Talk:Progressive Labor Party (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

I shifted this one back from Progressive Labor Party (USA) since PLP is not an exculsively US party. --Soman 08:52, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

While that is true, it is mainly and originally so, and this is the obvious way to differentiate from the many other parties unconnected with it using the same name XmarkX 06:41, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

History merge

This article requires the history stored at Progressive Labor Party (USA)/history merging in when the block compression issue is resolved. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

Done. Noel (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

• Progressive Labor Party → Progressive Labor Party (USA). This was originally at this location, but was wrongly moved - there are many organisations bearing this name around the world unconnected to the party described here - I intend to make this a disambig page. XmarkX 06:48, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"

• Support - Philip Baird Shearer 19:06, 14 March 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Everyking 20:45, 14 March 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Soman 06:39, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments

User:Soman messed things up with this and it's not a simple case of moving it back because of a copy/paste move. I'll leave it in the WP:RM holding pen so that the article histories can be merged when the block compression error is no longer causing us problems. violet/riga (t) 17:24, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

I've come up with a temporary fix. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

The article should be moved back to Progressive Labor Party, since PLP has branches outside of the USA. Also, which other parties carry the name PLP (which would motivate a disamb page)? There is the Swiss one, but that name is not used by the nationwide party. --Soman 06:37, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping that XmarkX will be able to show examples of other uses. For now please leave it where it is rather than trying to move it, especially using a copy/paste. violet/riga (t) 10:47, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

69.138.67.42

69.138.67.42 has made an awful lot of changes to this page without any comment or discussion. It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the new text. DJ Silverfish 16:40, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

The changes seem to have been made by a PLP member. Some of them are useful in giving a fuller picture of the PLP's unusual politics and in correcting imprecise statements about the factional history of SDS that date back to the earliest version of this article. Others, however, seem to be designed to sanitize PL's history and remove legitimate criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.16 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

I tried to clean this up, removing the propagandistic jargon about the CP "throwing the red flag in the mud" and restoring some of the material the PL supporter removed, such as the criticism of their denial of Stalin's crimes. If these people want to take a morally repulsive as well as historically crankish stance regarding Stalin, they have to learn to live with the fact that other people will disagree strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.12 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

PLP editors

It would appear that the PLP is determined to totally control everything said about it on wikipedia. Each time, they add questionable statements, for instance the statement that their fight with ROAR in Boston was a major event in the history of the civil rights movement and led to the "marginalization" of Klansmen and neo-Nazis nationwide. What marginalization? In the 1980s and 90s these groups were stronger than ever. In addition, the PLP wikipedia contributors appear to have adopted a tactic of systematically and repeatedly removing anything the slightest bit critical of their party--just as their mentor Joseph Stalin systematically removed any information (or any person) critical of his rule. The word "minor" from the phrase "minor communist party" keeps getting removed by them even though to any rational person a tiny group with a couple of hundred members is, for better or worse, a "minor" party. As to their "gulag revisionism" (phrase also removed), that's what their Stalinophilia is--a repulsive glorying in brutality that should be condemned as soundly as Holocaust denial. This is the group that popularized the phrase in SDS, "the only thing wrong with Stalin was, he didn't kill enough of them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.17 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I moved the phrase about professional revolutionaries from the base-building paragraph to the mass party paragraph, where it logically belongs. I also rephrased the sentence about a "small church" in language which should be acceptable to PLP supporters. Question: Was the term "identity politics" actually used in the late 1960s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.17 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

"Denial of Stalin's crimes"? Let me ask, do you have any knowlege of the actual historical record regarding Stalin, or is he or she simply reciting "common knowlege" about Stalin? Stalin certainly made errors, some quite egregious, but the approach of simply appealing to what "everyone knows" is not worthy of a legitimate source. We need a better standard here. I'm not a PL supporter, but I ackowlege what they've done to clarify things regarding the historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.1.34 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PLP editors continued

The PLP contributor to this article claims that "as a matter of record" PLP won a great victory over ROAR in the 1970s. The record it cites is the PLP's own theoretical journal The Communist. All this proves is that the PLP "claims" to have won this victory, which is what was in the earlier phrasing. I am restoring the earlier phrasing.

The word "subsidized" was removed from the description of the PLP's relationship to Mao's China. Does the PLP really assert that they never took any money from China, or do they just not want anyone to mention it publicly?

The two former PLP leaders who became businessmen were not "youth leaders" of the party but "younger" leaders of adult party activities who served on the national committee. There were also "youth leaders" (SDS-WSA leaders) who left during this period but they did not end up in the business world. I am restoring the word "younger."

The PLP contributor's statement that the PLP approves of Stalin's terror on grounds that it was needed to save the "infant" Soviet regime is dishonest. PLP publications explicitly approve the purges that took place in the late 1930s,when the regime was no longer "infant" but had the largest army in Europe. And what about the anti-Jewish "Doctor's Plot" purge in the early 1950s (when the far from infant regime already had nuclear weapons)--does the PLP approve that too? I am removing the word "infant"; if the PLP contributor restores it, this will merely prove that he or she has residual doubts about his or her own views and has to disguise them behind emotional buzz words that suggest some kind of maternal rescue of a threatened infant.

I don't have the time to engage in a longrange dispute with the PLP's contributor(s). If Wikipedia's editors want to tolerate an article that presents a one-sidedly favorable view of people who think Stalin's purges and slave-labor gulags were a good thing, so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.16 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

I have read FBI documents into PL. The FBI looked for China funds and never accussed PL of receiving any. So PL could not be found to be a aubsidized party. FBI agents noted only some small monies from purchase of books and magazines. Thus while "any money" may not be a tenable position. The statemetn of a subsidized fraternal party is not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.165 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Humbly, I have done everything possible to keep the ideology and history of the PLP accurate without glorifying our accomplishments nor allowing slanderous statements about the Party to remain in its definition. I hope people on Wikipedia are reasonably satisfied with the end result. I am a Party member and defender, but I recognize our weaknesses too, so anything legitimately said about the character and success or lack of success of the work we do every day will obviously have to be accepted. But user complaints have thus far drawn the correct conclusion when it comes to slander: PLP indeed will not allow anything to be said about it that isn't true, including things disguised as "criticism" that in reality are slanderous. This is protecting the party's integrity, rather than whitewashing, or if you will, 'red'washing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.219.77 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as a Party member I can tell you definitively that our numbers exceed "a couple of hundred." I don't know if the Party-wide estimate world-wide is accurate, but we number at least in the thousands, certainly not in the hundreds. Also, we are international, which is another good reason for our definition here not to include the word "minor." Just because what you've seen of us looks tiny does not mean that we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.42 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2005 (UTC)

As the person who battled with User:70.17.219.77 over the wording of this article last month, I just want to say that the version as it now stands (I hadn't looked at it in weeks) is actually pretty good. The history of PLP seems to me accurate at least through the early 1970s, and the description of its ideology seems to cover all major points (the most recent edits were especially useful in explaining PL's conception of the difference between a "mass communist" and a "professional revolutionary"). The statement about ROAR is now phrased in a satisfactory manner, as is the material about Stalin. Overall, this article represents a real advance over what existed a year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.12 (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Signing posts

I added the signatures to the above anonymous posters. It was a little confusing when they were unsigned. DJ Silverfish 17:01, 29 April 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Expansion on Present-Day Activities

The final section on present day PLP activities mentions the ROAR fight from the mid-1970s but then jumps to news about PLP members getting arrested circa 2005. Clearly a lot of fleshing out needs to be done to give a real history of PLP over the past 30 years, including both external activities and the internal discussions that have marked the evolution of the ideas of this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.16 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so what would you add? My suggestion would be to add some stuff, and if it's accurate it stays; if it's inaccurate, it goes. Originally, I was going to put how the KKK told The Hartford Courant sometime in the 1980s that PL was "the reason our boys are afraid to come out in public, wearing their hoods." But, I could not find a citation for that quote, even though I know it occurred, so I have not included it thus far in explaining PL's recent activities.

The inclusion of activities from the late 1980s to 2005 is somehwat problematic at points because there were points over that span of time where most of PL's work was done through its self-proclaimed "mass organization" (really just a front group, but you get the idea), the "International Committee Against Racism" (InCAR), and there is no Wikipedia article on InCAR, and I can't write one because I joined PLP not long after InCAR was dissolved and PL decided to start pursuing fully open, communist militant anti-racist activities by itself again. So, there is obviously a lot that can be added about PL's activities in the interim span of time you're talking about, and anyone that wants to do that should feel totally at liberty to do so. Slander won't be tolerated, but anything else is fair game. 71.246.68.146 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The gap in this article from the mid-1970s to the present is not solved by piling on a list of recent demonstrations and other activities from recent months. This only necessitates someone going in and updating the list constantly, which would be a waste of time since this material is already on the PLP site (one could just say, "for recent activities see Challenge at [web address]"). One way to structure an appropriate encyclopedia style account of PL's evolution and activities since the early 1970s would be around the various later Road to Revolution documents. Probably only a PL member over most of these years would be in a position to write this without having to do inordinant research. What happenings in the world and experiences of PL itself led to the various successive versions? Also what changes in PL's activities resulted from changes in its outlook as expressed in these documents? It would also be proper to mention "The Seven Retreats" (a critique of PL by ex-members in Calif) and PL's answer to it.

The comment above about "slander won't be tolerated" is not helpful. Better just to remind potential contributors that inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements and slanted unobjective phrasing are not wikipedia policy. It is up to the wikipedia editorial process, and not to PLP members or to members of any other political or religious group with strongly held beliefs, to determine what is to be "tolerated" or not. If a PLP contributor to this article thinks his or her organization is being treated unfairly, wikipedia has an appeals process that has worked well on many occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.12 (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize for the language above that "slander won't be tolerated"; it makes me sound authoritarian and I am sorry for that, wikipedia is absolutely a collective and that will not happen again. On to your suggestions for expansion:

• I have indeed been "solving" the problem of activities in recent months being covered in the article by constantly updating the recent activities. But you are right; the problem with constantly doing that, particularly over a period of years, will be that the list will become impossibly long, maybe even boring.
• Given that fact, I still do not agree that the solution would be to say "See the most recent Challenge for recent activities." To me, as a writer, that kind of phrasing begs the charge of insufficient context. Maybe I'd be over-reading in thinking that, or maybe it's because I'm in PL and want to alert the world of our activities, or whatever. But in any case it just doesn't seem like good fulfillment of any recent-activities section to simply refer a person to the latest issue of Challenge for an update.
• I could absolutely structure a more detailed roadmap of the evolutionary process of the Road to Revolution documents, but as you say, as a relatively young member (though I did have parents who were active in the party as well), I wouldn't be prepared to fill in most of the details of the apparently tremendous discussions that happened that were the impetuses behind each of these evolutionary processes. I know the anti-nationalism RR3 in particular took a LOT of work and struggle, whereas RR4 was just kind of the last "shaking off" of socialist language in favor of using the word communism exclusively and advocating for an immediately money-free, wage-free society (Milt in particular was a major mind behind RR4). It's pretty clear that if you look at how RR3 is structured and how RR4 is structured, you can see the changes and how they connect by comparing the two. But I do not know much about RR2 or the original Road to Revolution, especially not the political circumstances that led to the changes that birthed RR2 from RR1, but I do know that at the time of RR1 and RR2 things were changing rapidly in the world in general and PL was extremely, extremely active in SDS; I'm sure that if nothing else those two circumstancial factors were probably great big influences in the propelling of PL forward from its original RR document to RR2 (and later RR3).
• I was not aware of any document entitled "The Seven Retreats." If you could please provide a URL to a page with that document on it, I'll be glad to either integrate it into the article text somehow, or at least include it in External Links for reference.

Kiko 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your judgment about how to handle updates. The book you inquired about is actually entitled "The Five Retreats: A History of the Failure of the Progressive Labor Party," by D.S. Sumner and R.S. Butler (pseudonyms for Jim Dann and Hari Dillon), Reconstruction Press, 1977. (I believe it was published in SF and that the two authors were ex-PL members.) I have not read this book and take no position on its contents. It is probably hard to find outside of a few research libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.7 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Five Retreats: A History of the Failure of the Progressive Labor Party, by D.S. Sumner and R.S. Butler (pseudonyms for Jim Dann and Hari Dillon), 1977, Reconstruction Press, will be added to the Further Reading section. I looked up The Five Rereats on Amazon.com and couldn't find it, but if it's academically available I'm sure it's around the Internet somewhere. If nothing shows up in terms of actual content within the next seven days, I'll link the claims made at the Assata messageboard, which says that around 70% of the Bay Area of the party and the majority of the Boston area of the party left the organization around that time (which surprises me greatly, but I guess it's possible). 71.125.176.238 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the PLP broke up R.O.A.R. in 1975 is incorrect. Members were active into the early 1980's. Me thinks the PLP gives too much credit to themselves. Where is the evidence to back up their false claim? There's no reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Epton

The statement that Bill Epton left as the mid-1970s approached is not accurate, he left somewhat earlier. But several other leading members DID leave "as the mid-1970s" approached. As I'm not sure the date Epton left (he actually may have been expelled rather than "drifted away") I left this alone, but the PL member working on this might want to check this out and rephrase the sentence more accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.17 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The early Hisotry of PL is somewhat obscured. PL was the split within the CP between supporters of China and the USSR. This occurred as a worldwide event. As such PL did have sister parties early on. PL supported the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard. The positon they took was intersting, they view the defeat of the GPCR as occuring in 1967. Thus they broke with Mao very early on. A review of Facts on File notes several early events. PL was implicated in the 1964 Harlem riots. Bill Epton was convited of promoting the riot. At that time PL supported a black liberation ideology. Bill Epton left on unfriendly terms. I've seen a congressional record of a leaflet he made saying "Bombard the Headquarters" A Red Guard slogan referring to removal of "capitalist roaders". The episode at HUAC was more exciting than "banging desks" FOF reports the PL members called to testify stated "We are communists and are proud of it" The refused to name names "Because that question nauseates me and makes me want to throw up all over the desk" It appears that they were called to testify for medical relief to north vietnam and not for the trip to Cuba. The role is SDS has been documented in several books incluing one by informant Phillip Abbott Luce. The old SDS newspapers can also be reviewed. PL rejected unity with any politician and would come in conflict with variousl other groups in the anti-war movement. Reports of physical confrontation with the Young Socialist Alliance. But as Ho Chi Minh was Soviet supported, PL rejected his national liberation politics early on. My interpretation is that the WSA was the PL sympathizers in SDS. The SDS leadership often criticized PL. At the final "split", the SDS leadership wanted to support the Black Panther Party. PL/WSA would respond by attacking the sexist practice of the Panthers. The SDS leadership issued the document "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" as a cirtique of PL activity. They wanted to expel PL but were unable to and therefore walked out. Yes the SDS leadership became the Weather Underground. PL then had control of SDS. The RYM groups would be the ones who decided not to stay with SDS. SDS under PL leadership added the focus of harrassing academic racists. Of note the organization was able to transition from a university student group to include service workers (teachers, nurses, bus drivers) and industrial workers (particularly immigrant workers). They have reformed bonds with former Maoist groups in other nations. Avanti10 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Epton left in 1970, presumably because he disagreed with PL's new line on nationalism. I can rephrase it to reflect this, but it seems rather nitpicky. Plus, we don't want to give the impression that EVERYONE left in 1969. Most of the people that left, according to the Assata chronology linked in the page, did in fact leave in the early-to-mid 1970s, not in 1969 or 1970, and presumably, they left because they were fed up with the party's internal workings rather than because they opposed PL's break with nationalism, as Epton did. So while it would seem to be no problem to change the wording to reflect Epton's departure in particular, we have to be careful the wording doesn't get changed around so it seems like more people left at that time (1969-70) than actually did. 71.246.74.62 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One stage or two stages?

The statement that PL has a "one stage" theory seemed a bit inaccurate. If there is no socialism then there are no longer ANY transitional stages, although communism, by this line of reasoning, would have its own "stages" (which would not however be transitional stages). I rephrased this and also clarified that PL's break with traditional ML theory began long before the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.17 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but you made the first paragraph of the second section pretty convoluted in the process, so I cleaned it up. If you feel there are any misrepresentations of what you originally wrote or meant to get across, as a result of my actions, please say so and we'll work to get it right. 71.125.171.8 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your latest fixes are fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.7 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

SDS and Civil Rights Movement

Someone keeps referring to SDS as part of the "civil rights movement" or in the most recent version as representing the "heightened" anti-Vietnam war phase of the civil rights movement. If the PLP in fact views the anti-war movement as having been part of the civil rights movement, this should be made clear and the formulation should be stated as opinion rather than fact. As currently stated, it is simply a confusing phrase that diverts from the flow of the paragraph, since most informed readers, rightly or wrongly, regard the civil rights and anti-war movements as representing separate, if related, struggles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.7 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian Communism and Anarchist Communism?

Is it just me or did anybody miss the simple fact that PLP sounds very much like an Anarcho-Communis and Council Communism?

There seems to be a vein of libertarian Communism running through the article.

Should I add the places where anarchism, anarcho-communism, council communism, and libertarian communism are illustrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi kit fisto (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PLP comes from a completely different place than Libertarian Communism Anarcho-Communism or Council Communism. The party definitely does not claim any of these labels. The similarities may be superficial. I wouldn't make any comparisons throughout the article. I do hope that some of the more frequent contibutors to this page will step in and address the Anonymous users question here in Talk. DJ Silverfish 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

1. The title of the section itself sounds like from a brochure
2. Bashing "The Bell Curve," and stating that there were conferences advocating "scientific racism" is advocacy and opinion of the PL's viewpoint
3. "Today, at least in the United States, the party is best known for..." (the PL is obscure and esoteric, needs to be reworded)
4. Weasel word, "anti-racist," as if to imply that everyone else is ergo racist.
5. Weasel word, Minuteman "sympathizers"
6. Is it important to be providing links to their leaflets and every public release?

- MSTCrow 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There should not be links to all the leaflets, or any, in my opinion. HOw can this stand as a Wikipedia article without any sources/citations? It's not supposed to be self-promoting, but rely n scholarly work. --Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

user edits come from an anti-communist

User:MSTCrow has hostile intent, but he nevertheless makes a couple good NPOV points. I'll try to improve what he's talking about.24.199.91.55 08:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have hostile intent. Obviously I don't agree with the Labor Party's positions (most people wouldn't), but I don't see how that means I have hostile intent. - MSTCrow 17:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that MSTCrow has a hostile intent, 24.199.91.55? Are you able to read his mind? Disquietude 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. User tried, indirectly, to portray the known scientific-racist book "The Bell Curve" as neutral, or at least as potentially victimized by unwarranted attacks by commies, when in fact it has been attacked as such by many capitalist scholars as well. PL merely chooses to take its reaction to the book and its descendants to a left-wing, militant extreme (which I personally do not have a problem with, no more than I have a problem with them beating up the Klan).
2. User tried to paint the term "scientific racism" as a POV slogan/term. The reality is that scientific racism objectively exists, independent of what communists say about it; it's been illustrated, attacked, refuted, and popped up again in endless forms; it's definitely there, and to try to imply or say otherwise is akin to saying that evolution is still up for debate vs. creationism (it isn't; scientists know that evolution has won).
3. "Minuteman sympathizers" is not a weasel-term; it simply states that they sympathized with the Minutemen, which was clear from their actions and from what was going on in their immediate surroundings.
4. Everything else MSTCrow brought up has been fixed except the problem of links to every modern leaflet and public release PL has, which I agree is a problem, and which many people have brought up now judging from Talk. However, I'm not sure how to fix it, so we'll probably want to have some back and forth about that for a while. 24.199.91.55 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and lack of citations

The article is biased and appears to rely mostly on internal party documentation, rather than scholarly peer-reviewed sources. Even then, the article fails to provide citations for most of its assertions. I've edited it for basic style and tried to make the language more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Have deleted many inactive links, including to pdf documents that no longer work. --Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

parkwells edits

Parkwells's edits were so extensive that they broke apart the tone and flow of the article, and the user's assertion that the article as it stands is vastly POV shows a lack of respect for the many, many edits that have been made to the piece over the last three years. I have reverted the article to its pre-Parkwells state until the same edits can be made in a more collectively-sanctioned way.

This is not to dispute the fact that there is still POV in this article. But after so many shifts and changes that have improved the article as much as it has been improved over the past three years, to come in and rip it apart and tag up nearly every other line with {{citation}} is tatamount to vandalizing a work of art. Have some respect. Be more humble. If you want to change something, do it democratically. What you want is not necessarily what others may want. And the way to deal with that is to find out first. 66.108.43.105 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (aka Kiko)

I didn't change the substance of the article, but did copy editing for style, concision and some attempt at objectivity. The article is unsourced and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as it is. The language is not neutral, but has far too many highly colored adjectives and adverbs, as if it were a polemical, self-justifying piece rather than an encyclopedia article. If you had left my edits up longer, people would have had a chance to see them. I understand other people have edited; that doesn't mean they achieved NPOV.--Parkwells (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Section breaks - from Early History to Changes

The Early History section appears to go through the 1970s. In the next section, however, which starts off with changes in the 1980s, there is a paragraph lower down dealing with academic target Arthur Jensen and activities in the 1970s. To make the chronology consistent, much of this should go into the Early History section, wouldn't you agree? Also, relabeling the second section "Changes since 1980" would make it easier for a reader to find what area they wanted to focus on. --Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that makes sense. 66.108.43.105 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fist.gif

Image:Fist.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems

There is too much verbiage - probably emanating from PL supporters - which is unnecessary and unenlightening. Half of this article could be removed without lessening the informational content. When there is concrete information, it is too particular, with no recognition of a wider context.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

labels

some words that could use explanation.

• 'class enemy'
• 'rightist opportunist'
• 'rightist'
• 'militancy'

etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.246.14 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article currently describes SDS as a "self described Maoist organization." SDS was not Maoist and never claimed to be as far as I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.1.242 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

C-Class

So what is this article doing still on the C-Class end of the scale, and since it is, what specifically can be done to fix it? Let's keep this new thread as action-oriented as possible, please. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume some citations would be a solid start.--Chris902 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Before we make new chabges to the article, perhaps we should discuss them or at least provide a rationale for changes in this talk page.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Info Box

I agree that the info box should not include entire paragraphs and that everything (talk) re-added can be summed up with "communist revolution." If a more detailed explanation and nuance is needed then it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Just as importantly, a reversion of a substantial section of text is NOT a minor edit. Please don't tag it as such.--Chris902 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and accepted, but at the same time, forgive me for being more than a tad suspicious of someone whose User Info expressly self-identifies as the polar-opposite of a communist. Meaning, if you attempt to engage in any anti-communist behavior at any point in the name of 'neutrality', I do still oversee this page and I'll make sure those types of re-edits don't stand. A capitalist can't come to a communist page and tag it up any more than a communist can do the same to the free market type articles. Politics do matter, because they color what a person sees and senses. I'm not denying a human ability to be objective at-will, but the tone of your page makes no more attempt at being objective when it comes to political leanings than mine does. So I'm just saying, I'm wary of you, Chris. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait... what? Where does my user page suggest anything about my politics? Unless being a fan of semi-pro sports makes me a defacto capitalist I am not sure where you're coming from with this. I don't feel it necessary (or appropriate) to explain my exact politics on a wikipedia talk page, but I don't see any issue with users editing pages concerning right wing, social democratic and revolutionary left organizations so long as their edits are good. My edit history makes no suggestion that my politics are "the polar-opposite of communist." I think you may have mistaken me for another editor. I would also remind you that you don't WP:OWN this page.Chris902 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies; I did confuse you with another editor. I confused you with the editor who originally deleted the longer text in the box, which wasn't you, whose page explicitly says he is a staunch [right-wing] conservative, anti-abortion, etc. Sorry about that. On Wikipedia, I usually encounter editors who will make a singular edit and then those same people will come back to defend those edits later. This was not one of those cases and I apologize for my misdirected remarks.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations

There is a lot of good info on this page (as well as some that is very unnecessary, but the lack of citations is a serious issue. What can be done to add citations? Kikodawgzzz, you seem to have added much of the info - where did you get it from? Adding citations to such a lengthy article is a lengthy but necessary project and I'd be more than willing to hunt down page numbers or whatever but at the very least I think that new info should not be added without proper citations.--Chris902 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Size and Influence of the PLP

The article states that the PLP is an "international" organization with thousands of members. I am highly suspicious of this. I have never been a member of the PLP, although I have communicated with PLP members via the internet before, but I do have the experiences of someone coming from the American Marxist left. These days, many of the small political sects inflate their membership numbers by claiming that anyone on their internal mailing lists are "members." If they have contacts in other countries who are flirtatious with the party's ideology, then they suddenly become members as well and the organization becomes an "international." Likewise, people holding signs (at protests, groups distrubute their signs/flags/banners and people often enough pick them up just because they like the message, not necessarily knowing anything about the group), attending meetings and volunteering to help at the margins of the party are not cadres either. Taken together, such individuals might be presented by PLP representatives as being amongst the "thousands" of their members. I would be surprised if the PLP even has over 100 actual members unless they have grown tremendously in the past 8 years. In 2002 I was told by a member of the PLP that the organization has dwindled in size since the 1960's to around 80 members. I am not asking anyone to take my word for granted, but I would not take the PLP's word for granted either. Most on the left with whom I have communicated see them as a small group of oddballs with their own brand of communism. They are definitely not seen as much of a presence in the small world of American leftist politics. I don't think they even have a national office. If you would notice on their website, their mailing address is a P.O. Box and they do not have any offices with permanent addresses. Compare this to the Communist Party, USA (membership in the low thousands), the Revolutionary Communist Party (hundreds), Spartacist League (hundreds) and the Socialist Workers Party (hundreds). You would think that if the PLP had thousands of members that they would at least have some office space.

If it cannot be verified somehow, then I would not include it in this article. Any PLP member can edit this page and claim that the PLP has thousands of members and is spearheading a proletarian, anti-racist, anti-imperialist movement in the United States. I am sure that they desire to attract recruits by making the PLP look "serious" and stand out, which is becoming increasingly difficult for marginalized left-wing sects to do in a country that has never had strong and lasting social-democratic, socialist or communist political force. -- Boozhnev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.147.146 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As a former near-lifelong member of PL I can tell you it has long had office space in downtown Manhattan and that office hasn't closed to my knowledge. PL admittedly being a 'small group of oddballs' doesn't mean it doesn't have a couple thousand members when taken worldwide and even 1000+ when taken across just the USA. It's very hard to see how having collectives in Boston, LA, New York, Chicago, Baltimore, DC and Pennsylvania, having workers in the US Postal Service and in Boeing, etc., would all work at all (not saying it works well, just that it works at all) with only a couple hundred members (much less 80) in their ranks.

The reason I think 3000 is not an outlandish estimate is that PL is indeed cross-national (though not extensively), it has undercover members in the US military, and even its smallest actions in its smallest areas typically have at least a couple dozen committed PL communists in them. It's not as if those couple dozen travel around the country on buses to inflate numbers. I don't even speak for PL and I don't really support it all that much anymore but it really belittles the work it does do, and does well, by suggesting the core of the party is no more than a couple hundred. PL does work harder than that. And it still does do impactful work. It's not that easy to see, and most of that is due to the fact that it is a small and relatively insignificant organization, but it's also due to the fact that PL is a paranoid group over-focused on security that has gone out of its way to move a lot of its work 'underground', meaning a lot of what we would otherwise be seeing, we are not seeing because it is secret. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a verifiable source to back up your estimate? If not, it shouldn't be included. I have absolutely no idea what the membership number is despite spending several hours trying to find some source other than cached versions of this wikipedia article. If we can't find a citation for it then it shouldn't be in the article. To be honest, if we were following wikipedia standards this whole article should be rewritten from scratch and include only information that can be sourced. Too many of the claims in this article appear to either be original research or conjecture.--Chris902 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are not any locatable sources to back up any claims to membership of any size, nor are there likely to ever be, considering how paranoid PL seems to be about its self-proclaimed 'security'. I used to have club leaders who, in larger regional meetings, would openly admit the party is "small", but even just the New York area has historically had at least a couple hundred members, and I would go to other collectives (such as LA) where there would be another couple hundred, and to smaller areas (such as DC) that claim at least several tens. Taken together, it would by my personal estimate put at least the USA-based active membership at 1,000. But yes, that is original research based on personal experience. I agree with you that the solution to this problem is to decidedly not have any number, one way or the other, displayed as empirical research in the article; it is clear that size cannot be either proved or disproved.

Maybe the most we can say here is that the party claims to have membership around 3000 (which it does, according to some leaders; I've talked to them myself). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Claim removed now from the ifnobox, --Soman (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Badly sourced, POV laden

This article exhibits a chronic lack of sources and reads like party propaganda. It fails the fundamental Wikipedia principles of verifiability and neutral point of view and the page's content seems to be tendentiously guarded. This article needs to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me just go ahead and speak as one of (if not the main) contributor to this page over the past 5 years or so. I am a former lifelong-PL member with extensive experience on the inner workings of the party who is more than willing to publicise this party's weaknesses—and over the years of editing and "guarding" this page's content, I have discovered that leaving it unattended causes swings in one or the other direction: either unsourced anti-communist crap is added from detractors, or PL defenders still in the party come along and try to wipe away the more critical sections or minimise them. It's a real shame at either extreme, and the point of Wikipedia is balance. Another point of Wikipedia is objective truth. I've tried to satisfy both as much as possible, and I'm always struggling to try to do more, and better. And yes, the current version is not perfect but from what I can see it's sure a hell of a lot better than what it was in 2005/06. (Go back and look at the archives.) And of course, nothing and no one is preventing you or anyone else from editing the page like you believe it should be edited. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Many problems with this article. Mainly the lack of sources and it's presentation; see WP:Soapbox. If you would like to help make this article NPOV and objective, find secondary sources. Until then, I suggest that this article needs major edit work. --xcuref1endx (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A year later and it's still pretty much a mess in terms of POV and lack of sourcing. I see a REFIMPROVE flag just came down. That's the absolute minimum marker that needs to be up here. There are zero references for the first 5 paragraphs of Early History, zero references for the 8 paragraphs that comprise "Changes in Thought," zero references for the 6 paragraphs that comprise the section "Inter-Imperialist Rivalry," zero references for the 6 paragraphs that comprise "Present Day Activities." I am restoring that flag which should remain until material is sourced out or removed. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Back for my annual whinefest... This article doesn't even mention Milt Rosen... How terrible is that? Carrite (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, and a year AFTER your whinefest, this still is nearly an unsourced article ... and lacking the refimprove flag you put up. So I'll tell you what. Two weeks from now, if there isn't dramatic improvement in sourcing from those "defending" this article against Wikipedia's requirements from sourcing, I'm going to take an axe to every statement worthy of challenge that is unsourced. It is simply absurd that several years after your first complaint, this article is still in such a state. Ravenswing 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that this article needs to scrapped and largely rewritten from scratch, reincorporating existing sourced parts as needed. I first came to this article because I wanted to get a better overview of the group, which I mainly know of via its role in SDS, as well as it's physical attack on Edward O. Wilson in the 70s, but don't know much else about the group. Yet I didn't come away from this article having learned much that I didn't already know, and the long tendentious sections on PLPs theory didn't provide a much-needed overview. Looking around the web, I did come across two worthwhile sources that I think could be the basis for rebuilding the article: [1], [2]. I'll note that even though the second of the above links is essentially a PL hagiography of founder Milt Rosen, I still learned a hell of a lot more about the early history of this group than from anything in this article. As for other sources, Kirkpatrick Sale's SDS history is a good one, at least for late-60s PL-SDS, and the less-tendentious sources listed under "Further Reading" on the article page. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely redone. It is almost entirely unsourced with a few exceptions pulled from primary sources. Much like many of these wiki pages for these small political sects these pages tend to be watched over and edited by followers of the organization and becomes obviously POV. This must be fixed. xcuref1endx (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Update tag

I have added a tag saying the article needs to be updated. Virtually all of the content describes the party structure, it's founding and it's history during the 60s and 70s, with virtually no information about the 80s to present. There is nothing in the article suggesting there ever was some kind of decline in activity or decrease in notability and the website clearly proves they are active to this day! I think it is possible to expand the article with way more information, especially anything in regards to the last 5 waves of elections in the US and any possible actions taken against Trump-supporters. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is frustrating that no one even takes the time to discuss this problem, there is much to be done for this article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)