This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The DSA is widely considered to be to the left of some of the country's most left wing public officials. [1] By Western European standards, the DSA is far left, having voted to leave the SI specifically because the SI was perceived as insufficiently left wing. As a small fraction of the political left in the United States, the DSA is further on the left than the standard political left, the definition of Far Left politics. New York Magazine and The Atlantic, both reputable left of center publications, have identified the DSA as far left. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.23.231 ( talk • contribs)
"Establishing a National anti-Fascist Working Group, passed 521-493." [3] and this one " DSA votes to endorse Open Borders and a Green New Deal program at Atlanta Convention" [4] and this one "We are pleased to announce that Decolonization, Cuba Solidarity are now officially democratically adopted positions of the DSA." [5] and an overview of it all, [6] [7] They quite literally did vote on these resolutions, and almost all were passed. This is all beside the point, though, as these resolutions are the base of the DSA, and were the ones approved to be considered for debate. And as OP stated, plenty of sources list the DSA as far-left. It is true, though, that the votes were non-binding, and that the actual concrete platform is delayed until 2021. 2601:982:4200:A6C:C42A:E91:1D46:17DE ( talk) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Democratic Socialists of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 2018 elections subsection, there is a broken Fox News link sourcing a statement by Nancy Pelosi. Please use this URL and this archive URL, dated 2020-06-27, for the reference. 209.166.108.199 ( talk) 19:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up considerably. The content in it should rely on reliable secondary sourcing. It should not rely on primary sourcing or non-Rs, and the interpretations by Wikipedia editors of those primary sources/non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Socialism is something that is not clearly defined in most people minds, especially after Bernie Sanders statements that socialism is the same as social democrat european parties, but there is actually a very big difference between social democrats and democratic sociaslism. Socialism is the abolishment of private industry and private profit in favor of socializing ALL of the economy, which is to say it is almost or exactly the same thing as communism. It is clearly stated in 5.1 Socialism, and alluded to in the top right menu in the form of the "anti-capitalist" epithet. But the introductory paragraphs explain nothing of this, so it would be very easy for a common reader to think Democratic Socialists DO NOT want to take over all private companies of the USA, as is stated clearly in 5.1, which is midway into the article and I found relatively hard to find(took me 5 minutes of searching around myself because I wanted to verify for myself that DSA were in fact communists). This is for the sake of clarity, since it is clear at least to me that a party advocating for the end of ALL private industry and profit is NOT the same thing as social democratic european parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.153.65 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The DSA is similar to the NDP, and in fact had ties with them. Both evolved out of 19th century socialism and retain some of the terminology, with a broad tent of members with differing views on socialism. Specifically socialists disagree on the amount of social control and/or ownership of the means of production that is necessary to mitigate or eliminate the inequities caused by a competitive system.
Even if you were right, you would need a reliable secondary source, i.e., not an opinion piece, that supports your interpretation.
TFD ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democratic Socialists of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "Four female DSA members ( Sara Innamorato, Summer Lee, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale) won Democratic primary contests for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, two of them defeating conservative male Democratic incumbents." to "Four female DSA members ( Sara Innamorato, Summer Lee, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale) won Democratic primary contests for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, with Innamorato and Lee defeating incumbents." When you say two out of these four defeated conservative male incumbents, my response is, "OK, and how many incumbents total?" It's best to be clear from the start; and of course no change is needed to references etc. 209.166.108.199 ( talk) 18:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template merely to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus, as it clutters up
the category that administrators check to find unanswered edit requests with unactionable requests that still take time to clear out." You are of course free to continue discussing your request.
TFD (
talk)
03:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
As of the most recent edit, someone has placed "Anti-communism" as a faction within the DSA. Their cited source is just the DSA's about page and there is no apparent "anti-communist" caucus within the DSA, nor does their source support their assertion of "anti-communism". There IS in fact a Communist Caucus of the DSA, which I'm pretty sure used to be listed here but was removed. An Anarchist caucus was also listed without any source whatsoever. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus ( talk) 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This article uses way too many sources from the DSA or other socialist websites.
This cause the article to:
Thoughts? DemonDays64 ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
The DSA is not only by far the largest socialist organization in the United States in the 21st century, it is also the largest socialist organization in the United States in over a century.This is an example of the type of over-the-top adulatory language that needs to be revised or removed. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: To respond to the tag asking for "quantity" to a line describing a group of people chanting at an event, and suggestion that the use of "a number of people" are automatically weasel words. This is wrong from a policy and common sense standpoint. The source reported as follows:
Attendees at a convention in Chicago on Saturday for the Democratic Socialists of America launched into an anti-Israel chant after passing a motion to overwhelmingly endorse the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement. In a video posted to social media following the vote, a number of people at the event began chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — a popular slogan at anti-Israel protests around the world — as one person waved a Palestinian flag.
Words like "some people," "a number of people," are not weasel words when they correctly describe what is represented in the source. Weasel words are when words like this are used to misrepresent what a source has stated. In this case, the line in the Wiki article clearly adheres to the source. As for "quantity," this is unnecessary nitpicking. No one expects to find the specific number of people chanting a slogan. The source reported that "a number of attendees" were recorded doing so. Are you suggesting that, for example, at 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, we are required to indicate how many fraternity members were chanting the racial slur? (I am not drawing an equivalence between racist chants and the chant at the DSA convention; I am noting that there are contexts where demanding a level of specificity, beyond what's required to adhere to the sources, is not necessary.) Finally, you suggest that Times of Israel is a "biased source." I don't know what your point is, or how you came to the conclusion that the source is biased. My first guess would be because the paper is an Israeli publication, and the chant was perceived as anti-Israel. This doesn't matter, because the source is reliable and the piece is a factual summary of something that occurred at the convention. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: Again, you have presented no evidence otherwise other than your innuendo about the story being "weaselly." I'd like to hear more on that, as well as what the "slant" here is. The Times of Israel has an editorial board that includes prominent journalists, it's staff are recognized journalists, it's been responsible for breaking high-profile stories in Israel through investigative reporting -- it has all the hallmarks of a reliable source. And the same story was reported by the Daily Beast, for which there is established consensus at WP:RSN, completely consistent with the ToI, but with greater detail. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: WP:FOC Sounds like a good idea, let's try that both ways. Multiple RS documented an incident, the chanting of a controversial Palestinian nationalistic slogan with undertones of violence at the event. It is a documented fact that this occurred during the BDS endorsement vote. Since you applied the NPOV tag to the section, what is the specific NPOV issue you believe that is present here? Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is what they chanted: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. The river in this formulation is the Jordan, the naturally occurring eastern border of Israel and of the West Bank; the sea is the Mediterranean to the west. Uttered by advocates of the Palestinian cause for decades, the pithy slogan very pointedly makes no place for Israel. It evokes a strip of Middle Eastern land where Israel is no more, replaced by a unified Palestinian entity in the space it once occupied. It could be that this entity would welcome and protect a Jewish population. But when supporters of the Jewish state hear those 10 words, they worry about their potentially violent implications. (It's no secret that the phrase is highly charged these days. After professor and pundit Marc Lamont Hill this week called for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” in a speech at the UN in which he also spoke in support of the BDS movement, CNN dropped its long-time contributor. Lamont responded at length on Twitter, saying he had not called for violence and contesting the idea that the phrase belonged to Hamas.)
I should remove the quotation from a reliable source explaining the background for why a particular slogan is controversial? I don't think so. If you read the article as carefully as you apparently reviewed the clip (I don't see how it supports a conclusion that a "tiny number" of people made the chant, and I don't think we should be downplaying what the sources report), you'd see that it is not necessarily imputing a motivation to the chanters, but describing why it considers their using that particular slogan to be notable. As for the alternative meaning, that is acknowledged in the text, with a citation to the Times of Israel, the source which you characterized as so biased (which actually offered the non-controversial interpretation as a legitimate alternative). Further, neither the Wiki article nor either source asserts that a "majority" of attendees chanted. Both say "a number of" attendees participated in the chant, while the vote to endorse BDS proceeded. 90% is not being juxtaposed with the chant, it is the ratio by which the endorsement passed. It's not being juxtaposed with the participants chanting. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to dismiss your comments out of hand. I have removed the 90% figure regarding the margin by which the resolution was passed. Seems superfluous, and if it creates confusion, then it isn't needed. The paragraph now simply states that it was passed. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: Let me remind you of a crucial point: Reliable sources are allowed to have opinions. Editors are not. You responded to a good-faith compromise by abusing 1RR to edit-war this content out of the article. The fact that you disagree with an opinion reported in multiple reliable secondary sources and view that as a basis for removal is what's contrary to NPOV, not the material in the article. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC) @ The Four Deuces: Ah, we have a new standard for NPOV. It's not what reliable sources report, it's what editors believe is correct! And if a journalist is "wrong," even if its' reported in multiple reliable sources, it cannot go into the article. This is entirely inappropriate reasoning, and in fact constitutes an NPOV violation. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved in this discussion, saw the thread on NPOVN. I don't think there's sufficient weight here to add extensive discussion or claims and counterclaims about the meaning of a brief chant half-heartedly participated in by a few dozen people. Just because something has been published in a reliable source does not require its inclusion in any given Wikipedia article. If we included everything ever published about
Donald Trump in his Wikipedia article, it would become massively unbalanced and unwieldly.
WP:ONUS is on point here: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
What I find notable is that multiple reliable sources reported on it. The phrase "body of reliable sources" is meaningless because I have pointed to several, and the one-sentence summary over this controversy is more than proportionate, if not giving short-shrift, based on this coverage. That is the standard, not whether you or I think it's subjectively important. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of Section 3.1, "Party Media" should be changed to "Organizational Media", as DSA is an organization--not a political party. For the same reason, the sentence "Left-wing quarterly magazine Jacobin is also considered to be very close to the party, as its editor Bhaskar Sunkara is a DSA member; however, there is no official affiliations between the magazine and DSA" should be changed so that the word "party" is removed and replaced with the word "organization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyodie ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox, we currently have it as Left wing. This from The New Yorker has it as Far-left, in the opening para. Now the New Yorker can most definitely not be described as a conservative publication, and Wikipedia’s own article on that magazine has it that "According to Pew Research, 77 percent of The New Yorker's audience hold left-of-center political values". Their prime ideologue Michael Harrington was a Marxist. We have it already that the DSA see the "abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal". But the abolition of capitalism is the policy goal of the far-left and not that of mere left wing politics. Therefore, far-left it should be. Boscaswell talk 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The infobox of the article currently does not list the number of seats held by the group. However, List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States lists them in its infobox, and while the DSA is not technically a political party, it does endorse candidates, and have members who hold office.
There are also prior examples of such inclusion occurring, such as Vermont Progressive Party showing they hold one US senate seat in Vermont (even though the person holding the seat is not technically a member of the party).
@ Muboshgu: (ping from our discussion on your talk page)
Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why the "seats held" section is back, it seems like the consensus here was to not include it. Additionally, it says the group has a member in the US Senate which is unsourced and untrue. (Bernie Sanders is not a member and DSA has no association with his senate campaign). Since I'm new here I don't want to unilaterally make the edit, but someone should remove that section. Netx444 ( talk) 08:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to the political nature of the organization I believe the page should be semi protected in order to decrease possible vandalism. I would like feedback to this before I formally propose page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert257 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The DSA is widely considered to be to the left of some of the country's most left wing public officials. [1] By Western European standards, the DSA is far left, having voted to leave the SI specifically because the SI was perceived as insufficiently left wing. As a small fraction of the political left in the United States, the DSA is further on the left than the standard political left, the definition of Far Left politics. New York Magazine and The Atlantic, both reputable left of center publications, have identified the DSA as far left. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.23.231 ( talk • contribs)
"Establishing a National anti-Fascist Working Group, passed 521-493." [3] and this one " DSA votes to endorse Open Borders and a Green New Deal program at Atlanta Convention" [4] and this one "We are pleased to announce that Decolonization, Cuba Solidarity are now officially democratically adopted positions of the DSA." [5] and an overview of it all, [6] [7] They quite literally did vote on these resolutions, and almost all were passed. This is all beside the point, though, as these resolutions are the base of the DSA, and were the ones approved to be considered for debate. And as OP stated, plenty of sources list the DSA as far-left. It is true, though, that the votes were non-binding, and that the actual concrete platform is delayed until 2021. 2601:982:4200:A6C:C42A:E91:1D46:17DE ( talk) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Democratic Socialists of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 2018 elections subsection, there is a broken Fox News link sourcing a statement by Nancy Pelosi. Please use this URL and this archive URL, dated 2020-06-27, for the reference. 209.166.108.199 ( talk) 19:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up considerably. The content in it should rely on reliable secondary sourcing. It should not rely on primary sourcing or non-Rs, and the interpretations by Wikipedia editors of those primary sources/non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Socialism is something that is not clearly defined in most people minds, especially after Bernie Sanders statements that socialism is the same as social democrat european parties, but there is actually a very big difference between social democrats and democratic sociaslism. Socialism is the abolishment of private industry and private profit in favor of socializing ALL of the economy, which is to say it is almost or exactly the same thing as communism. It is clearly stated in 5.1 Socialism, and alluded to in the top right menu in the form of the "anti-capitalist" epithet. But the introductory paragraphs explain nothing of this, so it would be very easy for a common reader to think Democratic Socialists DO NOT want to take over all private companies of the USA, as is stated clearly in 5.1, which is midway into the article and I found relatively hard to find(took me 5 minutes of searching around myself because I wanted to verify for myself that DSA were in fact communists). This is for the sake of clarity, since it is clear at least to me that a party advocating for the end of ALL private industry and profit is NOT the same thing as social democratic european parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.153.65 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The DSA is similar to the NDP, and in fact had ties with them. Both evolved out of 19th century socialism and retain some of the terminology, with a broad tent of members with differing views on socialism. Specifically socialists disagree on the amount of social control and/or ownership of the means of production that is necessary to mitigate or eliminate the inequities caused by a competitive system.
Even if you were right, you would need a reliable secondary source, i.e., not an opinion piece, that supports your interpretation.
TFD ( talk) 18:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democratic Socialists of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "Four female DSA members ( Sara Innamorato, Summer Lee, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale) won Democratic primary contests for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, two of them defeating conservative male Democratic incumbents." to "Four female DSA members ( Sara Innamorato, Summer Lee, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale) won Democratic primary contests for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, with Innamorato and Lee defeating incumbents." When you say two out of these four defeated conservative male incumbents, my response is, "OK, and how many incumbents total?" It's best to be clear from the start; and of course no change is needed to references etc. 209.166.108.199 ( talk) 18:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template merely to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus, as it clutters up
the category that administrators check to find unanswered edit requests with unactionable requests that still take time to clear out." You are of course free to continue discussing your request.
TFD (
talk)
03:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
As of the most recent edit, someone has placed "Anti-communism" as a faction within the DSA. Their cited source is just the DSA's about page and there is no apparent "anti-communist" caucus within the DSA, nor does their source support their assertion of "anti-communism". There IS in fact a Communist Caucus of the DSA, which I'm pretty sure used to be listed here but was removed. An Anarchist caucus was also listed without any source whatsoever. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus ( talk) 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This article uses way too many sources from the DSA or other socialist websites.
This cause the article to:
Thoughts? DemonDays64 ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
The DSA is not only by far the largest socialist organization in the United States in the 21st century, it is also the largest socialist organization in the United States in over a century.This is an example of the type of over-the-top adulatory language that needs to be revised or removed. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: To respond to the tag asking for "quantity" to a line describing a group of people chanting at an event, and suggestion that the use of "a number of people" are automatically weasel words. This is wrong from a policy and common sense standpoint. The source reported as follows:
Attendees at a convention in Chicago on Saturday for the Democratic Socialists of America launched into an anti-Israel chant after passing a motion to overwhelmingly endorse the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement. In a video posted to social media following the vote, a number of people at the event began chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — a popular slogan at anti-Israel protests around the world — as one person waved a Palestinian flag.
Words like "some people," "a number of people," are not weasel words when they correctly describe what is represented in the source. Weasel words are when words like this are used to misrepresent what a source has stated. In this case, the line in the Wiki article clearly adheres to the source. As for "quantity," this is unnecessary nitpicking. No one expects to find the specific number of people chanting a slogan. The source reported that "a number of attendees" were recorded doing so. Are you suggesting that, for example, at 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, we are required to indicate how many fraternity members were chanting the racial slur? (I am not drawing an equivalence between racist chants and the chant at the DSA convention; I am noting that there are contexts where demanding a level of specificity, beyond what's required to adhere to the sources, is not necessary.) Finally, you suggest that Times of Israel is a "biased source." I don't know what your point is, or how you came to the conclusion that the source is biased. My first guess would be because the paper is an Israeli publication, and the chant was perceived as anti-Israel. This doesn't matter, because the source is reliable and the piece is a factual summary of something that occurred at the convention. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: Again, you have presented no evidence otherwise other than your innuendo about the story being "weaselly." I'd like to hear more on that, as well as what the "slant" here is. The Times of Israel has an editorial board that includes prominent journalists, it's staff are recognized journalists, it's been responsible for breaking high-profile stories in Israel through investigative reporting -- it has all the hallmarks of a reliable source. And the same story was reported by the Daily Beast, for which there is established consensus at WP:RSN, completely consistent with the ToI, but with greater detail. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: WP:FOC Sounds like a good idea, let's try that both ways. Multiple RS documented an incident, the chanting of a controversial Palestinian nationalistic slogan with undertones of violence at the event. It is a documented fact that this occurred during the BDS endorsement vote. Since you applied the NPOV tag to the section, what is the specific NPOV issue you believe that is present here? Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is what they chanted: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. The river in this formulation is the Jordan, the naturally occurring eastern border of Israel and of the West Bank; the sea is the Mediterranean to the west. Uttered by advocates of the Palestinian cause for decades, the pithy slogan very pointedly makes no place for Israel. It evokes a strip of Middle Eastern land where Israel is no more, replaced by a unified Palestinian entity in the space it once occupied. It could be that this entity would welcome and protect a Jewish population. But when supporters of the Jewish state hear those 10 words, they worry about their potentially violent implications. (It's no secret that the phrase is highly charged these days. After professor and pundit Marc Lamont Hill this week called for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” in a speech at the UN in which he also spoke in support of the BDS movement, CNN dropped its long-time contributor. Lamont responded at length on Twitter, saying he had not called for violence and contesting the idea that the phrase belonged to Hamas.)
I should remove the quotation from a reliable source explaining the background for why a particular slogan is controversial? I don't think so. If you read the article as carefully as you apparently reviewed the clip (I don't see how it supports a conclusion that a "tiny number" of people made the chant, and I don't think we should be downplaying what the sources report), you'd see that it is not necessarily imputing a motivation to the chanters, but describing why it considers their using that particular slogan to be notable. As for the alternative meaning, that is acknowledged in the text, with a citation to the Times of Israel, the source which you characterized as so biased (which actually offered the non-controversial interpretation as a legitimate alternative). Further, neither the Wiki article nor either source asserts that a "majority" of attendees chanted. Both say "a number of" attendees participated in the chant, while the vote to endorse BDS proceeded. 90% is not being juxtaposed with the chant, it is the ratio by which the endorsement passed. It's not being juxtaposed with the participants chanting. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to dismiss your comments out of hand. I have removed the 90% figure regarding the margin by which the resolution was passed. Seems superfluous, and if it creates confusion, then it isn't needed. The paragraph now simply states that it was passed. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: Let me remind you of a crucial point: Reliable sources are allowed to have opinions. Editors are not. You responded to a good-faith compromise by abusing 1RR to edit-war this content out of the article. The fact that you disagree with an opinion reported in multiple reliable secondary sources and view that as a basis for removal is what's contrary to NPOV, not the material in the article. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC) @ The Four Deuces: Ah, we have a new standard for NPOV. It's not what reliable sources report, it's what editors believe is correct! And if a journalist is "wrong," even if its' reported in multiple reliable sources, it cannot go into the article. This is entirely inappropriate reasoning, and in fact constitutes an NPOV violation. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Previously uninvolved in this discussion, saw the thread on NPOVN. I don't think there's sufficient weight here to add extensive discussion or claims and counterclaims about the meaning of a brief chant half-heartedly participated in by a few dozen people. Just because something has been published in a reliable source does not require its inclusion in any given Wikipedia article. If we included everything ever published about
Donald Trump in his Wikipedia article, it would become massively unbalanced and unwieldly.
WP:ONUS is on point here: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
What I find notable is that multiple reliable sources reported on it. The phrase "body of reliable sources" is meaningless because I have pointed to several, and the one-sentence summary over this controversy is more than proportionate, if not giving short-shrift, based on this coverage. That is the standard, not whether you or I think it's subjectively important. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of Section 3.1, "Party Media" should be changed to "Organizational Media", as DSA is an organization--not a political party. For the same reason, the sentence "Left-wing quarterly magazine Jacobin is also considered to be very close to the party, as its editor Bhaskar Sunkara is a DSA member; however, there is no official affiliations between the magazine and DSA" should be changed so that the word "party" is removed and replaced with the word "organization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyodie ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox, we currently have it as Left wing. This from The New Yorker has it as Far-left, in the opening para. Now the New Yorker can most definitely not be described as a conservative publication, and Wikipedia’s own article on that magazine has it that "According to Pew Research, 77 percent of The New Yorker's audience hold left-of-center political values". Their prime ideologue Michael Harrington was a Marxist. We have it already that the DSA see the "abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal". But the abolition of capitalism is the policy goal of the far-left and not that of mere left wing politics. Therefore, far-left it should be. Boscaswell talk 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The infobox of the article currently does not list the number of seats held by the group. However, List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States lists them in its infobox, and while the DSA is not technically a political party, it does endorse candidates, and have members who hold office.
There are also prior examples of such inclusion occurring, such as Vermont Progressive Party showing they hold one US senate seat in Vermont (even though the person holding the seat is not technically a member of the party).
@ Muboshgu: (ping from our discussion on your talk page)
Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why the "seats held" section is back, it seems like the consensus here was to not include it. Additionally, it says the group has a member in the US Senate which is unsourced and untrue. (Bernie Sanders is not a member and DSA has no association with his senate campaign). Since I'm new here I don't want to unilaterally make the edit, but someone should remove that section. Netx444 ( talk) 08:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to the political nature of the organization I believe the page should be semi protected in order to decrease possible vandalism. I would like feedback to this before I formally propose page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert257 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)