Talk:Party for Socialism and Liberation

Tienanmen square

Link to article on the Tienanmen square protests is dead. Maybe we should find a link that is not Party controlled? archive.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.62.2 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You spelled it wrong. brainrot lol 68.188.235.139 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism

It should be noted that the PSL specifically avoids using the label Marxism–Leninism in any official capacity, in favor of the formulation “Marxist and Leninist.” The PSL comes out of a very specific tradition of communist organization in the United States, particularly that established by Sam Marcy. In the Marcy-type of “Marxist and Leninist” party, an emphasis is placed on the organizational concept of democratic centralism and the practical concept of anti-imperialist demonstration via participation and leadership in “mass organizations” such as ANSWER. I think care should be taken in the ideology section of the infobox to differentiate the PSL from the Marxist–Leninist party tradition, as it does not have its roots there. Its leadership still consists substantially of those who would identify as Trotskyist rather than Marxist–Leninist. Kelethine (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the articles they publish ever mentions Marcy though, and they tend to be filled with admiration for marxist and leninist figures, along with their philosophies. The party is among other things a strong supporter of Cuba and the Cuban Revolution, Trots usually dont ever support Cuba and its revolution. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It may also be added that the PSL does not have a single founder and was co-founded by members who split from the Workers World Party, a party that is deeply marxist-leninist and which at least in the past was considered a mayor supporter of Maoism! So the roots of the PSL are very much Marxist-Leninist. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It should probably also be added that we have sources and text in the article itself stating the party builds on both marxist and leninist ideology, none of these sources mention Marcy! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Current PSL member here. PSL has made several mentions of Marcy, including in their founding statement:

"As former leaders and members of Workers World Party, we defend that group’s historical tradition and mission, particularly that of its founder Sam Marcy."

Marcy's writings are still cited throughout PSL's publications, for example in this article published in 2021. Additionally, Marcy's "Global Class War" thesis is something core to the party's ideology and mentioned very often in official statements and other party media. The Worker's World Party does indeed call itself Marxist-Leninist, but the PSL has not done this in any of its own writings. It instead uses language from the Trotskyist tradition, such as simply "Leninist" or "a Marxist party of a Leninist type." This does not mean that PSL is necessarily a Trotskyist party either, they have clearly broken with that tradition and there's no love lost between them and Trotskyist groups, however it does mean that the PSL cannot be accurately described as "Marxist-Leninist". SpaceHaitian (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the best course of action is to restore the status quo of the first sentence simply describing it as a communist party. Various ideological descriptors can be left for the info-box. Just a suggestion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where does PSL indicate it is a communist party? They are socialist not communist. Even their About Us page says so. 2601:541:B00:3960:2C2:1999:DB4A:5594 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

While they aren't Marxist-Leninist I think calling them a "socialist" party rather than communist party would mean engaging in the same strain of semantic dishonesty that PSL itself engages in. PSL refers to itself almost exclusively as a socialist party in its publications because their strategy to rebuild the communist movement in the US involves using "socialism" (a term they see as rehabilitated) and "communism" (a term they wish to rehabilitate) as essentially interchangeable terms. PSL is, according its own political education materials, explicitly organized as a vanguard party as defined by the Bolsheviks and Communist International in the 1920s. According to most distinctions between what a "socialist" and "communist" party is, in particular the distinction communists themselves draw, it's accurate to refer to PSL as a communist party. SpaceHaitian (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding more history

The PSL seems to be getting pretty popular, in my subjective analysis, and I wonder if the History section could be fleshed out more. Adding information about La Riva's 2016 run which garnered some of the most votes for a socialist candidate in some time, and frankly the recent mass arrest of PSL organizers in Denver seems to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DobalinaQ (talk • contribs) 22:19, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

Primary source

This article is almost completely on primary sources, the content is highly doubtful, the better is to eliminate such parts without any real reference. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the content below as relying solely upon PSL sources, or upon PSL sources + an ISO blog. SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - have done a lot of work to trim and flag these if you want to take a look Superb Owl (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

== Publication == The PSL outlines its political perspective, including its assessment of the current international and domestic situation, in the pamphlet Who We Are, What We Stand For. The party also owns its own printing company, PSL Publications, through which it has published multiple printed books such as Socialists and War: Two Opposing Trends by members Mazda Majidi and Brian Becker and an e-book which was released through Amazon titled A Woman's Place Is in the Struggle by members Ana Maria Ramirez, Anne Gamboni, Gloria La Riva and Liz Lowengard. The PSL's publication company, Liberation Media, is headquartered in San Francisco, California. === Economics === The PSL would, among other measures, prohibit the exploitation of labor for private profit, implement a working week of 30 hours, introduce a basic income guarantee, ensure paid parental and family leave for up to two years, provide paid sick and disability leave, require a minimum of one month's paid vacation, institute single payer health insurance, outlaw renting and selling land, provide free college, and eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It advocates for recall for all elected officials, supports freedom of speech for the working class, and opposes political lobbying. === Foreign policy === The PSL has been critical of certain intergovernmental organizations, particularly international economic institutions like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. Its official newspaper published an article stating that the "WTO is one of many institutions, like the G8, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, that undermine the sovereignty of nations by forcing the implementation of disastrous neoliberal economic policies of privatization, liberalization and deregulation". It has further argued that "the IMF works on behalf of multinational corporations, finding natural resources, sweatshop laborers, and consumers for Western capitalism's surplus production" and has called the G20 an "instrument of capitalist plunder". === Criminal justice === The PSL advocates "the overthrow, dismantling and complete replacement" of the "police, prisons, military and courts" of the United States. It supports replacing the current legal system of the United States with a "new justice system based on the democratic organization of the working class and its right to defend its class interests on the basis of solidarity and unity" and advocates reorganizing the prison system around "social education and rehabilitation". === Foreign policy === PSL opposes Israel and its interests in the Middle East. It participated in demonstrations against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in July 2006 and supports the Palestinian right of return. PSL praised the 2008 election of Nepali Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. === Cuba === PSL supports Cuba and mourned the death of its former President Fidel Castro; additionally, it has endorsed activities that called for the release of the Cuban Five—deemed political prisoners by supporters—and called for the extradition of anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles from the United States. === Anti-war === The PSL co-operates with other organizations across the United States in the anti-war movement and is a member of the steering committee of the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition (A.N.S.W.E.R.). As one of the most active members of the coalition, the PSL has gained notice for successfully forging ties with Arab and Muslim American groups such as the Muslim American Society, Al-Awda and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The PSL has advocated for the end of the United States military presence in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, and the closure of all United States foreign military bases.

PSL's stance on the Russian annexation of Crimea/invasion of Ukraine

It is no secret PSL supports Russia, China and other dictatorships, and promotes apologetics for their militarist and imperialist policies. I attempted to add information on the party's statements regarding Russia's war in Ukraine, and got reverted several times by editor User:C.J. Griffin. The editor claims the problem is POV and lack of secondary sources. I suggested the editor modify the content to remove supposed POV, but instead they purged the text altogether. Besides, finding secondary sources for such a fringe organization as PSL is somewhat difficult. I do not understand why primary sources (PSL's statements) cannot be used to describe their views without any assessments or criticisms. My edit that was reverted. 217.66.152.52 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the article is filled with primary sources, and the previous post on this talk page questions that pattern. However, it seems primary sources are only bad when they reveal something controversial about an organization. 217.66.152.52 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the first sentences of your post it is clear that you are a WP:SPA here to POV push and place undue weight on the issue of the Russo-Ukraine war to this article by WP:CHERRY picking quotes from primary sources and statements from opposition organizations. If you have a problem with the organization, this is not the place to settle scores. If you feel that strongly about it, try to find consensus here instead of edit warring.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you should go ahead and delete all of the other content that relies on primary sources, champ. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Total nonsense. Their stance on the Russo-Ukraine war is a massively important contemporary aspect of this organisation and primary sources are absolutely valid when describing an organisation's own policies - as has been done throughout this article (funny that you seem to have no problem with that!)

You are a stunningly bad faith actor 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a secondary source discussing this and is now reflected in the article Superb Owl (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BASED 68.188.235.139 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Party platform relating to nationalist movements

regarding the current content dispute over the Party for Socialism and Liberation#Ideology section, the pre-existing text essentially paraphrased the party’s manifesto, which states:

The socialist government will recognize the inviolable right of all oppressed nations to self-determination with regard to their means of gaining and maintaining their liberation. In the United States, this includes the right of self-determination for African American, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawai’ian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples that have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism.

it is not hard to peel away the propogandic mantle to observe that this section is essentially expressing two points of view:

1. the united states is a union state that contains several smaller states (“oppressed nations”) the PSL would like to see become sovereign nations (the definition of the words liberation and self-determination).

2. these smaller nations within the united states should be delimited by ethnicity.

for lords sake, it literally says Hawai’ian nation! it would be completely disingenuous to claim this sentence is referring to anything other than the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

sure, they never really say the phrase Ethnic nationalism, and yet that’s pretty much what they are describing here. this isn’t diverging from the source, this is summarizing the text by applying the definitions of words. if this passage isn’t an example of an ethnic nationalist viewpoint, what is?

isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is too far from what the source says. This is original research and synth. Furthermore, primary sources are disfavored on Wikipedia. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

the original text was also unacceptably restating the opinions expressed in the manifesto as general fact. i am okay with leaving this entire section out of the article until we have a neutral secondary source on this subject.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Leninism or Marxism-Leninism label

@C.J. Griffin: I think it makes more sense to call PSL "Leninist", but include Marxist-Leninist in the list of ideologies. PSL never *explicitly* call themselves a ML organization (in the sources cited, they just say they support ML theories of the state), but PSL do explicitly call themselves a "Leninist party". SocDoneLeft (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Why Redirect "Breakthrough News" -> PSL??

Breakthrough News is an independent news outlet hosted by Eugene Puryear and Rania Khalek. It currently does not have a page, but it redirects here?? This does not make sense to me.

The best I can figure out is its because Puryear was previously a PSL candidate? But at least redirecting to him would make a lot more sense than just PSL.

The page "Breakthrough News" appears to not exist, as a redirect or otherwise, so I'm not really sure how the redirect is happening.

Please delete or change this redirect.

Also, perhaps give input on Breakthrough News's notability/page potential. Jdftba (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the article that gives the most info on BTN so it seems a good redirect. Here is the content the reader would reach: PSL leadership are closely involved with The People's Forum and BreakThrough News via the IPMN. Anchors on BreakThrough News include Becker and PSL 2016 vice-presidential candidate Puryear. Becker also co-hosted a show with John Kiriakou on Radio Sputnik of the RT state media network. PSL is also closely tied to the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research and its founder, Vijay Prashad, who has often appeared on BreakThrough News. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Aug 2024

Starting a conversation about what needs to improve to get rid of the NPOV tag (pinging @C.J. Griffin) Superb Owl (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The tag is in place as the new additions are all antagonistic towards the subject of the article and from sources not directly about the subject (PSL) at all, meaning this material was cherry picked for that specific reason, so it appears to me anyways. C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok I think I understand better where you are coming from. Are you suggesting to focus on less reliable sources where PSL is the primary subject of an article? Superb Owl (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The supposedly more reliable sources appear to be basically op eds penned for the express purpose of smearing third party candidates like Cornell West and others, and pillory political organizations running their own candidates like PSL with off handed comments not about the articles subject, and obviously from authors who are more often than not biased political commentators with their own agenda. Perhaps this should be taken into account before stuffing the article with such obvious biased commentary from political hit pieces in the guise of being reliable, neutral sources. C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but read the articles from multiple WP:RS as surfacing noteworthy controversies that should be mentioned. We might agree to disagree on quite a bit but hopefully there are specific sections we can improve. Superb Owl (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I partially agree with @C.J. Griffin: that the new additions by @Superb Owl: are too combative against PSL. The article has been restructured into a list of criticisms toward PSL and controversies involving PSL, rather than describing PSL's actions & views and categorizing them per WP:RS.

In addition, the current article has shifted too far against using primary sources, such as in obtaining PSL self-descriptions and contrasting those against non-PSL descriptions.

However, I am happy to see more WP:RS added, as the article was too primary source heavy before. SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We're making good progress and getting closer hopefully to a good spot for this. I noticed that ~60% of the article authorship is by @SocDoneLeft, so my concern is that we do not have enough perspetives yet to get a balanced view of this article that seems to have been a bit too WP:Promo for a while now and really lacking reliable coverage. Superb Owl (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That stat might be inflated: I recently (~1-2 months ago) cut the article down enormously (~50%) where only primary sources existed.

What sections do you worry come too close to WP:PROMO? SocDoneLeft (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's good to hear but still hoping to get more perspectives.
Basically all the content in the Elections section and the Membership section without notable secondary sources are WP:PROMO and/or WP:TRIVIA, imo Superb Owl (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved the disputed sources out of the body and to a more clearly attributed reception section. Hopefully this addresses the NPOV concerns Superb Owl (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: I am going to remove the Primary Source notices on the publication section. It seems reasonable either [1] for that section to rely mostly on primary sources, simply to inform readers of related groups/newspapers or [2] to be removed entirely. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@SocDoneLeft, that's fine, but then I think we should remove them so as not to be WP:PROMO
Actually, it's important to keep especially if most editors want to cite these publications, it should be clear they are affiliated with the party. Feel free to remove the notices Superb Owl (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: I boldly removed NPOV tag. Think it still needs it? SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me - added 2 flags re: better sourcing and clarified a primary source in the citation Superb Owl (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of "As a Presidential Candidate, Cornel West Aligns Himself With Far-Left Radicals"

This is essentially an op-ed and thus not a reliable source. It is cited throughout the piece as fact.--User:Namiba 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So I've been running into this dilemma and am hoping you can help me with this - for articles that like this that read at times like an op-ed but are not labeled as such and published by WP:RS, my understanding was that they were reliable and usable though maybe just needed to be attributed depending on the ideological lean of the organization. Should we attribute what is not attributed to a better source? Superb Owl (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Op-eds are not a reliable source for anything other than citing the ideology of the writer. Moreover, Mother Jones is well-known for being very close to the Democratic Party. We should never cite opinion pieces like this. It is a hit piece.--User:Namiba 14:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What I am hearing is that maybe we should exercise caution with a biased reliable source even if there is no evidence that anything in this particular WP:RS article (or possible oped though there is no label as such) is false? Also, how do you know it is a hit piece? And if it is, is there any rule against citing them if from a perennial WP:RS? Superb Owl (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this entirely from the body outside a more clearly attributed reception section Superb Owl (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing "Reception" section

IMO this section does not address NPOV concerns whatsoever, it just sections them off. None of the articles cited are actually describing the popular reception to PSL -- just PSL's beliefs. From an article standpoint, these claims are better integrated into the "history" or "ideology" sections.

I have WP:BOLDly done so. SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed "Controversies" section

Whether true or false, this section has no WP:RS. @130.91.184.28:

Extended content
Former PSL members have accused the group of cult-like tendencies and of mishandling of sexual abuse allegations, particularly in the Philadelphia chapter.

SocDoneLeft (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC) SocDoneLeft (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this complies WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V. Controversial allegations should be sourced by reliable sources. Vague and unsubstantiated language should be avoided.

As is, this article already suffers from an NPOV problem. It's essentially a laundry list of controversial takes, presented in the least charitable language possible. We should be very cognizant of what is WP:DUE, and what is not. Adding hot takes from reddit to an article in this state is not good editing.

Additionally, it may be wise to protect this page from vandalism, which seems to have increased in the wake of the 2024 election. Combefere ★ Talk 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not currently meet Wikipedia standards for WP:NPOV. In particular, WP:UNDUE weight has been given to both it's "associated groups," and controversial, poorly sourced foreign policy positions. Some of these policy positions are stretched from the sources or appear to be entirely fabricated, with no support from the sourced material at all. In other instances, editors have taken PSL's publications and drawn their own (ungenerous) conclusions or characterizations from them, breaking WP:OR.

It seems like much of the article (particularly the "Associated Groups" section) was generated entirely from material from the Daily Beast, which is not a reliable source and should not be used to support controversial statements or make vague insinuating gestures. Some of these statements are clear violations of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. As a starting point, that source should be removed or drastically reduced from the article, vague language around anything remotely close to controversial should be removed, and the entire "Foreign Policy Position" section should be both scrubbed to check that the sources actually support the content in the article, and reduced to a due amount of weight. Combefere ★ Talk 01:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@SocDoneLeft -- please see above and respond here before reverting edits. Combefere ★ Talk 07:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Combefere:, thank you for creating the domestic affairs section, which was sorely lacking.

Undue: IMO the article currently roughly but accurately reflects PSL's coverage in reliable sources, which seem to be ~1/3 about its ties to other organizations, ~1/3 about its activities, rallies, and candidates' domestic views, and ~1/3 about its foreign policy views. The "domestic affairs" section could use additional sources, since it leans too heavily on PSL's party program.

Daily Beast: WP:DAILYBEAST claims no editorial agreement on whether DB is a WP:RS. In my view, this article clearly falls on the WP:RS side, since it largely consists of aggregating tax records, donation records, employment history, addresses, and other public information and identifying overlap between these organizations. Other sources (now added) have reached the same conclusions, so it seems reasonable to include.

Foreign affairs: I think every item in the foreign policy section includes both a WP:RS source on PSL's view and a direct quote from a PSL source supporting the WP:RS. Could you point to any examples which violate WP:OR?

BLP: I don't see any sources which violate BLP. Could you point to any examples?

Weasel: Could you point to any examples? SocDoneLeft (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:DAILYBEAST "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact." Daily Beast should not be our only source when making controversial statements. That Daily Beast article itself mentions PSL only once, so I am struggling to understand why it is included at all. Singham is not the subject of this article. The whole section seems to be a random collection of claims assembled for the sole purpose of insinuating (but not directly stating) that PSL receives money from Singham, which breaks a whole host of other policies including OR, NPOV, BLP, and V. If that's not the purpose of the section, then I don't see why it can't be rewritten in a coherent manner using reliable sources.
• Foreign Affairs: one example was the sentence "PSL defends the Soviet Union's suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956." This was attributed to a 2013 article written by Freedom Socialist Party, which is not a reliable source. The article itself does not state that "PSL defends the Soviet Union's suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956." It states that founders of WWP supported it, and that an article published by PSL in 2006 took the same position. The editor's characterization that this is PSL's official party line in 2024 is WP:OR. This is also WP:UNDUE. RS coverage of the PSL does not mention their position on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 anywhere. This (as much of the article) appears to be cherry-picked. In another paragraph, a quotation from the 2009 book Sexuality and Socialism reading "WWP/PSL's uncompromising defense of virtually every country claiming to be socialist - from Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Kim il-Sung's North Korea to Modern China..." is used to make the sweeping statement "PSL supports Kim Jong-Un." Also WP:OR. Also WP:UNDUE. Also breaks WP:NPOV.
• Another issue with foreign affairs -- many sentences or even whole topics are sourced solely from Liberation News articles. While primary sources are sometimes necessary here, it appears editors selectively extracted the most controversial quotes without adequate context, sometimes adding editorializing language. This is not how to write in a neutral tone.
• BLP: The statement "From 2020 to 2024, several former PSL members accused the group of cult-like tendencies and of mishandling sexual abuse allegations. In 2024, PSL presidential candidate Claudia de la Cruz denied these allegations, some of which she described as misinformation from federal agents." The source seems to be a Google Doc which was published on what can generously be described as a blog. Contentious material such as the word "cult" or allegations of sexual abuse, especially around living people, must be attributed inline to reliable sources or removed immediately. Statements about de La Cruz, Singham related to the Daily Beast article also apply. Statements about sexual abuse fall under WP:BLPCRIME and should not be included unless there is a conviction.

I do understand the difficulty in expanding this article, as it seems that many RSs simply do not cover PSL substantially. Sources that do cover PSL are typically political publications themselves, containing a large degree of bias and loaded language. Our job as editors is to parse through those sources, decide what is due and what isn't, and present it in a neutral and factual tone. I think being specific will help us here. "PSL supports Kim Jong-Un" is vague, unverifiable, and overly controversial. "PSL issued a statement in 2013 defending North Korea's nuclear weapons program" is neutral, verifiable, and properly sourced. Combefere ★ Talk 10:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Combefere:

DailyBeast: I agree that the Daily Beast may not be sufficient for controversial claims. I have added another WP:RS source from New Line Magazine. Currently, the "affiliated groups" section contains the WP:RS of San Jose Mercury News (linking WWP, ANSWER), The New Republic (linking PSL, ANSWER), Network Contagion Research Institute (linking PSL, ANSWER, BTN, People's Forum, Singham), The Jerusalem Post (linking PSL, ANSWER, BTN, People's Forum, Singham), Daily Beast (linking PSL, ANSWER, BTN, People's Forum, Singham), and New Lines Magazine (linking BTN, People's Forum, Singham). In addition, several secondary-source claims are supported by primary source quotes. Given that most WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS of BTN and People's Forum mentions these connections, it seems reasonable to mention these connections. I do not see how they would fail WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, or WP:V.

Foreign Affairs: I agree that mentioning the invasion of Hungary is undue. However, in the current version, I think every claim in that section has at least one secondary source and at least one quote from a primary source supporting that exact claim. This seems reasonable. Are there any claims which lack a secondary source or which misread a primary source? When a centralized organization like PSL repeatedly supports a position several times, it seems reasonable to say "Organization X supports position Y", rather than "In a 2013 statement, and a 2015 statement, and a 2017 statement, Organization supported position Y". WP:RS on PSL do not make this distinction, likely because PSL has stayed consistent in its positions. Similarly, in the text that you added on PSL's domestic policies, you do not clarify "in its 2022 program, PSL stated..." because PSL has repeatedly supported similar policy positions. In short: I think "PSL supports the Worker's Party of North Korea" is not vague, not unverifiable, and not overly controversial.

BLP: I have rephrased this section and added a 2020 source from PSL.

SocDoneLeft (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)