Talk:Party for Socialism and Liberation

Tienanmen square

Link to article on the Tienanmen square protests is dead. Maybe we should find a link that is not Party controlled? archive.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.62.2 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You spelled it wrong. brainrot lol 68.188.235.139 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This is self promotion

The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem.

Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.

Would you like me to create an AfD page for you? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this a controversial deletion?

No one has yet to dispute it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.73.206 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I dispute it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute it too, certainly it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion based on the content here. Issues with the article should be taken to either the talkpage (preferable at this point) or to the articles for deletion page. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute it too, at least for the time being. I might support an AfD though. The article has problems. It needs to plainly assert notiability. It needs to source to local or regional media outlets that documented events and activities. As it is all sources are self promoting. What about some scholarly references (texts or periodicals) on the development/devolvement of socialist or revolutionary parties? I don't see how this autobiographical, however, unless the creating editor is the only member. Edivorce 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Truncated article

I see that yet another Anon IP, this time with no prior edit history what-so-ever has sharpely truncated the article pending it's AfD. I won't get into a revert war. I have said my peace. I believe the article should be evaluated on this version. I'll trust that Wikipedians can figure this out for themselves. Edivorce 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This anon IP was me, and was mistakenly not logged on. All the recent anon IP are pretty much me. I did not have an account. I registered and created one too. This is not a mystery now. As you can see right now, I just did it again. Wiki doesn't seem to let me stay logged in. SetofFive 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what is POV about the article?

Please tell. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no response, say for another week, elaborating on the basis of the POV claim, can we remove the tag?Edivorce 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the fact about the Harlem branch is repeated, it is probably an oversight or mistake, and should be removed. I don't understand how this constitutes an article deserving of deletion. I don't see how stating the Party's positions qualifies for pov or how, moreover, the article is significantly different from other Wiki entries on small parties. I'm for removing the tag. The pen 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state the party's positions in an NPOV way. Instead of actually comparing its own relations to nationalist movements with comparable organisations, it simply states that "PSL supports the right of nations to self-determination." Well, so does every other Marxist group. The effect is that PSL's interpretation of "supporting self-determination" is the correct and only approach to that, and those who aren't so quick to lunge into apologetics for dodgy regimes are therefore "opposed" to this elementary principle. It's the equivalent of a pro-life politician being described as "against infanticide" - so are pro-choice people - or the old euphemism/alibi for homophobia and misogyny, "family values". Besides which, some of the prose is horrifically clunky - I think it needs one of those tags too. Commander deathguts 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

tianmaen

How can you blame the Psl for positions taken before they even existed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.83.158 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

sure you can, when those positions were taken by a predecessor group to it and endorsed by the folks who later made up PSL. Gotta be about the all time worst position WWP/PSL ever took based on a knee jerk view of "your enemy's enemy is your friend". Then again, one doesn't need to waste much time on looking at the actual facts of the situation except to cherry pick out stuff to support that perspective.

Candidates prior to 2008 presidential election?

Were there any?

Also, I find it interesting how many schisms formed this party: Communist Party>Socialist Workers Party>Workers World Party>Party for Socialism and Liberation! Шизомби (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 2008 is the first year of PSL candidates. BTW, the Communist Party was also formed by expelled members of the old Socialist Party of America, who supported the October Revolution. The SPA itself was formed by former Socialist Labor Party members. The SLP is the oldest socialist party in the US, though it is barely alive anymore. Cmrdm (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. BTW, the SWP came out of the SPA, some time after all Trotskyists in general had been expelled from the Communist Party. Membership in the Comintern was also a more relevant issue than the October Revolution itself in the formation of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party (both of which came out of the SPA, and became members of the Comintern, which later ordered them to merge). The founders of the SPA also included the Social Democratic Party in addition to one wing of the SLP. But I think we're in danger of getting a wee bit off-topic. Just let me add that such a series of splits is not unusual for US Communist organizations. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

I'd be interested in more information on the origins of the PSL, the reason for their split from the WWP, ideological differences, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.217.171 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No one knows (makes spooky sound). I've been told outright by a member of the Workers World Party that they will not discuss the issue with anyone outside the party and the PSL probably has the same rule. It's a rather un-Leninist version of democratic centralism. --MQDuck 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it had something to do with positions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who supported a Liberal position/presenting a liberal position in practice through ANSWER (support war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq) stayed with Workers World. I'm not sure though. Does anyone have a reliable source that could back me up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.51.45 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer here, but I think the odds are fairly good that the roots of the split lie as much or more in personal grievances as opposed to major ideological differences. Perhaps the latter were part of the problem, but there's a good chance they were just as much a symptom of the former. Speaking from some experience, the folks at WWP, ANSWER, the IAC, etc. are not particularly known for their top-flight interpersonal skills. The reason for the split may be somewhat mundane and embarrassing, and perhaps that's why we don't really hear about the details. Of course I could be wrong about this and I have no source to back me up, but as far as explanations go this is not a crazy one if you are familiar with how these groups function. Just as a side note, from what I understand the main reason United for Peace and Justice stopped even trying to work with ANSWER was simply that they couldn't stand dealing with them anymore (at least this was UFPJ's reason—ANSWER no doubt sees it differently). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER is opposed to both wars and has been since the beginning. I think the PSL people wanted a more radical platform than the WWP was running I mean it makes a lot of sense if you look at the two parties political views. The PSL runs on a more radical and revolutionary/poor peoples platform. Slipoutside (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, "Liberal" or not, Workers World never supported the war in Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.200 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Merino issue in the "PSL Electoral participation" section

Stevie Merino being the only challenger to the incumbent was hinted at in the source already provided, in this manner:

"Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Stevie Danielle Merino got 5,057 votes—16 percent of all ballots cast—against a highly funded, corporate-backed incumbent. Merino is a 21-year-old retail worker, community college student and member of the PSL."

From the source: - PSL campaign wins thousands of votes for socialist platform in Long Beach

But the person who removed it was right; it wasn't enough evidence. Therefore I added another source which directly states it in this manner:

"For months leading up to the January 15, 2010 deadline for candidates to file their intentions to run for office, it looked as though current Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster would run unopposed in his bid for re-election this April. A few names were rumored to be considering a run, but as the deadline to file neared, it began to look more likely that Foster would not face any challengers.

That is, until 21-year old Cerritos College student and lifelong Long Beach resident Stevie Merino threw her hat into the ring, filing papers to challenge Foster for the city’s chief elected position. Although the Mayor’s race is nonpartisan, Merino is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)."

From the source: Stevie Merino: The Other Option For Mayor at LBPost.com

It is on the public record that she was the only challenger to the incumbent. If you so desire I will add another dozen sources. It is just absurd to contest this fact.

Ledszeppelin (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledszeppelin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Domestic/International Views sections need expansion, re-sourcing.

This section currently consists of only two sentences, both of which state vague policy generalizations (i.e. "Human rights of minorities"), and are sourced only from the PSL's website rather than any outside observer. I propose that this section be expanded and re-sourced for more objectivity.

As for the International Views section, it needs some sourcing on the part referring to the "right of return" and its stance on the Middle East tension.

Tallanto (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the election box go?

Why was it deleted? KurtFF8 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Age of Peta Lindsay

Peta Lindsay as a presidential candidate should be considered frivolous as she was born in 1984. US presidential candidates must be 35 years old, meaning that she is automatically disqualified because of her age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.0.135 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the qualifications of becoming President, Lindsay is qualified to run for President. So the campaign is thus a legitimate campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.41.80 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisionism (Marxism)

Revisionism (Marxism) is listed under the ideology section for the PSL but the change isn't listed in the change log and there isn't a comment about it in the talk page or any scources.People1917 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda page

The entire article reads like a press release for the party. It is a WP:SOAP, the ideology section definitely needs to be trimmed down. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - have just done a lot of work trying to balance this article out relying more on sources without close connections to the group if you want to take a look Superb Owl (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism

It should be noted that the PSL specifically avoids using the label Marxism–Leninism in any official capacity, in favor of the formulation “Marxist and Leninist.” The PSL comes out of a very specific tradition of communist organization in the United States, particularly that established by Sam Marcy. In the Marcy-type of “Marxist and Leninist” party, an emphasis is placed on the organizational concept of democratic centralism and the practical concept of anti-imperialist demonstration via participation and leadership in “mass organizations” such as ANSWER. I think care should be taken in the ideology section of the infobox to differentiate the PSL from the Marxist–Leninist party tradition, as it does not have its roots there. Its leadership still consists substantially of those who would identify as Trotskyist rather than Marxist–Leninist. Kelethine (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the articles they publish ever mentions Marcy though, and they tend to be filled with admiration for marxist and leninist figures, along with their philosophies. The party is among other things a strong supporter of Cuba and the Cuban Revolution, Trots usually dont ever support Cuba and its revolution. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It may also be added that the PSL does not have a single founder and was co-founded by members who split from the Workers World Party, a party that is deeply marxist-leninist and which at least in the past was considered a mayor supporter of Maoism! So the roots of the PSL are very much Marxist-Leninist. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It should probably also be added that we have sources and text in the article itself stating the party builds on both marxist and leninist ideology, none of these sources mention Marcy! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Current PSL member here. PSL has made several mentions of Marcy, including in their founding statement:

"As former leaders and members of Workers World Party, we defend that group’s historical tradition and mission, particularly that of its founder Sam Marcy."

Marcy's writings are still cited throughout PSL's publications, for example in this article published in 2021. Additionally, Marcy's "Global Class War" thesis is something core to the party's ideology and mentioned very often in official statements and other party media. The Worker's World Party does indeed call itself Marxist-Leninist, but the PSL has not done this in any of its own writings. It instead uses language from the Trotskyist tradition, such as simply "Leninist" or "a Marxist party of a Leninist type." This does not mean that PSL is necessarily a Trotskyist party either, they have clearly broken with that tradition and there's no love lost between them and Trotskyist groups, however it does mean that the PSL cannot be accurately described as "Marxist-Leninist". SpaceHaitian (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the best course of action is to restore the status quo of the first sentence simply describing it as a communist party. Various ideological descriptors can be left for the info-box. Just a suggestion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where does PSL indicate it is a communist party? They are socialist not communist. Even their About Us page says so. 2601:541:B00:3960:2C2:1999:DB4A:5594 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

While they aren't Marxist-Leninist I think calling them a "socialist" party rather than communist party would mean engaging in the same strain of semantic dishonesty that PSL itself engages in. PSL refers to itself almost exclusively as a socialist party in its publications because their strategy to rebuild the communist movement in the US involves using "socialism" (a term they see as rehabilitated) and "communism" (a term they wish to rehabilitate) as essentially interchangeable terms. PSL is, according its own political education materials, explicitly organized as a vanguard party as defined by the Bolsheviks and Communist International in the 1920s. According to most distinctions between what a "socialist" and "communist" party is, in particular the distinction communists themselves draw, it's accurate to refer to PSL as a communist party. SpaceHaitian (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GenericPSLFlier.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources are almost all explicitly communist/socialist publications

This is a dreadfully sourced article. Looking through the sources, literally every one of them except one on ballot access and some FEC filings are specifically communist or socialist. Browsing Google, there is very little significant coverage that's not from a position that would have a vested interest in promoting this party. This article needs a major rewrite, and I don't see much proof this party — which in no year has exceeded 0.06% of the vote — is notable at all. (Similar sourcing problems to the ones I raised at Talk:Democratic Socialists of America#Quite promotional, bad sources but even more extreme). DemonDays64 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Here are some independent sources:

• Wolf, Sherry (2017). Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics, and Theory of LGBT Liberation. Haymarket Books. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-60846-076-2.
• Becker, Kaitlin McKinley; Sotnik, Kathryn (31 August 2020). "Group Demands Justice for Jacob Blake, Protests Police Violence at Boston Rally". NBC Boston. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Clark, Quinn (1 September 2020). "Party for Socialism and Liberation Leads March Demanding Justice for Jacob Blake". Shepherd Express. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Mehrotra, Rabhya (16 September 2020). "Socialist Prez Hopeful Highlights Homeless | New Haven Independent". New Haven Independent. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Schmelzer, Elise (17 September 2020). "Protesters, demonstration leaders arrested in connection to rallies in Aurora". The Denver Post. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Prentzel, Olivia (17 September 2020). "Demonstrators arrested following Elijah McClain protests in Aurora". Colorado Springs Gazette. Retrieved 19 September 2020.
• Cook, Mike (17 September 2020). "Six presidential candidates are on the New Mexico ballot". Las Cruces Bulletin. Retrieved 19 September 2020.

Rupert Loup (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is not a ton of coverage in reliable sources so I have been paring down the article to be more WP:DUE and pulling from notable sources where possible Superb Owl (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding more history

The PSL seems to be getting pretty popular, in my subjective analysis, and I wonder if the History section could be fleshed out more. Adding information about La Riva's 2016 run which garnered some of the most votes for a socialist candidate in some time, and frankly the recent mass arrest of PSL organizers in Denver seems to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DobalinaQ (talk • contribs) 22:19, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

Primary source

This article is almost completely on primary sources, the content is highly doubtful, the better is to eliminate such parts without any real reference. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the content below as relying solely upon PSL sources, or upon PSL sources + an ISO blog. SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - have done a lot of work to trim and flag these if you want to take a look Superb Owl (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

== Publication == The PSL outlines its political perspective, including its assessment of the current international and domestic situation, in the pamphlet Who We Are, What We Stand For. The party also owns its own printing company, PSL Publications, through which it has published multiple printed books such as Socialists and War: Two Opposing Trends by members Mazda Majidi and Brian Becker and an e-book which was released through Amazon titled A Woman's Place Is in the Struggle by members Ana Maria Ramirez, Anne Gamboni, Gloria La Riva and Liz Lowengard. The PSL's publication company, Liberation Media, is headquartered in San Francisco, California. === Economics === The PSL would, among other measures, prohibit the exploitation of labor for private profit, implement a working week of 30 hours, introduce a basic income guarantee, ensure paid parental and family leave for up to two years, provide paid sick and disability leave, require a minimum of one month's paid vacation, institute single payer health insurance, outlaw renting and selling land, provide free college, and eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It advocates for recall for all elected officials, supports freedom of speech for the working class, and opposes political lobbying. === Foreign policy === The PSL has been critical of certain intergovernmental organizations, particularly international economic institutions like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. Its official newspaper published an article stating that the "WTO is one of many institutions, like the G8, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, that undermine the sovereignty of nations by forcing the implementation of disastrous neoliberal economic policies of privatization, liberalization and deregulation". It has further argued that "the IMF works on behalf of multinational corporations, finding natural resources, sweatshop laborers, and consumers for Western capitalism's surplus production" and has called the G20 an "instrument of capitalist plunder". === Criminal justice === The PSL advocates "the overthrow, dismantling and complete replacement" of the "police, prisons, military and courts" of the United States. It supports replacing the current legal system of the United States with a "new justice system based on the democratic organization of the working class and its right to defend its class interests on the basis of solidarity and unity" and advocates reorganizing the prison system around "social education and rehabilitation". === Foreign policy === PSL opposes Israel and its interests in the Middle East. It participated in demonstrations against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in July 2006 and supports the Palestinian right of return. PSL praised the 2008 election of Nepali Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. === Cuba === PSL supports Cuba and mourned the death of its former President Fidel Castro; additionally, it has endorsed activities that called for the release of the Cuban Five—deemed political prisoners by supporters—and called for the extradition of anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles from the United States. === Anti-war === The PSL co-operates with other organizations across the United States in the anti-war movement and is a member of the steering committee of the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition (A.N.S.W.E.R.). As one of the most active members of the coalition, the PSL has gained notice for successfully forging ties with Arab and Muslim American groups such as the Muslim American Society, Al-Awda and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The PSL has advocated for the end of the United States military presence in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, and the closure of all United States foreign military bases.

PSL's stance on the Russian annexation of Crimea/invasion of Ukraine

It is no secret PSL supports Russia, China and other dictatorships, and promotes apologetics for their militarist and imperialist policies. I attempted to add information on the party's statements regarding Russia's war in Ukraine, and got reverted several times by editor User:C.J. Griffin. The editor claims the problem is POV and lack of secondary sources. I suggested the editor modify the content to remove supposed POV, but instead they purged the text altogether. Besides, finding secondary sources for such a fringe organization as PSL is somewhat difficult. I do not understand why primary sources (PSL's statements) cannot be used to describe their views without any assessments or criticisms. My edit that was reverted. 217.66.152.52 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the article is filled with primary sources, and the previous post on this talk page questions that pattern. However, it seems primary sources are only bad when they reveal something controversial about an organization. 217.66.152.52 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the first sentences of your post it is clear that you are a WP:SPA here to POV push and place undue weight on the issue of the Russo-Ukraine war to this article by WP:CHERRY picking quotes from primary sources and statements from opposition organizations. If you have a problem with the organization, this is not the place to settle scores. If you feel that strongly about it, try to find consensus here instead of edit warring.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you should go ahead and delete all of the other content that relies on primary sources, champ. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Total nonsense. Their stance on the Russo-Ukraine war is a massively important contemporary aspect of this organisation and primary sources are absolutely valid when describing an organisation's own policies - as has been done throughout this article (funny that you seem to have no problem with that!)

You are a stunningly bad faith actor 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a secondary source discussing this and is now reflected in the article Superb Owl (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BASED 68.188.235.139 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Party platform relating to nationalist movements

regarding the current content dispute over the Party for Socialism and Liberation#Ideology section, the pre-existing text essentially paraphrased the party’s manifesto, which states:

The socialist government will recognize the inviolable right of all oppressed nations to self-determination with regard to their means of gaining and maintaining their liberation. In the United States, this includes the right of self-determination for African American, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawai’ian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples that have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism.

it is not hard to peel away the propogandic mantle to observe that this section is essentially expressing two points of view:

1. the united states is a union state that contains several smaller states (“oppressed nations”) the PSL would like to see become sovereign nations (the definition of the words liberation and self-determination).

2. these smaller nations within the united states should be delimited by ethnicity.

for lords sake, it literally says Hawai’ian nation! it would be completely disingenuous to claim this sentence is referring to anything other than the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

sure, they never really say the phrase Ethnic nationalism, and yet that’s pretty much what they are describing here. this isn’t diverging from the source, this is summarizing the text by applying the definitions of words. if this passage isn’t an example of an ethnic nationalist viewpoint, what is?

isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is too far from what the source says. This is original research and synth. Furthermore, primary sources are disfavored on Wikipedia. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

the original text was also unacceptably restating the opinions expressed in the manifesto as general fact. i am okay with leaving this entire section out of the article until we have a neutral secondary source on this subject.

isadora of ibiza (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Leninism or Marxism-Leninism label

@C.J. Griffin: I think it makes more sense to call PSL "Leninist", but include Marxist-Leninist in the list of ideologies. PSL never *explicitly* call themselves a ML organization (in the sources cited, they just say they support ML theories of the state), but PSL do explicitly call themselves a "Leninist party". SocDoneLeft (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Candidate

No WP:RS on this yet, but saved from a reverted edit:

|- | 2024 | Kevin Olmar Martinez | [[California State Assembly|State Assembly]] | [[California]] | 6 | t.b.a. | t.b.a. | t.b.a. | ran as [[Peace and Freedom Party]] candidate | SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Redirect "Breakthrough News" -> PSL??

Breakthrough News is an independent news outlet hosted by Eugene Puryear and Rania Khalek. It currently does not have a page, but it redirects here?? This does not make sense to me.

The best I can figure out is its because Puryear was previously a PSL candidate? But at least redirecting to him would make a lot more sense than just PSL.

The page "Breakthrough News" appears to not exist, as a redirect or otherwise, so I'm not really sure how the redirect is happening.

Please delete or change this redirect.

Also, perhaps give input on Breakthrough News's notability/page potential. Jdftba (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the article that gives the most info on BTN so it seems a good redirect. Here is the content the reader would reach: PSL leadership are closely involved with The People's Forum and BreakThrough News via the IPMN. Anchors on BreakThrough News include Becker and PSL 2016 vice-presidential candidate Puryear. Becker also co-hosted a show with John Kiriakou on Radio Sputnik of the RT state media network. PSL is also closely tied to the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research and its founder, Vijay Prashad, who has often appeared on BreakThrough News. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary source material removed

Extended content

PSL describes the Soviet Union positively. However, PSL argued that the New Economic Policy of Vladimir Lenin "led to a re-polarization of social classes, especially in the countryside". PSL blames the reforms initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. PSL supports a free Palestine, ending US aid to Israel, and freeing of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. PSL views the Chinese Communist Revolution favorably. PSL also argues that the modern Chinese Communist Party has made important contributions to socialism and anti-imperialism, that, despite its flaws, a "militant political defense of the Chinese government" is necessary to stave off "counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment". PSL has criticized the CPC for failing to abolish private property. PSL has generally defended China's human rights records, denying, for instance, that the Chinese military massacred student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. PSL supports China's policies towards Tibet and opposed the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, calling them "chauvinist", "separatist", and "anti-China". PSL argues that North Korea is unfairly targeted and advocates the lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, and signing of a peace treaty. PSL supports North Korea's nuclear weapons program. For example, Stephan Gowans argued in 2013 in PSL's official newspaper that a North Korean nuclear arsenal is "to be welcomed by anyone who opposes imperialist military interventions; supports the right of a people to organize its affairs free from foreign domination; and has an interest in the survival of one of the few top-to-bottom, actually-existing, alternatives to the global capitalist system of oppression, exploitation and foreign domination". PSL has also expressed skepticism towards Western claims of North Korea's human rights record, arguing that "conditions in North Korea are vastly better than those in other developing countries" and stating that condemnations of North Korea's human rights records are "thinly veiled justification[s] for U.S. aggression toward North Korea".

SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed and flagged a lot more primary source material or material that was authored by those too close to the subject. Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Aug 2024

Starting a conversation about what needs to improve to get rid of the NPOV tag (pinging @C.J. Griffin) Superb Owl (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The tag is in place as the new additions are all antagonistic towards the subject of the article and from sources not directly about the subject (PSL) at all, meaning this material was cherry picked for that specific reason, so it appears to me anyways. C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok I think I understand better where you are coming from. Are you suggesting to focus on less reliable sources where PSL is the primary subject of an article? Superb Owl (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The supposedly more reliable sources appear to be basically op eds penned for the express purpose of smearing third party candidates like Cornell West and others, and pillory political organizations running their own candidates like PSL with off handed comments not about the articles subject, and obviously from authors who are more often than not biased political commentators with their own agenda. Perhaps this should be taken into account before stuffing the article with such obvious biased commentary from political hit pieces in the guise of being reliable, neutral sources. C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but read the articles from multiple WP:RS as surfacing noteworthy controversies that should be mentioned. We might agree to disagree on quite a bit but hopefully there are specific sections we can improve. Superb Owl (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I partially agree with @C.J. Griffin: that the new additions by @Superb Owl: are too combative against PSL. The article has been restructured into a list of criticisms toward PSL and controversies involving PSL, rather than describing PSL's actions & views and categorizing them per WP:RS.

In addition, the current article has shifted too far against using primary sources, such as in obtaining PSL self-descriptions and contrasting those against non-PSL descriptions.

However, I am happy to see more WP:RS added, as the article was too primary source heavy before. SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We're making good progress and getting closer hopefully to a good spot for this. I noticed that ~60% of the article authorship is by @SocDoneLeft, so my concern is that we do not have enough perspetives yet to get a balanced view of this article that seems to have been a bit too WP:Promo for a while now and really lacking reliable coverage. Superb Owl (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That stat might be inflated: I recently (~1-2 months ago) cut the article down enormously (~50%) where only primary sources existed.

What sections do you worry come too close to WP:PROMO? SocDoneLeft (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's good to hear but still hoping to get more perspectives.
Basically all the content in the Elections section and the Membership section without notable secondary sources are WP:PROMO and/or WP:TRIVIA, imo Superb Owl (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved the disputed sources out of the body and to a more clearly attributed reception section. Hopefully this addresses the NPOV concerns Superb Owl (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: I am going to remove the Primary Source notices on the publication section. It seems reasonable either [1] for that section to rely mostly on primary sources, simply to inform readers of related groups/newspapers or [2] to be removed entirely. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@SocDoneLeft, that's fine, but then I think we should remove them so as not to be WP:PROMO
Actually, it's important to keep especially if most editors want to cite these publications, it should be clear they are affiliated with the party. Feel free to remove the notices Superb Owl (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of "As a Presidential Candidate, Cornel West Aligns Himself With Far-Left Radicals"

This is essentially an op-ed and thus not a reliable source. It is cited throughout the piece as fact.--User:Namiba 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So I've been running into this dilemma and am hoping you can help me with this - for articles that like this that read at times like an op-ed but are not labeled as such and published by WP:RS, my understanding was that they were reliable and usable though maybe just needed to be attributed depending on the ideological lean of the organization. Should we attribute what is not attributed to a better source? Superb Owl (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Op-eds are not a reliable source for anything other than citing the ideology of the writer. Moreover, Mother Jones is well-known for being very close to the Democratic Party. We should never cite opinion pieces like this. It is a hit piece.--User:Namiba 14:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What I am hearing is that maybe we should exercise caution with a biased reliable source even if there is no evidence that anything in this particular WP:RS article (or possible oped though there is no label as such) is false? Also, how do you know it is a hit piece? And if it is, is there any rule against citing them if from a perennial WP:RS? Superb Owl (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)