Talk:Socialist Labor Party of America
|WikiProject Politics / Political parties||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Socialism||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
A call for more work to be done
This is an interesting topic; the article deserves a lot more work. Much of it is unclear and the information is minimal. Needs expansion and refinement by experts. Spleeman 09:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There has to be a lot of documentation somewhere (just not in my archives). Most non-SLP sources are hostile. The monograph by Girard & Perry (former members) may be the most sympathetic. Tribune 04:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The opening paragraph which explains the SLP's position on dictators, etc. is continually removed. But there is no reason for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2008
- It actually states the history of the SLP's relationships with dictators (or rather their lack of such). It ought to be verifiable, and would be stronger with a third-party citation to support it. I'm inclined to leave it in there, stripped of the sniping at "other US leftist groups", which has nothing to do with the SLP itself. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I didn't realize that sounded like sniping, just a distinguishing feature of this party. Other leftist groups do praise Castro, Stalin, etc. but you're right, that has nothing to do with the SLP. Very good, thanks for the dialogue. SS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Stuff that needs to be done
1. There needs to be a great expansion of the historical commentary -- early history, the 1899 split, the SLP and the Russian Revolution, and the SLP through the 1920s in particular.
2. There needs to be names of some of the leading luminaries brought into play -- Kuhn, Sanial, Olive Johnson, and so on.
3. There needs to be photos of party leaders -- DeLeon, Kuhn, Johnson, and Haas at a minimum. I think I have the latter 3 and DDL shouldn't be a tough "get".
4. The page shouldn't be an ad for the party. There's room for a discussion of "DeLeonism," obviously, but this was first and foremost a Marxist party, with DeLeon being its most influential member. This word "DeLeonism" is a recent creation, I believe. I think a more accurate phrasing would be "revolutionary industrial unionism."
5. A discussion of the industrial union ideas and their relationship to the IWW is needed.
Not sure how soon I can get to all of this but I hope to eventually if no one else picks up the ball.
- Upon further review, the discussion of the 1899 split is really really bad and I'll take that on pretty quickly here. Photo of DDL now up. The SLP comrades should back off this page a little bit, it's still a long ways from Neutral Point Of View. Nobody is gonna kneecap ya, but this sounds too often like an ad rather than an encyclopedia article. Carrite (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to see articles created for redlinked people. The P/VP candidates are certainly notable, and it would be nice to see vote totals entabulated for them and for at least the winning candidate of the election and his vote total. The redlinks in the list of notable members are somewhat problematic. Without articles already existing, and without sources as to why they were added as notable, vandalism could creep in. Happened to pick up a tiny bit of info from SSDI on Arla A. Albaugh: b 07 Mar 1906 d 15 Jan 2003 (V) 33309 Last Residence Fort Lauderdale, Broward, FL. Шизомби (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
the introduction to this article has the following statement in it;
- While the SLP maintains it is a socialist party, most observers agree their program is clearly anarcho-syndicalist.
That isn't exactly true, they propose they become the governing party, and you can't be anarchistic if you believe there should be a government. I don't think that sentance needs to be in there at all. --Mike Oosting (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
REQUEST: Please remove the text "Dissolved September 1, 2008" from the sidebar.
REASON: Although the SLP closed its national office in September 2008, the party has not "disolved". Publication of the party jorunal "The People" has moved online, where it continues (14 issues have been published since the alleged "dissolution" date given in the sidebar), and the party continues to accept both new members and contributions.
- Done. Thanks for the correction. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hasn't stopped answering inquiries
I don't know who claims the party stopped answering inquiries in 2014, but today I wrote to the party's email address (as on their party website) and got an answer right away from party secretary Robert Bills, who says the party certainly hasn't dissolved and that it hasn't stopped answering inquiries either. Now, I knowthat "own research" doesn't count in Wikipedia articles, and I don't know how you would classify such an inquiry -- but fact is: the party is not dissolved and it does answer inquiries. I will change this, unless someone objects with convincing arguments. --Vesteinn (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is the Labor Party?
The more familiar party by the name "Labor Party" to most involved in independent labor politics is . . . the Labor Party, not the SLP. Why does Labor Party (United States) redirect here, instead of to an entry on http://www.thelaborparty.org/ . . . ?