Talk:Socialist Party of Massachusetts

Image copyright problem with Image:SPUSA logo.gif

The image Image:SPUSA logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took care of this. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont

"dissolution of SPA" versus New York Times

Hi!

Many if not most of the articles on the Socialist Party USA's state chapters had a phrase about "dissolution of the Socialist Party"

It was reorganized in the 1970s following the dissolution of the Socialist Party of America and the subsequent formation of the Socialist Party USA.

which I corrected using the New York Times's report on the December 1972 convention at which the Socialist Party voted to change its name to Social Democrats, USA.

The Socialist Party of America voted 73:34 to change its name to Social Democrats, USA in December of 1972. SPUSA was founded in 1973, after which the SPMA was founded.

It was reverted improperly. On WP, it is improper to remove sourced content (using a high quality, most reliable source) and restore unsourced content, particularly unsourced content contradicted by the sourced content.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I don't see any contradiction here; your link is simply irrelevant to the state organization. As you may know, the '72 vote to rename the SPA was only a part of the process through with that organization broke apart (or "dissolved" as some editors seem to prefer) into multiple groups. If you're not familiar with that process, I believe it is (or should be) explained in some detail in the articles for the various country-level groups themselves (SPA, SD-USA, DSOC/DSA, SP USA). The only reason to discuss it in the article of any state chapter (of the SPA or SP USA) is if that state organization played a role in the events (for example, if it was one of the SPA state parties that was involved in forming the SP USA in the '70s). SPMA was not one of those groups, as indicated by the statement that it was inactive at the time and only reorganized following the formation of the SP USA.

What all of these state party articles really need is more information about their organization and activities while they were part of the SPA, especially from the 1900s through the 1930s when that organization was at its largest and most active. I have a few SPMA pamphlets from the '36 election lying around, but I'm not sure if they provide enough information for me to write much here. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

The word "dissolution" is misleading, because the organization did change names by a vote, which was covered by the NYT. I agree that extensive discussion would be irrelevant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I revised the text, avoiding distractions about the 1972 rename and "dissolution": I trust that my edit was a step in the correct direction.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point wasn't clear, that this single vote was only a small episode in the broader breakup/dissolution of the SPA into multiple groups in the early '70s. I still think the older phrasing is superior, because it provides more context, in particular the information that the SPA and the SP USA were not around at the same time. The phrase "members formerly active in" is also a little squirrelly. While some of those organizing SP USA were potentially-active members of the SPA until its end (some of whom became members of all three of SD-USA, DSOC and SP USA), there were others who had left the SPA years before, or may have avoided joining it in the first place. The SPMA was reorganized by its own members, who likely had a variety of opinions towards and former affiliations with the late SPA. To avoid going back and forth, I'll wait a bit to see if anybody else has cents to add. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree that my first attempt suggested that many members remained active in 1972. Here's an improvement:

"It was reorganized in the 1970s after the formation of the SPUSA by activists who had been members of the Socialist Party of America."

McReynolds had resigned from the SPA in 1970, and apparently the Wisconsin delegation was roughly unseated in 1970: Can anybody find a reference for the latter monkey business?

Of course some members were active: the "Debs caucus" was mentioned by the NYT as having 2 votes on the December 1972 NEC for SDUSA after it had changed names from SPA. Its immediate withdrawal proposal was defeated at the 1968 convention by a vote more lopsided than 73:34 if my memory be correct. Does anybody have numbers on the size of the Debs caucus(es) from say 1964-March 1972?

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)