Talk:Party for Socialism and Liberation/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is self promotion

The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem.

Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.

Would you like me to create an AfD page for you? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

How is this a controversial deletion?

No one has yet to dispute it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.73.206 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I dispute it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute it too, certainly it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion based on the content here. Issues with the article should be taken to either the talkpage (preferable at this point) or to the articles for deletion page. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute it too, at least for the time being. I might support an AfD though. The article has problems. It needs to plainly assert notiability. It needs to source to local or regional media outlets that documented events and activities. As it is all sources are self promoting. What about some scholarly references (texts or periodicals) on the development/devolvement of socialist or revolutionary parties? I don't see how this autobiographical, however, unless the creating editor is the only member. Edivorce 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Truncated article

I see that yet another Anon IP, this time with no prior edit history what-so-ever has sharpely truncated the article pending it's AfD. I won't get into a revert war. I have said my peace. I believe the article should be evaluated on this version. I'll trust that Wikipedians can figure this out for themselves. Edivorce 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This anon IP was me, and was mistakenly not logged on. All the recent anon IP are pretty much me. I did not have an account. I registered and created one too. This is not a mystery now. As you can see right now, I just did it again. Wiki doesn't seem to let me stay logged in. SetofFive 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what is POV about the article?

Please tell. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no response, say for another week, elaborating on the basis of the POV claim, can we remove the tag?Edivorce 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the fact about the Harlem branch is repeated, it is probably an oversight or mistake, and should be removed. I don't understand how this constitutes an article deserving of deletion. I don't see how stating the Party's positions qualifies for pov or how, moreover, the article is significantly different from other Wiki entries on small parties. I'm for removing the tag. The pen 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state the party's positions in an NPOV way. Instead of actually comparing its own relations to nationalist movements with comparable organisations, it simply states that "PSL supports the right of nations to self-determination." Well, so does every other Marxist group. The effect is that PSL's interpretation of "supporting self-determination" is the correct and only approach to that, and those who aren't so quick to lunge into apologetics for dodgy regimes are therefore "opposed" to this elementary principle. It's the equivalent of a pro-life politician being described as "against infanticide" - so are pro-choice people - or the old euphemism/alibi for homophobia and misogyny, "family values". Besides which, some of the prose is horrifically clunky - I think it needs one of those tags too. Commander deathguts 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

tianmaen

How can you blame the Psl for positions taken before they even existed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.83.158 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

sure you can, when those positions were taken by a predecessor group to it and endorsed by the folks who later made up PSL. Gotta be about the all time worst position WWP/PSL ever took based on a knee jerk view of "your enemy's enemy is your friend". Then again, one doesn't need to waste much time on looking at the actual facts of the situation except to cherry pick out stuff to support that perspective.

Candidates prior to 2008 presidential election?

Were there any?

Also, I find it interesting how many schisms formed this party: Communist Party>Socialist Workers Party>Workers World Party>Party for Socialism and Liberation! Шизомби (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 2008 is the first year of PSL candidates. BTW, the Communist Party was also formed by expelled members of the old Socialist Party of America, who supported the October Revolution. The SPA itself was formed by former Socialist Labor Party members. The SLP is the oldest socialist party in the US, though it is barely alive anymore. Cmrdm (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. BTW, the SWP came out of the SPA, some time after all Trotskyists in general had been expelled from the Communist Party. Membership in the Comintern was also a more relevant issue than the October Revolution itself in the formation of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party (both of which came out of the SPA, and became members of the Comintern, which later ordered them to merge). The founders of the SPA also included the Social Democratic Party in addition to one wing of the SLP. But I think we're in danger of getting a wee bit off-topic. Just let me add that such a series of splits is not unusual for US Communist organizations. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

I'd be interested in more information on the origins of the PSL, the reason for their split from the WWP, ideological differences, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.217.171 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No one knows (makes spooky sound). I've been told outright by a member of the Workers World Party that they will not discuss the issue with anyone outside the party and the PSL probably has the same rule. It's a rather un-Leninist version of democratic centralism. --MQDuck 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it had something to do with positions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who supported a Liberal position/presenting a liberal position in practice through ANSWER (support war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq) stayed with Workers World. I'm not sure though. Does anyone have a reliable source that could back me up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.51.45 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer here, but I think the odds are fairly good that the roots of the split lie as much or more in personal grievances as opposed to major ideological differences. Perhaps the latter were part of the problem, but there's a good chance they were just as much a symptom of the former. Speaking from some experience, the folks at WWP, ANSWER, the IAC, etc. are not particularly known for their top-flight interpersonal skills. The reason for the split may be somewhat mundane and embarrassing, and perhaps that's why we don't really hear about the details. Of course I could be wrong about this and I have no source to back me up, but as far as explanations go this is not a crazy one if you are familiar with how these groups function. Just as a side note, from what I understand the main reason United for Peace and Justice stopped even trying to work with ANSWER was simply that they couldn't stand dealing with them anymore (at least this was UFPJ's reason—ANSWER no doubt sees it differently). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER is opposed to both wars and has been since the beginning. I think the PSL people wanted a more radical platform than the WWP was running I mean it makes a lot of sense if you look at the two parties political views. The PSL runs on a more radical and revolutionary/poor peoples platform. Slipoutside (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, "Liberal" or not, Workers World never supported the war in Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.200 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Merino issue in the "PSL Electoral participation" section

Stevie Merino being the only challenger to the incumbent was hinted at in the source already provided, in this manner:

"Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Stevie Danielle Merino got 5,057 votes—16 percent of all ballots cast—against a highly funded, corporate-backed incumbent. Merino is a 21-year-old retail worker, community college student and member of the PSL."

From the source: - PSL campaign wins thousands of votes for socialist platform in Long Beach

But the person who removed it was right; it wasn't enough evidence. Therefore I added another source which directly states it in this manner:

"For months leading up to the January 15, 2010 deadline for candidates to file their intentions to run for office, it looked as though current Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster would run unopposed in his bid for re-election this April. A few names were rumored to be considering a run, but as the deadline to file neared, it began to look more likely that Foster would not face any challengers.

That is, until 21-year old Cerritos College student and lifelong Long Beach resident Stevie Merino threw her hat into the ring, filing papers to challenge Foster for the city’s chief elected position. Although the Mayor’s race is nonpartisan, Merino is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)."

From the source: Stevie Merino: The Other Option For Mayor at LBPost.com

It is on the public record that she was the only challenger to the incumbent. If you so desire I will add another dozen sources. It is just absurd to contest this fact.

Ledszeppelin (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledszeppelin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Domestic/International Views sections need expansion, re-sourcing.

This section currently consists of only two sentences, both of which state vague policy generalizations (i.e. "Human rights of minorities"), and are sourced only from the PSL's website rather than any outside observer. I propose that this section be expanded and re-sourced for more objectivity.

As for the International Views section, it needs some sourcing on the part referring to the "right of return" and its stance on the Middle East tension.

Tallanto (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the election box go?

Why was it deleted? KurtFF8 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Age of Peta Lindsay

Peta Lindsay as a presidential candidate should be considered frivolous as she was born in 1984. US presidential candidates must be 35 years old, meaning that she is automatically disqualified because of her age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.0.135 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the qualifications of becoming President, Lindsay is qualified to run for President. So the campaign is thus a legitimate campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.41.80 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisionism (Marxism)

Revisionism (Marxism) is listed under the ideology section for the PSL but the change isn't listed in the change log and there isn't a comment about it in the talk page or any scources.People1917 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda page

The entire article reads like a press release for the party. It is a WP:SOAP, the ideology section definitely needs to be trimmed down. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - have just done a lot of work trying to balance this article out relying more on sources without close connections to the group if you want to take a look Superb Owl (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GenericPSLFlier.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources are almost all explicitly communist/socialist publications

This is a dreadfully sourced article. Looking through the sources, literally every one of them except one on ballot access and some FEC filings are specifically communist or socialist. Browsing Google, there is very little significant coverage that's not from a position that would have a vested interest in promoting this party. This article needs a major rewrite, and I don't see much proof this party — which in no year has exceeded 0.06% of the vote — is notable at all. (Similar sourcing problems to the ones I raised at Talk:Democratic Socialists of America#Quite promotional, bad sources but even more extreme). DemonDays64 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Here are some independent sources:

• Wolf, Sherry (2017). Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics, and Theory of LGBT Liberation. Haymarket Books. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-60846-076-2.
• Becker, Kaitlin McKinley; Sotnik, Kathryn (31 August 2020). "Group Demands Justice for Jacob Blake, Protests Police Violence at Boston Rally". NBC Boston. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Clark, Quinn (1 September 2020). "Party for Socialism and Liberation Leads March Demanding Justice for Jacob Blake". Shepherd Express. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Mehrotra, Rabhya (16 September 2020). "Socialist Prez Hopeful Highlights Homeless | New Haven Independent". New Haven Independent. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Schmelzer, Elise (17 September 2020). "Protesters, demonstration leaders arrested in connection to rallies in Aurora". The Denver Post. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Prentzel, Olivia (17 September 2020). "Demonstrators arrested following Elijah McClain protests in Aurora". Colorado Springs Gazette. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Cook, Mike (17 September 2020). "Six presidential candidates are on the New Mexico ballot". Las Cruces Bulletin. Retrieved 19 September 2020.

Rupert Loup (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is not a ton of coverage in reliable sources so I have been paring down the article to be more WP:DUE and pulling from notable sources where possible Superb Owl (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Candidate

No WP:RS on this yet, but saved from a reverted edit:

|- | 2024 | Kevin Olmar Martinez | [[California State Assembly|State Assembly]] | [[California]] | 6 | t.b.a. | t.b.a. | t.b.a. | ran as [[Peace and Freedom Party]] candidate | SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary source material removed

Extended content

PSL describes the Soviet Union positively. However, PSL argued that the New Economic Policy of Vladimir Lenin "led to a re-polarization of social classes, especially in the countryside". PSL blames the reforms initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. PSL supports a free Palestine, ending US aid to Israel, and freeing of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. PSL views the Chinese Communist Revolution favorably. PSL also argues that the modern Chinese Communist Party has made important contributions to socialism and anti-imperialism, that, despite its flaws, a "militant political defense of the Chinese government" is necessary to stave off "counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment". PSL has criticized the CPC for failing to abolish private property. PSL has generally defended China's human rights records, denying, for instance, that the Chinese military massacred student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. PSL supports China's policies towards Tibet and opposed the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, calling them "chauvinist", "separatist", and "anti-China". PSL argues that North Korea is unfairly targeted and advocates the lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, and signing of a peace treaty. PSL supports North Korea's nuclear weapons program. For example, Stephan Gowans argued in 2013 in PSL's official newspaper that a North Korean nuclear arsenal is "to be welcomed by anyone who opposes imperialist military interventions; supports the right of a people to organize its affairs free from foreign domination; and has an interest in the survival of one of the few top-to-bottom, actually-existing, alternatives to the global capitalist system of oppression, exploitation and foreign domination". PSL has also expressed skepticism towards Western claims of North Korea's human rights record, arguing that "conditions in North Korea are vastly better than those in other developing countries" and stating that condemnations of North Korea's human rights records are "thinly veiled justification[s] for U.S. aggression toward North Korea".

SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed and flagged a lot more primary source material or material that was authored by those too close to the subject. Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)