Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

Factions

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)

Quite promotional, bad sources

This article uses way too many sources from the DSA or other socialist websites.

This cause the article to:

• Make it sound far more powerful and influential than it is; to put it into scale, the party has only a fifth of the membership of the very minor US Green Party. It seems to be sort of "graded on a curve" of significance, giving it a lot of undue weight.
• Not seem to list any criticisms of the organization's more controversial activities and views, (e.g. deciding to not endorse any presidential candidate except Bernie Sanders in 2020).

Thoughts? DemonDays64 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Well, it's not a party at all. So, it's not being "graded" relevant to actual parties and need not endorse. But, if you have any specific suggestions, they'd be welcomed. O3000 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with DemonDays64 O3000. I would also point out the degree of criticism in articles is relative to how much appears in reliable sources. We don't just add negative information to balance positive information or vice versa. There is nothing controversial about an organization that endorses a small number of democratic socialists running for office not to endorse a mainline Democrat. There is nothing wrong with using left-wing sources and they may provide more coverage than mainstream media. We should however make limited use of the organization itself as a source. It's misleading to compare registered voters of the Green Party with dues paying members of the DSA. TFD (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. You said you agreed with DemonDays64 and proceeded to disagree with most of what they said.. I do think we should use it as a source for itself less. That's often a problem with small orgs. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed that. I don't like using an organization as a source for itself other than basic information such as the names of key officials and addresses. It is hard for us to interpret and summarize their statements fairly and accurately. It's better to rely on articles by journalists to do that. It's particularly difficult with the DSA because they see themselves as a broad tent on the left and allow conflicting positions to be expressed by their members. TFD (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Frequent sourcing to the party itself is a massive issue I've seen on a lot of articles for left-wing parties and organizations, and this is no exception. There's nothing wrong with citing information to a group itself on occasion, but when a majority of sources are to the DSA or its newspaper, there's a pretty big problem here. I think it might be useful to weed out a lot of these and find some more sources from outlets that aren't explicitly aligned with the socialist movement. Toa Nidhiki05 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem isn't necessarily that criticism is missing, it's the overly promotionalist tone of this entire piece. 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)

The sources at this page, based on a brief skim, are a problem. I see a lot of links to the DSA website, or second-tier publications simply quoting DSA members. This needs to be remedied by either a) providing better attribution ("The DSA reports that... the DSA said") or just trimming material not essential to the article solely pulled from the DSA website or some other DSA-linked source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of text that was essentially copied from the website in Wiki voice, along with other tedious information that's more at home in a DSA promotional brochure rather than a Wikipedia article, like membership info, convention scheduling, growth statistics, etc. (all from the website). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 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)

1. Where is this video? Is it on Reddit? Who edited it?
2. The Times of Israel may be RS. But RS for everything? This very brief article says one person has a Palestinian flag. One of 700 who may not even have been a member. Why would an unbiased source say this? Big surprise one single person had this flag.
3. The phrasing says there was "almost universal" (I hate modified absolutes) about one subject and then says "a number" about another suggesting it was a large number. Was it 500 out of 700? Or, was it 5 out of 700? We have no idea. Why would an encyclopedia push such a suggestive, weaselly, POV sentence when we haven't the slightest concept of 'dueness'?

O3000 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is the video. If you're interested in reviewing the video, that's fine, but we don't base content on editors' evaluations of primary sources, whether it's yours, mine, Tom, Dick, or Harry. WP:OR. We leave that to reliable secondary sources, and the Times of Israel is one. 2) The Times of Israel noted that someone had carried a Palestinian flag, at a convention where the organization (DSA) was voting to endorse a protest movement against Israel, while its members (a number of them, according to the source) chanted a Palestinian nationalistic slogan. A better question is, what reliable source wouldn't report that kind of detail? 3) The "almost universal" phrase in the article appears to refer to the vote by the organization members in favor of endorsing the BDS movement: 90%. It was present before the point about the DSA members chanting Palestinian slogans was added. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, WP:DUE refers to the treatment in reliable sources, not editor's opinions. The vast majority of this article presents recycled material from the website, so I think our concerns about WP:DUE should focus on those points of the article rather than aspects that actually meet the criteria for that policy. Again, "weaselly," which frankly sounds derogatory, describes how content is presented by editors, not sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's it? You just proved this particular article is a bad source for this subject. No way we should leave this suggestive statement when I saw a very narrow shot of a small fraction of 700 people on a twitter video with a few of the people briefly chanting (and not knowing how they interprteted the chant) and most everyone sitting mute and looking down, apparently askance. And yes, we do have editorial discretion. Something The Times appears to have lacked in this instance. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors don't decide what's DUE or newsworthy, sources do. "Editorial discretion" does not override policy. I have seen no evidence presented that this source is unreliable, other than your insinuations that because it is an (independent, non-political) Israeli publication and the story covers a group's protest against Israel, along with words like "weaselly" and "push [an opinion]. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And I don't really get your, "Oh, gee, that's it" reaction. This obviously reveals something about the group's ideology, whether you agree with it or not. Furthermore, let's move past the suggestions of malice or bias against Israeli publications, and if you believe there is a bias, be specific about what you believe it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The term some may be used if it accurately reflects the source. The point of the guideline is I think to stop editors from misrepresention. However we can view the youtube clip [DSA vote BDS, posted by Ajenwy 92, posted August 9, 2017] and determine if the source misreprents what actually happened. The numbers seem infignificant to me, and I note that the CNN article on the event did not mention it.[1] I would say the number was actually very small and not worth mentioning. I don't see how a handful of people reveals anything about the party's ideology. Ted Bundy after all was a Republican convention delegate, do you think that reveals anything about Republican ideology? TFD (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and I don't think it's an editors' job to dissect a video (primary source) and assert their analysis as superior to that of a secondary source. WP:OR. This article suffers from a huge amount of over-reliance on the DSA website, and all of these issues were neglected until critical WP:SECONDARY sources were introduced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The CNN piece was focused broadly on the group as a whole. They noted the BDS boycott vote at which the "chant" took place. The Daily Beast, an additional reliable source, noted both the chant and the vote. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You obviously haven't watched the video. Where information in secondary sources falsely reports what is in primary sources then we omit it. TFD (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the Times of Israel reporting was false. I am also not going to accept an editor's interpretation over a reliable source. I generally don't make a practice of poring over primary source materials to double check the work of a secondary source, but the video lines up with exactly what the Times of Israel describes. Their reporting is also consistent with that of other reliable sources that covered the chant, e.g. Daily Beast. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying The Times of Israel is RS. It's not in Perennial sources. And, looking through WP:RSN archives, there is no agreement on this as RS for Arab Israel subjects. There is a lot of criticism related to this subject area. Looking at the video, in this case, their reporting was obviously heavily slanted. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 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)

Both TFD and I have explained this in detail. And, RSN doesn't agree with you on issues like this. But, you ignored BRD and just edit warred in your position. Stop making unilateral changes that clearly don't have consensus. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote count, and arguments based on innuendo and other conclusory statements of opinion do not drive content. WP:RSP includes the Daily Beast, which also covered the story and which is consistent with reporting by the Times of Israel. You have no evidence to say that "RSN doesn't agree with me." Others have already agreed on this matter here and restored the content. I'd suggest that perhaps attention would be better focused on the sources used in this article which are completely unrecognized and largely recycle content from the website. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You claiming you have consensus is not consensus. And you claiming other editors are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply false. As usual, you fail to WP:FOC. You have failed to gain consensus and have resorted to edit warring. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You need stop WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and making incorrect statements. Other editors restored the material after recognizing the argument that we need to specify "how many people chanted" was largely frivolous. This entire thread was opened because the article fails to note criticisms or critical content in secondary sources, and relies almost exclusively on the DSA website.

Objections to the use of ToI have not acknowledged that the Daily Beast reported the same thing and is listed on RSP as reliable. And even if we didn't have the Daily Beast, there is no consensus against using the ToI, an indepedent, non-political source with all the markers of a high level of reliability. Assertions that because it is an Israeli publication, and the use of innuendo like "weaselly," are not appropriate to denigrate a source's reliability, and that's what I've seen articulated here. Claiming a report is "false" when backed up by a video and other reliable sources is equally tendentious. Consensus is not a vote and multiple editors have agreed that this article requires more secondary sources to comply with NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You have just been told on AE to FOC, and the case is still open. Instead, you attack. In no way are we doing anything related to BATTLEGROUND or TENDENTIOUS. We gave our reasoning based on guidelines and you completely ignore us. I strongly suggest you strike these comments. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 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)

Firstly, what undertones of violence, and why are you using the word nationalist? These are both POVs. Secondly, the text strongly suggests this was a chant by a large number of people when in fact it was a tiny number out of 700 delegates, and the quantify tag was removed with a snide edit summary. I have explained this multiple times. O3000 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In schools and sporting events, Americans sing a nationalist anthem with overtones of violence and a pro-slavery message to boot! ("No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.") So do lots of national anthems. TFD (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, nationalist anthem is pretty much redundant. O3000 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pining for an ideological argument here. Here is what the cited article from the Daily Beast says:

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.)

This sums up the controversy succinctly. It was a chant by "a number of" attendees, apparently enough to capture the attention of reliable sources who reported on it. You said that the removal of the "quantify" tag was snide, but it's difficult to understand what that tag is asking for in the first place, or why. Do you expect the exact number of people in the crowd to be quantified? Where else on Wikipedia is that level of precision, far beyond what reliable sources report, required? Because I can't find it. The sources don't say "most of," or "all," or "just a few," but they say "a number of," so we are adhering to the source(s) here. They do not say a "tiny number," so I don't know where that assessment comes from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You should remove that. Palestinian’s deny that is the meaning.. Forcing meaning into someone’s words that they say doesn’t exist is not acceptable. Applying one man’s opinion in a speech to an entire society and to anonymous people is unacceptable. And I will repeat this yet again. The juxtaposition of 90% and “a number” in the same paragraph suggests that this was widespread. The video shows a tiny number of people. This is totally misleading. Why are you insisting that we leave in this paragraph the patently false suggestion that the majority of DSA members call for the elimination of Israel? There is no evidence of anything like this. This must be removed. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Right, the sources do not suggest that 90% were chanting this instead of a tiny number. We are suggesting that -- and it's false and likely libelous. And yes, one person's opinion about what Palestinian believe that Palestinians say is false has no place in an article about the DSA. O3000 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The 90% figure describes the number of members present who voted in favor of the BDS endorsement. In the second half of the paragraph, it describes "a number of" participants chanting the slogan. In no way, shape, or form are the two conflated with the current wording, which is completely consistent with the sources and not "libelous." This source accurately summarizes the controversy surrounding the slogan. It doesn't matter a damn what any editor, including you or me, think it means, because we go by reliable sources. Claiming that reliably sourced information is "false," "libelous," and "wrong" without any evidence is unproductive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: If there is a better way to word the sentence to remove any possible confusion, as you suggest, regarding what the 90% figure applies to, I am open to it. I don't see it, but I'm open to improvements that can make it clearer if possible. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are the one that posted the video here. It shows that only a handful were chanting. And yes, I know what the 90% is about. I also know that, unlike the sources, we are conflating the 90% with the chants. That's why I added the quantify tag -- which was snidely and incorrectly removed. A while back, there was a line in the Unite the right rally article that said demonstrators wore MAGA hats, and it was sourced to one of the best sources, Maggie Haberman at the NYT. Now, I can’t stand Trump, highly respect Haberman, and have no doubt most of those racists were Trump supports. But, I looked at hundreds of photos and couldn’t find a single MAGA hat. So, despite overwhelming support for the line, I stared an RfC to remove it because it was false. The RfC closed to remove. This is because we do have the editorial discretion to remove negative material, even with excellent sources, when it’s false. Now, I don’t like the DSA either. But, the sources here are not nearly as good. This should be removed because it serves no purpose other than to mislead. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I and another editor disagreed with the "quantify" tag because it's TMI and unnecessary to provide a headcount for the number of people in the crowd. We have to apply policies in a way that comports with common sense. I believe you are wrong about the video if you think it disproves reporting from two separate reliable sources. The video shows the chant having enough people participating to be loud and noticeable. The camera pans to at least a couple of tables of people repeating the chant and all of the heads in the room turn. This is what the DB and the ToI reported. And I don't want to get repetitive here. The 90% figure and the description of the chant are separated by a sentence. They are related in that the chant took place at the same event; indeed, the chant began right after the resolution passed. The current wording does not suggest that 90% of people were chanting, it states that 90% voted for the resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 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)

It obviously states well more than that. It suggests that the DSA supports something that they haven't said they support without a wit of context. Not indicating that a tiny fraction of people cheered something is.... a couple tables out of 700 delegates, and we don't even know if they were delegates. Seriously, what is the purpose of telling people that they support things they don't support? Gross WP:NPOV violation. Just leave it all out as it doesn't match any facts. It serves no purpose other than to push a POV. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the opinion of one journalist about what the slogan means has any weight. We already have an article about BDS which is where the dispute should be addressed. Political positions are controversial by definition. A lot of U.S. politicians support the death penalty for example but we don't coatrack the dispute into all their articles.

The article on the Tea Party movement just explains what positions it supported, even though most of their major positions were based on irrational analysis or conspiracism.

TFD (talk) 00:25, 3 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)

It's not a new standard. NPOV does not say that all opinions published in reliable sources should be included in articles, but presents a policy by which editors should select what to include. The approach you suggest is to scour sources for negative facts and opinions and put them in. But neutrality requires us to summarize information in sources depending on the degree of its prominence. TFD (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging other users in this discussion: @Toa Nidhiki05:, @DemonDays64:. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:37, 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)

That's not what was proposed. The description was a single sentence with two citations provided, either one being sufficient as far as reliability. Here's the last stable version (by the way, Toa Nidhiki05, I think you had it right when you reverted O3000's change). Neither mentioned the chant being "half-hearted." The majority of this article is linked to primary sources, so it's problematic when the few secondary sources that are used end up being challenged because they touch on areas that tend to get editors riled up. That's why this is being hashed out at WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus here that we need more reliable sources to offer more neutral (not unqualifiedly positive) coverage. The objections raised here have been to dispute and disagree with the source itself, and placed little focus on other major problems in the article like overreliance on the DSA website or other sources too closely associated with DSA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You are paying far too much attention to the DSA vote on BDS. Israel is not the most important issue in the United States today, although some people are obsessed with it. That's why mainstream media covered the vote but didn't go into polemics. If readers are interested in reading about BDS, we have an article for that. A lot of U.S. politicians support the death penalty, putting them in the same league as policy in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Iran. But I don't go coatracking death penalty debates into all their articles. I am content that the issue is addressed in the main article, TFD (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I am not looking for you to tell me what I am or am not too focused on or for your gauge on what the hot issues of today are. This is relevant content for the article. It is sourced to reliable publications, satisfies WP:RS and WP:DUE, and almost certainly does reflect a piece of the groups ideology. There is no "main article" here. This is the article for information on the DSA's positions, activities, ideology, and the like. This is a piece of that on an important issue. The arguments that have been presented here against exclusion are totally biased and make inappropriate justifications for removing well-sourced content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As U have pointed out before, DUE does not mean what you find important but is based on what the body of writers of reliable sources find important. I know you think it is extremely important that a handful of the hundreds of delegates chanted "From Sea to Sea" and that some people think the slogan threatens Israel, but at the end of the day what is important is that they backed BDS and readers will not be brutally deprived of understanding of the organization if the one thing you have spent lots of time arguing for was excluded. TFD (talk) 20:36, 5 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)

Clarifying that DSA is an Organization--Not a Political Party

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The difference between "political party" and "political organization" is usually slim (nevermind in the US where, while de facto there are only two parties, both of these could be split into various different groups...); and this group has actively campaigned, endorsed candidates and has had some of it's members elected... (all characteristic of a political party...) Of course, if there are independent sources which refer to this grouping as only an organization and not a party, then this could be changed. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: can you give me a little more color on this? When I saw this edit request my instinct was to approve it and change the wording as the word "party" is only mentioned in reference to political parties in relation to the DSA. Do a quick power search of the word across the article. This seems like you're asking the editor to prove a negative. Just curious to what your thoughts are. Thanks! Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonSpencer1: I was going out on a limb based on what I describe above ("this group has actively campaigned, endorsed candidates and has had some of it's members elected... (all characteristic of a political party...)"). Also, the group is described as having roots in various political parties, and based on what I know of American politics, this appears to be something akin to a branch (albeit independent) of the Democratic party. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly confusing. I mean this organization has a "youth wing" which only political parties typically have. But in my reading of the sources, particularly this one from NPR I just ran across, its more of a "group" with "chapters" than a traditional political party. It has a complex interplay with political parties, e.g. the Democratic Party, but when I contrast what the DSA is ("an organization of democratic socialist, social democratic and labor-oriented members in the U.S") with what Political party#Structure says the DSA looks like more of a advocacy group-hybrid, i.e. an organization. You can make the final call – I'm from Spain so my knowledge of U.S. politics is not terribly strong. Just thought I'd share my thoughts as this seems to be a larger issue with the article.

Update: From Vox: "Is DSA a political party?" "No." – anyway still your call. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 15:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the article to remove these references; replacing the "media" header with "Publications". The other one I have changed per request since, well, organization is relatively close in meaning to party (a party is an organization...). RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that was a good move – thanks! Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 16:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Political position

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)

Your source actually uses both the terms "hard-left" and "left-wing," but doesn't use the term far left. It's not by the editorial board of the New Yorker either, but by a contributing writer. Generally we would use political science textbooks rather than terms used by journalists. TFD (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the abolition of capitalism a goal confined to the far left? Even our article on the far left just says "Groups that advocate for revolutionary anti-capitalism and anti-globalization have been characterized as far-left." Basically you are saying that if you want a socialist society you are far left, and that's just not correct. Which is probably why Socialism doesn't say it's far left. And I haven't begun to discuss the BLP issues for such a small group of people. Ah, and being a Marxist definitely doesn't make you far left. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

”Ah, and being a Marxist definitely doesn't make you far left.” Hahaha. Karl Marx’s most famous work was 'The Communist Manifesto'. Boscaswell talk 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, TFD you are correct, that article in The New Yorker does not have the DSA as being far-left, but would you not agree that the term hard-left is to all intents and purposes one and the same. It is used as the opening description of the DSA - in the very first paragraph. One of the characteristics of various far-left and left wing groups is the use of entryism, another is downplaying their long-term intentions by way of softening their self-description. Wikipedians need to be cogniscent of the latter, because it is happening in a lot of articles. Unfortunately, there are even some admins in on the act.Boscaswell talk 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: I'm afraid that you don't seem to know much about Marxism today. Or entryism, which is basically a Trotskyist methodology. As for hard left, I disagree. See Hard left - hard vs soft left, not far left, which is a huge difference. We can't interpret meanings in any case. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DSA is a left to far left organization. There are elements of reform and revolution within it. Those who take Marxism seriously would be considered far-left and those who seek mainly reforms would be considered left.--User:Namiba 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am getting irritated by editors who seem to have some sort of what I'd call a stereotypical view of Marxism rather than a real world views. There are for instance plenty of academics who use Marxist methods of analysis without wanting to overthrow the government. Then of course there's the need for reliable sources. Without those you can't add content to the article. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of the U.S. drew a distinction between "advocacy of forcible overthrow as an abstract doctrine and advocacy of action to that end." (Yates v. United States 1957) So there' a difference between Communists who believe the working class will seize control of the U.S. long after we're all gone and people carry out terrorist actions to kickstart the revolution. Also a major strand of Marxism was Marxist revisionism which was the official ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. It held that socialism was about the movement not the ideology. The purpose of their party was to represent the interests of working people, rather than the elites. That meant working within the constitutional system to get the best possible outcomes for their supporters. TFD (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the infobox include seats held?

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)

They don't hold any seats and providing a number would be misleading. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the numbers be removed from the infobox on the page List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be discussed there WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was unaware of that guideline. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

They should not be listed anywhere. DSA is not a political party. It nominates no candidates. It endorses candidates, usually in the Democratic Party.--User:Namiba 01:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This argument depends heavily on how you define a political party. Anyway: Considered a political party or not, they are political, and they organize members who hold office. So yes, these members should also be counted. --Madglad (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of political groups endorse candidates, including the NRA, unions, the Tea Party LGBT groups. Are they political parties? TFD (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the US context, a political party is a group that calls itself a party and places its candidates on the ballot with the label of that party. DSA does neither. It does not call itself a party and candidates who are DSA members run as Democrats or as independent candidates or perhaps on the Peace and Freedom ticket or something. "Seats held" is not appropriate for a group that is not a party. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the DSA is not a political party and does not contest elections, number of seats held should not be mentioned. Note too that not everyone they endorse is a member. They for example endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. TFD (talk) 05:33, 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)

I removed it again. TFD (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection Status

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)

Pages are protected to prevent active disruption. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, they are almost never preemptively protected. Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Political Position

According to Politico in this article, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/12/aoc-ocasio-corteznew-york-city-394021, the DSA is far-left. The article describes AOC as being backed by the far-left, and then says she is backed by the DSA and WFP. If that could mean anything else I'm certainly not aware of it. This Vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national) describes the DSA as being "radical left," which just means far-left (as supported by Wikipedia, which has a disambiguation page to far-left). Conservative sources like Influence Watch (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/democratic-socialists-of-america/) and Manhattan Institute (https://www.city-journal.org/socialist-surge-in-local-government) describe it as far-left, which should be taken into account unless Wikipedia is just openly denying conservative sources at this point. When I added said information, it was taken down for reasons not explained. There isn't even a citation for the current position, which is accepted as the norm.--66.215.219.189 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)