books that depict the DSA as far left. You can bring additional book and data if you want. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Books by academics - not rw (or lw) hacks, endorsed by Tucker Carlson. Haven't you heard of university presses? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If books are endorsed by Carlson, should not they be listed as unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? That endorsement is a good reason to blacklist them. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It was a mistake to get any source through Google without properly checking the author. The problem is that few books describe the DSA's political position. Most of the sources describing the DSA's political position are media like The New York Times, and academic data are not available. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Even though U.S. politics is different from politics elsewhere, we still need to use terms that are readily understood, per guidelines. TFD (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely is far-left by European standards. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

2023

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, the DSA has nothing in common with UK Labour 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing they had in common was that both were long term members of the Socialist International and they were one of three successor groups of the Socialist Party of America, which had also been a member. TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The DSA left the Socialist International as part of its modern far-left turn. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Academic sources that describe the politics of DSA

[To add.]

Please do not tamper with this section. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

James S. Robbins's was actually published by the right-wing publishing house Regnery Publishing, not Simon and Schuster. Robbins writes for the National Review and Washington Times and worked for Donald Rumsfeld as he was pushing misinformation in order to justify a war in Iraq. Robbins book defends keeping up statues of confederate leaders. TFD (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, and? 194.80.168.100 (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And none of these are considered to be reliable sources. TFD (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

They absolutely are reliable sources, and most of your previous comment is irrelevant ad hominem. Please do better. 80.195.8.42 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have little idea who James S. Robbins is, but Regnery Publishing is known to be almost far right (speaking of political affiliations qualified by an adverb "far"). Some books may have some validity (as seen in a footnote in the Venona project article), but its general political jeremiads and philippics would almost certainly not be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, zero relevance when it comes to the reliability of the source. This is by all accounts a highly credible author. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Left-wing to far-left

Wanted to re-open serious discussion about changing the group's designation from 'left-wing' to 'left-wing to far-left'. A broad array of credible sources (as listed further up) describe it as far-left or something to that effect. Is it possible to open a poll in to this? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, none of those sources are considered reliable. TFD (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You're confused. I wasn't referring to the comment to which you replied. Scroll up further to the previous discussion around the left vs far-left label. 80.195.8.42 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As was discussed earlier, terms such as left and far left are relative terms whose meaning depends on the context in which they are used. IOW any reliable source that uses the terms defines them for its readers either implicitly or explicitly. One source for example may refer to the Dems as the left and the Reps as the right, while others might refer only to Sanders and Trump supporters as left or right-wing.

If you want to call the DSA far left, you would have to write something like "The Democratic Socialists of America are far left. By far left we mean socialist." But that's not conveying any information to readers other than how Wikipedia editors personally map ideologies along the political spectrum.

TFD (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No you wouldn't, you would simply describe them in the same manner in which other far-left groups are described as far-left on Wikipedia. No mental gymnastics needed. The justification is already in the vast array of credible sources describing them as such. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

On another talk page, you object to an anti-gay organization being called far right. That's because you interpret the spectrum differently than most people. Hence you consider left-wing groups to be far left and far right groups to be in the acceptable range. . TFD (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you're thoroughly confused my friend. Stop derailing. My interpretation of the political spectrum is absolutely on point, not that this has any relevance given that the categorisation of the DSA as far-left is justified by a broad consensus of credible sources.

Just for the record, the organisation you're referencing (having trawled through my post history to look for an ad hominem attack in lieu of having any kind of argument) is anti-trans, not anti-gay, and there are plenty of anti-trans groups in the UK based in the centre/centre-left, not the right - the LGB Alliance being one of them. A good word of advice for you would be to not speak boldly on things you know absolutely nothing about in future.

Try to educate yourself a little better on how Wikipedia works and stop projecting your own biases on to others. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the LGB Alliance is in the news because of its recent legal victory, and I'm pretty sure they would not call themselves "anti-trans" -- they're in favor of lesbians being able to set their own boundaries, while people with penises are perfectly free to live their lives to their fullest outside of lesbian-only groups... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course they wouldn't call themselves anti-trans because groups described as hate groups usually deny being against the people they were set up to oppose. TFD (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever -- this is not the place to debate the matter at any length, but "anti-trans" makes them sound exactly the same as Ron DeSantis, whereas in fact they are quite different from Ron DeSantis. When I was adding my Iron Done comment below, I happened to see 194.80.168.100's comment, and was a little surprised (in the light of recent news) that he seemed to be quasi-favorable to LGBA, yet described it using terminology that LGBA itself would reject... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As you said, the criterion is "a broad consensus of credible sources." They don't share your perspectives on the DSA or where to place other groups along the policical spectrum. Your mapping reflects right-wing media, but few of them are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. From their perspective, they are moderate and centrist so mainstream media and corporate America must be left-wing and anyone to their left must be far left. TFD (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The abusive practices section

EDIT: This contention has been resolved satisfactorily to both parties. There is much I have to learn about Wikipedia & its customs & rules before I rush in, pen in hand, to edit like some unruly barbarian. Thank you for the humbling.

Hello! Nothing in the wikipedia policy excludes the mention of medium as a source. if you read the source page, you'll find the author backs up their claims with first-hand evidence of their grievance in question. Please confirm that Trey Maturin has actually read the Medium article. Thanks! Sniff snaff (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDIUM, which specifically bans the use of Medium as a reliable source because it is merely a blog. Additionally, citing individual blog posts proves nothing: we need reliable sources of other people saying this, not random members or ex-members. — Trey Maturin™ 14:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

if you bothered to read what you cited carefully, you'd see that it says "unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons." the medium essay is A), by a person with a political science degree, B), it is about their own experiences, & C) it is a primary source for themselves. I ask you again: did you bother to read the medium essay or not? Sniff snaff (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The essay makes allegations about the behaviour of other people. That makes it a secondary source, and as such absolutely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If the section were rewritten to only focus on the author's own experiences that have first-hand documentation, would that be acceptable? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, the author makes some well-documented claims, while the others are clearly suspicious. Perhaps we can reach a consensus here? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of allegations not commented on by independent published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you're introducing rules & guidelines I do not see on the page regarding Medium as a source. Care to educate me? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I get why you're wikilawyering this, but I'd also note that three experienced, long-time editors of Wikipedia are disagreeing with someone who made their first, contested, edit less than an hour ago. It might be well to note the imbalance here. — Trey Maturin™ 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I hardly see how appealing to authority & experience makes you per se correct. Again, you have failed to answer my question so I will take it that you did not read the citation. Thus, you are not doing your due diligence. I would like to ask you if you are a member of the DSA. That would be a serious conflict of interest. Sniff snaff (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm British, but carry on. — Trey Maturin™ 15:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the candor. I think we can come to an agreement here, seeing as I won't give up & you want to keep the peace. As I told the other editor: we can write this so that it doesn't have to be its own section. just added to another section. I don't care to start a war on my Saturday morning either. Sniff snaff (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless and until appropriate sources are found, there is nothing to add, and nothing to discuss here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Very well. I humbly bow out with grace before I make a further fool of myself. Thank you for the baptism by fire, I guess. Sniff snaff (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The term expert is understood to mean someone whose works on the topic have been published in the academic press. However, you would still need to show it had received wide coverage in order to establish weight for inclusion.

While ABOUTSELF allows the use of non-reliable sources, it is only for non-controversial information about the subject in their article. TFD (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Very well. I shall devote myself to copy editing for now before I tackle bigger tasks such as the one I tried to do. Seems like I have to learn the ropes around here a bit more before charging in like a barbarian. Thank you for being instructive, all of you. :] Sniff snaff (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverts to Caucuses & Elected Officials

As has been discussed previously evidently, DSA is not a political party and so the infobox should not have information on elected officials etc. There was also recent changes to include internal politics such as caucuses, most of which is inaccurate and incorrectly cited, can someone please revert these changes Blocky858 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me the last time this was discussed was in 2020 with few participants. The seat composition has mostly been in the infobox for the past year, and there is not much difference between a party and an organization in this context. I think we should reopen discussion at this point in a new thread and keep it until there is a new consensus. Because apparently the implied consensus was not to get rid of it for most of the last year. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

The caucus information is biased and the only source given for it is from a caucus that is not neutral on identifying other caucuses. Either delete all caucus information or allow caucuses to provide their own ideology, but it is not neutral to let one caucus define all of the other caucuses' ideology.

GramsciJr (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi GramsciJr, we are currently discussing whether to keep or remove the Caucuses section in the above section of the talk page. There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus in either direction. Thanks for your input, Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 18:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. -Lemonaka‎ 02:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One caucus is not defining the ideology here. There are other sources that provide more information in the table. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

NYC demonstration

I've reverted some recent changes that seem (to me) to round up speculation into certainty. In this case, it is not at all clear what relationship (if any) those chanting "700" had with DSA, nor whether this number referred to Israeli or Palestinian victims. And the original source, the Times of Israel (referenced by the Yahoo News source for this) only states that the number "apparently" referred to Israeli victims, and that the New York DSA merely advertised the event and expressed "solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to resist." Obviously anything to do with the recent outbreak of violence in Israel/Palestine is going to be contentious –– and I respect the perspectives of those who may disagree with me on this. My reason for reverting is that I believe we need to be especially careful here to go no further than what the reliable sources say. Further, we should keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and that the material we include is expected to pass the WP:10YEARTEST. Generalrelative (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

i believe there are at three distinct issues here, so i’ll try to address them separately.

1. Re: DSA’s association with the event, it has been widely reported that DSA was indeed involved in organizing the event, and many credible sources reporting on the event have included some variant of the name "Democratic Socialists" in the title, so i do not think this can reasonably be called into dispute. what is in dispute is whether the national-level org was involved, as opposed to the NYC chapter only, but i think that is already discussed sufficiently within the section text.

2. Re 700 chant: i agree with you that we should probably clarify the provenance of that claim and avoid inferring any meaning on the part of the demonstrators apart from how it was perceived by outside observers. we should probably revisit the wording here. (and the tone of the original text was admittedly not quite encyclopedic.) but, in my personal opinion, the chant is shocking and absolutely would pass the 10-year test. it would be profoundly disappointing if these occurrences were so easily forgotten.

i can see a rationale for why this doesn’t belong in the DSA article itself, i think as more information surfaces we should explore splitting this content off into a dedicated article about the Oct 8 rally, in a similar format to Unite the Right rally. but for the time being, i think it would be really bad if this information fell through the editorial cracks, and it is not so irrelevant that it is out-of-place in the DSA article.

3. Re AOC comments: i’m not sure why this addition was included in your second revert, AOC is one of the most prominent members of DSA, and her response to the rally is obviously relevant to this topic. this material doesn’t seem to be related to the material in dispute, so i don’t know why it was removed.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: 1, the only sources I can find in the news articles point to either (a political opponent) Rep. Ritchie Torres's tweet alleging it, and a deleted NYC-DSA retweet of the event's flyer, which includes several logos, but not DSA's. I also do not see any DSA signs or fliers in the pictures of the event, so to call it "organized" by them rather than "supported" seems disingenuous.

Re: 2, this seems irrelevant if 1 can't be clearly shown from coverage. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 23:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: 3, AOC's comments are probably fine, I'm not sure how much detail this section warrants yet. Tangentially, we might want to rearrange all the foreign policy-related sub-topics (Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.) under Policies > Foreign policy?

in the context of the immense blowback to the rally, it is reasonable to assume that no rational leader of any mainstream organization would ever publicly admit their role in planning the event. therefore, it is important to not give undue weight to primary sources that deny DSA’s involvement in the event.

moreover, we should be careful not to stray into the realm of original research. that you personally did not observe any DSA logos in pictures of the event you have seen cannot outweigh the general association that major news outlets have made between DSA and the Oct 8 rally.

it is not hard to find examples of secondary sources that assume DSA’s involvement in the event. some of them currently appear as citations in the article. (emphasis added)

NEW YORK — A pro-Palestinian rally Sunday in Times Square endorsed by the city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America ensnared prominent party members amid widespread condemnation of the event.

The “All Out for Palestine” rally is due to be held near 42nd Street and Broadway starting at 1pm est, and a heavy NYPD presence is expected. The event is being backed by the the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

DSA TROUBLES: The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is facing a political firestorm after the organization promoted a pro-Palestine rally in the wake of Hamas militants’ attacks on Israeli communities that killed hundreds of people. The group did not organize Sunday’s rally, its leadership said Monday. But several lawmakers with DSA ties are distancing themselves from what was said at the event.

The Sunday rally in New York, endorsed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and promoted by the group’s New York chapter, attracted a crowd of more than 1,000. Some chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied” and there were reports of a Nazi emblem being shown and Israeli flags burned and trodden on.

The controversial rally in Times Square was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America, a far-left organization that includes several prominent House members in its ranks, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Jamaal Bowman, both of New York; Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who is the first Palestinian woman in Congress; and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, an outspoken critic of Israel.

these sources are not using the names of other political parties in the united states, such as the GOP or the Working Families Party. they are also not using the names of other far-left organizations such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, even though (based on my own original research!) theirs were some of the most common signs visible at the rally.

i personally think that DSA’s role in organizing the event has been overstated; that PSL, not DSA, is principally to blame; and that major news outlets are mainly focusing on DSA due to low awareness of PSL’s existence. but that would be original research. we can only state the conclusions of credible secondary sources as fact, and these sources are overwhelmingly mentioning DSA specifically, and “socialists” more generally.

regarding the specific choice of verb, i still believe organized is the most appropriate term to use. but if we are to hew to the exact terms used by the sources, the words promoted, endorsed, and hosted seem well-supported. to say that they merely supported it would be an inappropriate minimization.

finally, i wouldn’t dismiss Ritchie Torres as a “political opponent” of DSA. he is a progressive by caucus membership, and one could expect that he would be more sympathetic than most to a left-leaning organization such as DSA.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason for any inclusion of anything related to this one demonstration. The organizer of an event is not responsible for every participant of that event and no one in the organization supported the actions of some participants. More info can be found at: [9]/ O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out, the NYC DSA' only involvement was retweeting the announcement of the demonstration and as observed in Politio's article, "it did not appear to organize the rally. No leading DSA members were seen in attendance." I didn't see the Republicans get as upset when Trump retweeted a neo-Nazi. TFD (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that we should delete this subsection from the article given that it appears to be full of inaccuracies (among other issues). (I am open to later bringing back a new version of the subsection without the numerous inaccuracies, etc. However, it feels a bit weird to only talk about this event and not other Israel-Palestine related events with their own subsections.) For example, it claims that the NYC chapter organized the rally. This is untrue. It promoted the rally via a (since deleted) Tweet, but it did not organize the rally.[source] Further evidence of that can be seen in the fact that it's logo is not included in the graphic.[source] The subsection also claims "The national-level DSA later distanced itself from the event." But I can find nothing at all from the national organization distancing DSA from the rally (and the Politico article cited does not either). ROADKILL (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Roadkill -- It's receiving widespread news coverage. It may not be that important in the context of the whole history of the DSA, but whether you like it or not, it's important to the current public perception of the DSA... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos here. At this point it's a "third bounce" effect, like so much else in politics, regardless of how peripheral DSA (or even its New York chapter) was to the event. We just need to be careful to stick narrowly to the facts and avoid amplifying the spin. Generalrelative (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. But, is that what an encyclopedia is for? WP:10YT O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm with you, O3000 (note that I referenced 10YT in my OP). It's just that if multiple reliable, secondary, non-opinion sources are discussing this, our hands are basically tied. Nothing prevents us from keeping this to a sentence or two, however, which may end up being all that's really DUE for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This piece in Politico makes a pretty strong case that DSA is facing a major inflection point — and identity crisis over this. It may well merit more than a sentence or two. Generalrelative (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to know the 10 year significance in what was reported in today's newspaper. I would wait a few weeks to see. The article mentions for example that Bowman is no longer a member, but that happened a year ago. No doubt someone will write something to explain what is happening. TFD (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References