Talk:Socialist Party USA/Archive 1

Socialist Party Dynamic

Is this sentence more proper? I believe it gets my point across without actually deleting information....for which I am quite sorry. I am just getting the hang of all of this.

Still don't like it

The sentence added really is just kind of hearsay. Also, how do you measure the "success" of the Socialist Summer campaign?

SonofRage

Hearsay

essentially all information about the socialist party can be considered hearsay -- ie information communicated by another. I have modified the sentence again, since you are correct. The success of an internal effort that few are aware of (socialist summer) is inconsequential. The continuing success of the party as a whole however is a real issue to be addressed, whether everyone involved likes it or not.

I believe this is within the scope of the guidelines presented to me by the moderator.

Remember, I dont like the Socialist Summer line since it is mostly irrelevant, but that doesnt mean it is going away.

Socialist Summer

I think the Socialist Summer line is relevant because it's about what the party is involved in at the moment and shows that the SP is not merely an electoral entity.

SonofRage

Protected

I've protected this page with reservations as the dispute seems quite minor. I'm just doing it to encourage the parties to resolve the matter on this talk page. Will look in again in a few days. AndyL 23:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

International affiliation?

Does the Socialist Party have an international affiliation? --Revolución (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not, but we do have amicable relations with socialist parties.----RedSpurs 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What more do we need?

I think the basic discussion on the platform is pretty good, and hits on the major divides in the party's internal life. What else is appropriate for the page? Could someone point to a model political party entry? Cadriel 14:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Multi-Tendency Tendency

The "Multi-Tendency Tendency" link has been removed before, and I'm removing it again. It is a parody of the sectional infighting in the SP that preceded the 2005 convention, and does not function as an active tendency. Cadriel 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted this link again. It's not a serious tendency in the party, and anyone disputing that will have to do so on this talk page. Cadriel 11:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a falsehood or Cadriel is misinformed; there are members, it has a web page, it influences decisions within the Party. And, yes, it does so while making fun of the "politics" of other factions, which have ideological differences, but no differences in strategy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen nor heard of it doing anything other than having a Web site that's been officially repudiated by the SP as a whole. Also, please discuss why you dispute the neutrality of the article (and sign your posts on talk pages). For the moment I've removed the NPOV tag because it was easiest to revert all at once and not piecemeal. If it is defended it can be replaced. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted the information about the NPOV separately. There are several tendencies in the Party which do very little or nothing; having a web page is more than most of them ever do. The "Grass Roots Tendency" does nothing, the "Debs Tendency" has a listserv, the Fist and Rose has a listserv, a few web sites, and some printed material, the Black Socialist Party has no public appearance but caucuses at Conventions to find ways to alter the outcomes of votes, there's a "Comrades Caucus" which met once in a room and has a listserv, etc. None of them "do" anything more than the other -- what is the standard here? -Maxim Var (apologies for the lapse in etiquette regarding signing messages) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Other tendencies may not be very active, but they aren't jokes or hoaxes (except perhaps for the "Black Socialist Party", which I've never heard of). Checking the "Multi-Tendency Tendency's" Web page, I see that it's "Draft program" for 2005-2006 has a blank list of principle authors, and the main names mentioned in its "Directory" and on other pages are Chico, Groucho, Karl, and Harpo Marx. Apparently it "is assured to win big at the 2005 Convention". Do you have any evidence to show it isn't a (rather dated) joke? -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that the MTT makes fun of the hyperbole that is typically heard. Every "tendency" overstates how "principled " it is (they are, without a doubt, all principled, but none of them are as angelic as they make themselves out to be), how "successful" it will be, and so on. The point of the MTT was to stress the multi-tendency nature of the party by combining "reformist" and "revolutionary" politics, which need not be seen as an either/or choice. Political parody and political cartoons have been a mainstay of politics for a very long time, and are successfully used here to make the other factions' claims look foolish. That's what parody is for. The draft action plan has no signed name because it is incomplete. -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that not only is it a joke, it's a rather old joke, which nobody's felt motivated to bother with for nearly two years now. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to Google "Rich CorporateSon, Inc." or look him up on MySpace. Rich ran for Governor in 2006 and was very upset that he could not vote for himself -- because he is a corporation. The group that sponsored this campaign was entirely serious -- about the fact that corporations aren't people. The MTT site is, also, entirely serious -- about the possibility of combining tactics and about how ridiculous other factions were acting. I sent a message out in Yahoo to some of the other MTT folks. You are right that we have done nothing for about two years -- which is the span of time in between conventions. No other tendency has been active, either, because the membership has no vote in between conventions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1984

Why didn't they have a Presidential candidate in 1984? Шизомби 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They were hoping to work with the Citizens' Party, if I remember correctly. --metzerly 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you get a cite on that or refer us to someone who might remember the details? -Maxim Var

Why nominated for check of neutrality?

Would redeagle688 care to explain the reason for nominating this article for a non-neutrality check?

I can; the article is promotional, and not *about& the SPUSA. The function of an encyclopedia is to document and not to foist propaganda. Time and again, links that are not popular with the most dominant political factions within the Party are deleted, even if they are factual. For example, the Party has an affiliate in Oregon. That affiliate is not popular with the SPUSA for having lampooned a "political discussion" and maintains records that the SPUSA finds embarrassing on its web page. The SPUSA has cut links from its own web page to Oregon; fair enough. The information in Wikipedia should be neutral and factual: the disagreement between SPUSA and its Oregon affiliate is not that Oregon is/is not a chartered local, but that the information archived on the Oregon website is factual but embarrassing to the current elected officers. The introductory explanation lays out characterizations between various factions and ascribes motives to different sides; those may or may not be accurate for some individuals, but certainly a general case can not be made from a few people. Many of the affiliates maintain local publications, which are banned (I guess?) by the SPUSA censors, because their links go up... and come down... and go up... and come down... There is no disagreement over whether these are publications from chartered affiliates -- the publications popular with the current officers are the ones that, mysteriously, do not get deleted over and over again. Wikipedia does not belong in the political arguments within the Party -- the article should document facts, and not the opinion of whatever the current dominant faction is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I too initially wondered why the links to thesocialistparty.org were being removed. After restoring them a time or two, I inquired here, as you can see below, and was satisfied by the answer: that this Web site is the work of one individual who, although connected to the SP, used it primarily to harass other members. Apart from that, the site has no connection with the Socialist Party USA, the subject of this article, and as a result no need to be included in it. You can address these deliberations below, where they've been sitting for eight months or so without comment. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The membership of Oregon is closer to 25 than 1. The site contains articles by David McReynolds, a prominent Party member; archives of news of interest to Socialists; is the official web site of the chartered SPUSA affiliate in Oregon; and the Party has an history of playing rough, as with the attacks launched against the Party's own 2004 Presidential campaign on the Michigan site. We have newsletters archived dedicated to activism and our work in Portland and in Oregon, generally. There are several resource directories dedicated to local activism, to Internet tools, and, well, it's quite an exhaustive site. I'm not sure how much of the theory and history sections are linked in, but those are there, also. What is it you claim we are lacking, compared to other web sites? -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:56, 12 February 2007 (talk • contribs) 172.192.34.36.

I was not discussing the Socialist Party of Oregon, I was discussing the Web site in question, which to my knowledge is the work of one individual. This person does happen to be a Socialist Party member, but other than that the site has no connection to the Socialist Party USA, indeed has been officially repudiated by it, as mentioned below. That is what makes it special. Note that the Socialist Party of Oregon's article has been linked from this one for some time. This shows that the issues with this site don't have to do with the SPO itself. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That the SPUSA has affiliates with which it officially disagrees is an important part of the SPUSA: people who read the article deserve to know what the SPUSA is really all about. That they have locals whose web sites they have banned for documenting "political discussions" which were mostly childish sniping on public e-mail lists documents the tradition of censorship in the SPUSA. Come to think of it, this message documents the censorsip of Wikipedia... -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 03:24, 12 February 2007 (talk • contribs) 172.192.34.36.

This is not censorship. Wikipedia has guidelines on external links, which require, among other things, that they be kept to a minimum and limited to those directly related to the subject of the article. As I've had to argue repeatedly in various sections of this page, thesocialistparty.org is not connected to the Socialist Party, except as the work of a member. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've had to point out, over and over, the site is the official website of a chartered affiliate. You are incorrect that it was created by a single member; it was started by one editor, and is continued by another. You claims, and I realize they did not originate with you but from what you have been told, but they are your claims, now: Not part of SPUSA: false, chartered chapter, official site Work of one member: false, started by one editor, work continued with another Not related to the subject of this article: false, official affiliate's site. Contains material that attacks others: false, actually. It contains an archive of messages from a public list in which several Party members launched childish attacks on each other. That archive has no link from the main page or any of the sub-pages; it is merely on the same hosting account. The same is true for the MTT and Fist and Rose Tendency directories -- they cannot be accessed from the rest of the site via hyperlinks. -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just working with the decision of the Socialist Party, copied and linked below, to make clear that it is unconnected with this site. Mainly, though, I'm just tossing unsigned tags after every single one of your posts and putting in a couple sentences while I have the edit window open. Please, please, please sign your posts. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad on signing! -Maxim Var

Hey 'Maxim Var'/Marino. Thought you'd quit to form a rival party ["The Socialist Party of America", no not the famous one] so you could be free of the 'oppression' of the SP-USA? Back so soon, or trying to get some kicks in on the way out? Pure class! T L Miles 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you merely heard wrong. My interest at present is in the accuracy of Wikipedia, or, in this case, the inaccuracy. -Maxim Var

thesocialistparty.org

There seems to be some disagreement about whether this article should include links to several sites hosted on thesocialistparty.org, in particular the "Fist and Rose Tendency", "Oregon Socialist" and "Socialist Party of Oregon" links. Although I don't know if the Fist and Rose Tendency still exists (or was more serious than the "Multi-Tendency Tendency" mentioned above -- I see that the FaRT site is party of the M-TT site), I see no reason to remove links to the Oregon Socialist or SP Oregon, which is affiliated with the SP-USA to my knowledge. I'll add them back in and request that if they are removed in the future a brief note explaining the reasoning behind the action be placed here. David Schaich 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been informed privately that the National Committee (NC) of the SP-USA recently voted to disassociate itself from thesocialistparty.org since the administrator of that Web site, Michael Marino, has used it to abuse and slander members of the Party. As a result of the NC's decision, the links to thesocialistparty.org should be left out of this article. David Schaich 17:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant motion, which can be found on the Socialist Party's Web site here:

Motion: It is the sense of the National Committee that Michael Marino has posted, on thesocialistparty.org, material that unfairly maligns members of the Party... and we call on Cde. Marino to remove all inappropriate material. Until that time, the Party will not link to or refer individuals to thesocialistparty.org website in any manner. Motion passed 7 yes (...) 3 No (...).

David Schaich 21:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the membership figure (http://sp-usa.org/ncminutes/0206nc.html). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.48.42 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

David-- the SPUSA motion says that they wish to decline to LINK TO thesocialistparty.org, not that the Oregon affiliate is no longer an associate of the SPUSA. Oregon remains a chartered state affiliate in the SPUSA. That SPUSA does not wish to LINK TO the affiliate's web site refers only to their site -- this is an article ABOUT the SPUSA, not BY them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It also indicates that the site in question (though not the Socialist Party of Oregon) has no link to the SP, apart from the fact that it's maintained by an SP member (as is my personal site, for that matter). Since this article is about the Socialist Party USA and the Web site is unrelated to it, there is no need for it. There are more than enough external links even without it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No official link? Why does the Socialist Party of Oregon, a chartered SPUSA affiliate, pay for the hosting? Why does the State Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Oregon use it as their official home page? Why does this non-neutrality-problematic article list the Socialist Party of North Carolina, which dis-affiliated from SPUSA, in preference to an actual affiliate? -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine North Carolina will be removed soon, though I haven't heard any official word on its disaffiliation. So far as I understand, it was probably only dechartered in the last day or two. I'm not among the leadership of the SP, so I have very little information as to what exactly is going on. What I do know, and explained here last May, is that in the Socialist Party has severed all connection with thesocialistparty.org. The best bet for the Socialist Party of Oregon might be to gets its own site, maintained by a more stable individual. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Socialist Party of Oregon has its own web site: thesocialistparty.org -- they have been lucky enough that they currently have had the same website editor for several years running, so his stability is already established. Wikipedia, for the sake of being honest, could always list the site and simply note that there is a disagreement between SPUSA and SPO over what content they consider appropriate, and has banned the SPO site from their own web page. That would go a long way to explain the current disagreement. There is another disagreement between SPO and one of its locals over whether or not pushing Communist material is appropriate content for our sites; these are internal party matters. Neutrality would be accomplished by noting the difference, not by censoring it. -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the "censorship" argument in my response to your previous post somewhere else on this page. It would be more informative to list the site with a note that it has no connection to the Socialist Party, but by Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, it would need to be removed. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It remains the official website of a chartered affiliate. That is not "no connection", that is the same kind of connection that all of the affiliates have. -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No other affiliate has had the Socialist Party sever all connection to its Web site. This is not about the affiliate, which has long been and remains in the article. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I could ask around to make sure, but I think that it's more a case that the SPUSA has not severed any other website ties... recently. I'll check on that, but I say that the practie of censorsip by the SPUSA is an important thing to note. They have not objected to all material they consider offensive to any Party member, but only to specific articles regarding specific individuals. Basically, they have an "inner party" which is untouchable and an outer party where anything goes. That is not democratic centralism, itself, but is the kind of thing that comes with having a very rigid top-down structure, which they claim not to have. That's the NPOV thing mentioned elsewhere here: they claim one thing, but there is evidence of another. They censor that evidence -- so Wiki censors it, also? See, there is something there that just isn't right... -Maxim Var

Link spam and www.sp-usa.org

Over the last several months there has been a considerable amount of spam related to Socialist Party USA. Large numbers of links have been created to this page across a range of categories which are not specifically related to SPUSA, and several editors (myself included) have been removing them. Examples of this spamming are Left-libertarianism, Pederasty in the modern world, Sexual apartheid, Prison Activist Resource Center, Prison reform, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, Labour movement, Black Power.

Although SPUSA undoubtedly has a political opinion on these topics, so do the myriad of other political and social parties across the world. Linking SPUSA to these articles is simply unworkable, and in the end makes for confusion and additional work for editors who must remove the links.

I am posting this here because the link spamming is being done by an anonymous editor/editors, and there is no practical way to directly contact the person. I would hope that this note starts a conversation which eventually involves those who are adding these links, and that we can find a solution to this problem.--Bookandcoffee 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic centralism

I felt it was necessary to clarify SP generally rejects what is commonly defined as democratic centralism, rather than democratically controlled centralist elements per se, since it actually functions through a combination of centralist and autonomist elements, in a democratic way. SP USA isn't an "absolutely horizontal" organization in practice nor theory, and neither do various party tendencies (be they Luxemburgism/"Gramscianism", Debsianism etc.) reject certain democratically controlled centralist elements. Furthermore, even in the narrower sense of the term, it wouldn't be true to claim Socialist Party completely rejects democratic centralism, so for example Walt Brown, who is anti-abortion, delivered a pro-abortion message (in accordance with the party platform) when he was running as the party's presidential candidate. This obviously doesn't undermine the genuine, strong democratism of the party's theory and practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.34.227 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's important to have a link to the page where the SP specifically rejects Leninism and "democratic centralism". The "commonly defined as" is good to include, and clarifies the SP's use of quotation marks in the linked page. I also expanded the paragraph to mention some of the controversy over the Statement of Principles, but I'm still debating over whether to mention Walt Brown specifically. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I've not contributed, but as a member and local officer, I think David_Schaich is right on the money here. Not being "absolutely horizontal" is a looong way from democratic centralism. The SP rejects democratic centralism explicitly, even if a contributer believes (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that it doesn't always practice what it preaches. My concern is that the change was actually made to remove the word 'Leninist' from the things the SP rejects.T L Miles 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Next Left Notes?

Is Next Left Notes still affiliated with the Direct Action Tendency? I was under the impression that it has now become an organ of the revived SDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.172.179 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be right. It describes itself as "now an unofficial organ of SDS/MDS". The bigger question is whether or not DAT is still an active tendency... I'm under the impression that it's been pretty much defunct since most of its leaders headed off to the new SDS. I'll be bold and remove NLN, but leave the DAT for now. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Having searched without success for any sign that the Direct Action Tendency still exists, I've removed it from the article. Its domain name is for sale and all Google hits are a year or two old. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Just a warning that I'm going to be making some substantial changes to the article in the near future. It started when I decided that the paragraph about the National and Organizing Conventions would fit better in the "History" section than in the "Platform and principles" section, and quickly spiraled into something larger (though still under control). I think the new version will be an improvement in many respects. Leave a note here if there are any major problems with it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Howie's Endorsement by two NY State Locals

Heya, I'm local Sec of the Greater NYC local. We DID vote to endorse Howie, ignorant of the brouhaha around him with the NC. I, personally, was also ignorant of the NC rules stating that the State party would have to take it up with the NC to endorse a SP member running on another line. Therefore we rescinded the endorsement, though individuals did endorse Howie (myself included) as there's no restrictions on that.

Technically, therefore, the Central NY Local couldn't have officially endorsed Howie either.

Some might find this pedantic I know, but it is the system the party works under.

Soli,T L Miles

I'll fix up the article, though I'll keep it sort of vague since I don't think it's worthwhile to try to untangle this here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hawkins endorsement was not permitted, but it was done; I agree with David that a vagueness might be the best way to cover what happened without getting into the internal politics. -Maxim Var —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.34.36 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

History check

An anonymous user just removed all mention of the 1972 Presidential elections in the three-way split in the SPA out of which the SP USA was formed, in favor of Shachtman's 'critical support' of the Vietnam War. While the Vietnam issue was important, I believe that actually occurred in 1970, and was the reason David McReynolds left the SPA. The '72 elections were important because they saw the three groups each back a different candidate (Nixon, McGovern, and Spock) before going their own way.

For now I've incorporated information about both Vietnam and the '72 election, but I want to make sure that my understanding of the history and timeline is correct. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Debs Caucus did not officially back Benjamin Spock, but many of its members did. The tendency of members of certain caucuses to back certain presidential candidates was not really a basis for the split. According to the SP-USA history statement, the Shachtmanites blocked a resolution opposing the war in Vietnam in both 1968 and 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.4.113 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 February 2007

Thanks for clarifying. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Commissions

I figured this was an oversight, but someone seems insistent on moving one sentence about the SP's structure of "commissions" away from the other sentence about commissions, and into the discussion of feminism. This has been done three times now, without any explanation provided. Since this makes no sense to me, I would appreciate it if an explanation were offered before it is done again. Thanks, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see a valid reason for giving preferential treatment to any of the commissions (with the possible exception of the labor commission, which would probably have a central role in a socialist party). Unlike all other commissions, and all other fields of activity, feminism gets a special paragraph - at the end - and there are constant attempts to erase a statement that the party is opposed to both misogyny and manhating, which I find distasteful and deeply dissapointing (considering the humanist ethos of the Statement of Principles, which call for allhuman emancipation). Furthermore, the issue of fetal pain is swept under the carpet, even though some people who are opposed to violence against sentient beings don't necessarily oppose abortions if done painlessly and in a reasonable timeframe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem rather confused about the structure of the article. The first paragraph, in the "History" section, describes the structure of the SP, in particular its use of commissions to connect members with similar interests. All commissions that have active Web pages have been listed here. The second paragraph, in the "Platform and principles" section, discusses the SP's committment to socialist feminism and in that context mentions Socialist Women, one of the SP's main publications, which is produced by the Women's Commission.

There is absolutely no reason to move the list of other commissions, such as, say, the People of Color commission, out of the discussion of commsions and into the discussion of feminism. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"opposed to both misogyny and manhating," Are these terms used in the SoP? The the fetal pain thing in it? Are there tendencies that formally declare these goals / issues? If not, why does one anon. individual keep inserting them? (Just checked. Not there).

Personally, I think this reeks of crankatude. Take it to a therapist. T L Miles 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing mad about opposing all forms of sexism, and there's nothing mad about claiming unborn babies already have a nervous system, and can therefore feel pain/are sentient beings. Not every part of the article needs to be written in the party manual first for it to be acceptable, and there are other things in this article which aren't strictly referenced. Certain parts of the party documents and articles written in party publications do indicate an opposition to all forms of sexism. If you're not comfortable with opposing sexism against men also, a compromise would be to state that some party members oppose misandry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Misandry" is a controversial term as it is. If the party does not use the term in their own literature, there is no need to use it here. We should allow them to define themselves, not associate them with fringe social theories. Same thing goes for "fetal pain". Not once mentioned on their website. I'm not saying we need to copy the party manual verbatim. And we can obviously use multiple sources in this article. But for "misandry" and "fetal pain", we do need sourcing of these claims. It sounds like you are drawing conclusions about what you think their positions on these matters are, which runs into original research concerns. Per wikipedia's verifiability policy, controversial claims need sourcing. How am I to verify that the Socialist Party USA opposes "misandry" and "fetal pain"?-Andrew c 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Principles - these parts basically state the party is opposed to all forms of sexism, including sexism against men: "We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition." "Our tactics in the struggle for radical democratic change reflect our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, non-exploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples." "Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child."

Regarding fetal pain, yes, some of us in the party ARE concerned about it.

Also, regarding opposition to misogyny, there are different levels of this opposition of course. Some would oppose a culture which completely neglects the epidemic of men's suicides for instance, others would oppose the most explicit, verbal expressions of misogyny like Valerie Solanas' who wrote a book "Society for Cutting Up Men", hailed by quite a number of so-called "feminists".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.27.89.202 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 March 2007.

First, please sign all talk page comments (read the edit window to learn how, if you don't, or ask me for more info). Next, Wikipedia doesn't work on original research, nor do we just take your word on things. This means just because you say that some party members are concerned about fetal pain, and even if this is true, we can't simply take your word on it. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. The way we verify things is by citing sources. Do you have a source for the fetal pain info? As for original research, the term 'misandry' is not used on any of the party literature. The term itself is loaded, and has connotations associated with the fringe researchers involved in its 'study'. Therefore, it is best not to throw around controversial terms like that when the party doesn't use them itself. The sentences currently says "The party is strongly committed to gender egalitarianism and advocating an end to gender oppression and stereotypes in general." It doesn't say it focuses only on women's issues, nor does it say it only focuses on men's issues. I personally believe it is implied that ther commitment is to all people, and your edits do nothing but introduce controversial language, when the previous version is clear what is meant. All that said, you should avoid edit warring. If you introduce something into the article, and an editor removes it. You should stop and go to talk and explain yourself and let the reverters explain theirselves as well. You can't force content into an article. Multiple editors have reverted you, and the only way to get your information into the article is to gather consensus on talk pages. Putting the exact same information over and over into the article is not productive. So please, stop introducing this content until everyone on talk agrees to it. Perhaps we can reach a compromise. You can start by proposing new language that accomidates our concerns. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions about how wikipedia works, feel free to ask me, or the help desk.-Andrew c 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect no one would ever be allowed to publish anything in the party publications which would be anything but dismissive about the possibility of fetal pain, and this is a closed circle of censoring what you don't like (which is why you're doing it, let's be honest about it), so that no one can point to a written statement, because it has been censored!

"I personally believe it is implied that ther commitment is to all people, and your edits do nothing but introduce controversial language, when the previous version is clear what is meant."

So why then oppose stating the party is against hating men!? If you really abide by the principles of the organization, discrimination and oppression against all people regardless of their gender should be what you can identify with. Of course misandry exists just like mysogyny does, on different levels with different individuals and groups. A sizeable bibliography is given in the article anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments on talk pages by putting ~~~~ at the end.

I personally haven't been much bothered by the occasional insertion of misandry and fetal pain, although I find the edit warring unacceptable. I did find it very crankish, but generally inoffensive. Sure, you could say the SP opposes misandry, just like you could say they oppose Idi Amin, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Sarkozy's campaign to become the president of France.

But are any of these issues of central concern to the SP, major focuses of its work? If not, why should this encyclopedia article address them -- especially, as Andrew c pointed out, if the one in question is already addressed in clearer, more general and less controversial terms?

The claims about censorship, both here and in SP publications, are utter BS and will not win anybody over to your positions, which is what your goal should be here. I suggest you stop claiming that you're being persecuted, and start actually addressing some of the many legitimate concerns that have been raised here by a number of people. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, wikipedia operates under attribution. And I quote: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments... Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. This means that since I challenge that the party uses the language "fetal pain" and "misandry", the burden of evidence lies with the editor wisshing to include that information. Truth doesn't matter, just verfiability and sourcing. Emotional arguments and accusations of censorship do not help in attributing this material to a reliable source. Please read wikipedia's policies for more information on what sort of material is appropraite for inclusion, or ask me or anyone at the help desk if you have question. Also, please sign your talk page comments. You will notice that every other editor on the talk page is doing it. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to sign it, don't have time, and consider it unimportant to sign the contributions. The important thing is that certain people want to turn the party into an extreme "feminist" front group (where possible fetal pain doesn't fit into the dogma, nor do other forms of gender oppression which don't apply to women), give preferential treatment to this exclusive ideology (i.e. putting it on the end of the wikipedia article, as if it is somehow more important than all the other commissions and all other work - including labor organizing), and feel intense hostility towards consistent anti-sexism, feeling a necessity to directly oppose consistent anti-sexism, which is surely far more in discordance with the spirit of the party principles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to yell. Signing your posts is very easy, just type four tildes. That's it (or hit the signature button in the edit toolbar). It sounds like you have issues you need to take up with the party, not with wikipedia. Your personal concerns about the party are not relevent here at wikipedia. Only verifiable information from reliable sources can be included. This isn't a discussion board, or a place to post your concerns about the party. I hope you understand. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't so much with the party as it is with some who don't seem to agree with consistent anti-sexism, and should therefore perhaps reconsider their membership in SP (or simply reread the principles, and think about their humanist implications). As they are misinterpreting the party position into a biased, sexist one, I can't and won't let this be the party's presentation to the working masses.82.111.128.3 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for signing your comment. Congratulations! I believe the current article makes it clear the party's stance on sexism. -Andrew c 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the "sexism against men and women" language. No one in party statements uses this language. I have NEVER heard or read any party member claim there is sexism in this society directed at men. Whatever your issue is, take it elsewhere. The SP-USA has consistently endorsed strongly feminist language and politics. Don't like it? Go add your stuff to a party that thinks men are victims of sexism. That is not position of the SP-USA. Have you considered SDUSA? T L Miles 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE FOUND STUFF SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT I HAVE ADDED IN THE "SOCIALIST WOMEN" publication, can't remember where at the moment.

Men constitute approximately 80% of suicides.[2 youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/vigil/youth-suicide-male-problem.htm ; www.menalive.com/ims-col19.htm ; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/health/webmd/main708912.shtml)]

http://www.etherzone.com/2002/mcel020602.shtml - "Suicide: Are Fathers' Rights a Factor"

I personally don't want to live any more when people who are supposed to be democratic socialists react to suffering so indifferently.

White males commit most suicides (an extreme act of powerlessness) compared to all other groups, yet the "white male" is also usually portrayed as being in the clear and unambiguous position of privilege and power in most feminist discourse. Men make up more than 90% of the prison population in the United States.[3]Misandric discourse denies a connection between offending and a condition of disenfranchisment and frustration.

The majority of alcoholics[4], drug addicts, and homeless persons (about 85% - can provide source if needed) are men.

Men have lower levels of university attendance, do increasingly worse in high schools and middle schools than women, and are far more frequently diagnosed as supposedly being afflicted with learning disorders such as ADHD (Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?; Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men )

Men, on average, have a significantly lower life expectancy than women, and are far less inclined to use the benefits of the health care system.

Popular culture often depicts men as sex-crazed, and overbearing, an extreme exaggeration of most men's natural interest in sexuality and evolutionary ability to act aggressively.

Depictions of genuinely gentle, nonviolent men as "sissies", unattractive to women.

Recounting of death in which the body count as described in terms of "X fatalities, including Y women and children," which reduces the value of the adult male lives lost. There is also discrimination of less attractive or shorther men leading to increased likelihood of suicide - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/health/webmd/main708912.shtml

Sexual oppression of men, often leading to desperate destructive and/or autodestructive acts, is still rarely discussed, while the sexual repression of women has finally been recognized in the last several decades .

Men are expected to repress their sexuality, and are taught that admiring women's bodies is wrong.

When considering crimes of equal magnitude, men will often be dealt harsher sentences than women. (can provide source, but busy now) (...) See http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-1080685-9926320 also, I don't agree with everything in it, but it sketches a path towards a more humanistic, truly egalitarian socialism when it comes to gender politics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.128.3 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 12 March 2007.

Look, this is silly. Whatever issue YOU have, that has nothing to do with the SP-USA. Are you a Member (and do you have a name)? If so, push to change the language the SP-USA uses within the SP-USA.

But you're trying to do an end-run around that by changing an encyclopedia article about the positions the SP-USA takes to fit what YOU want their positions to be. It's silly, it's inaccurate, and it's vandalism. Please stop. T L Miles 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals your IP address is out of the UK. Unless there's some suggestion that you have special knowledge of the positions and platform of the SP-USA that other users don't share, I'd suggest you stop editing these pages. Otherwise, I'll begin vandalism procedures. T L Miles 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)