Talk:Democratic Socialists of America

Enormous amounts of self-sourced content and original research/WP:SYNTH

This article needs to be cleaned up considerably. The content in it should rely on reliable secondary sourcing. It should not rely on primary sourcing or non-Rs, and the interpretations by Wikipedia editors of those primary sources/non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF covers this fine. If they want to be anti-capitalist then that is fine. It is not an extraordinary claim that a socialist org would want to replace capitalism. PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Readers want to know what reliable sources consider important about the DSA. If they want to read their various statements that have been ignored by the media and academic sources they can go to the DSA website. It requires critical assessment to determine which policy positions are important and interpret them. There is also the problem that due to the decentralized nature of the DSA, there is no consistency in policies. TFD (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added more sources that back up their statement and discussion them saying it. Again it is not a controversial statement here, it is basically one of the reasons for their existence. If you like I can add some more as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The text says, "The DSA regards the end of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal therefore the organization focuses its immediate political energies on reforms within capitalism that empower working people while decreasing the power of corporations." But there's no statement either by the DSA or the secondary sources that the end of capitalism and establishment of socialism are goals at all. It's like a doctor saying that since we are unlikely to see immortality realized tomorrow, we try to ensure people live as long as possible. That doesn't mean that the long term goal of doctors is to make people live for ever. TFD (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see it more as my long term goal is to be a billionaire and everyday I am working towards that goal. Perhaps one day I will get there, but if I don't that does not mean it was not my goal. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Suppose you wrote, "As I am unlikely to become a billionaire tomorrow, I will get a job that pays the rent." Then there are billions of people whose goal is to be a billionaire. I think the confusion is that in the 19th century socialists did want to end capitalism entirely, but became more pragmatic in the past century. TFD (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You guys are so full of it. DSA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II: "We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit". If a primary source would be a member of the party, then I Agree one DSA member doesnt represent the full DSA. But THE FIRST RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THEIR CONSTITUTION DOES REPRESENT THEIR VIEWS, except for the members who are ignorant of the constitution of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.129.49.7 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Political Position

The DSA is widely considered to be to the left of some of the country's most left wing public officials. By Western European standards, the DSA is far left, having voted to leave the SI specifically because the SI was perceived as insufficiently left wing. As a small fraction of the political left in the United States, the DSA is further on the left than the standard political left, the definition of Far Left politics. New York Magazine and The Atlantic, both reputable left of center publications, have identified the DSA as far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.23.231 (talk • contribs)

The two sources are using the term left to refer to liberalism, while in most of the world it is used to refer to socialists. Indeed the DSA left the SI, but so did over 100 political parties worldwide including the German Social Democratic Party and Canada's NDP. They left because the SI included too many non-democratic parties.[1] Far left by the way means as far to the left as possible which normally refers to violent revolutionary groups. TFD (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is possible to describe "far-left," and "far-right," as only pertaining to those advocating violence in response to political situations, but that is clearly not the case nor the norm in America, especially concerning the "far-right," label. Your logic is incoherent according to the modern political dialogue. I will now list the following DSA positions. The DSA advocates for the complete elimination of border controls in their 2019 resolution manifesto. The DSA resolved for supporting "BDS" concerning Israel, and giving Palestinians cash, land, and political reparations in the form of a "one state solution," as well as removing recognition of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. Expelling all law enforcement officers and banning them from the DSA, elimination of capitalism through "Eco-Socialism," rent control, and removing the ability of "landlords," to peruse eviction for lack of payment, eliminating all fossil fuel usage by 2030, reparations to all black people, resolving that, "the USA is a prison house of nations founded on genocide, built by slavery,maintained by exploitation, and expanded through conquest," supporting the "Cuban revolution," and restoring all economic and diplomatic ties to Cuba, and renaming the DSA by 2021 to "DS" because "WHEREAS, If this organization is to stay true to that shared vision it should not contain the name of the world’s greatest genocidal oppressor." These are genuinely far-left positions, even if one were to do the "in comparison to Europeans..." schtick, and this article is about the country of The United States of America. The DSA supports the literal abolition of the USA. Democratic Socialists of America is clearly "far-left," and reputable sources claim this as well.2601:982:4200:A6C:C42A:E91:1D46:17DE (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the 2019 resolution manifesto. The DSA webaite says, National Political Committee (NPC) decided "to postpone development of a political platform and instead propose to the 2019 convention a resolution calling for a two-year long process to develop a political platform for DSA to debate and adopt at our 2021 convention."[2] Do you have a link to it? TFD (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the "NPC" is saying there, but here are the 2019 resolutions. https://www.dsausa.org/files/2019/06/2019-Resolutions-Approved.pdf 2601:982:4200:A6C:C42A:E91:1D46:17DE (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not a manifesto or DSA positions, but resolutions. Every member of the DSA was allowed to present resolutions between Apr 2 and June 2.[3] If you had sent them $5 for a one month membership, you could have submitted a resolution too. But as I wrote above, the DSA has chosen not to vote on any resolutions. In any case, Wikipedia articles require reliable sources to interpret primary sources. TFD (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In this context, "resolutions" means things proposed but not yet adopted nor acted on in any way. If DSA had actually adopted these stances, the press coverage would have been massive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the resolutions in that link were voted on, and have majority approval. They also had to have many signatures. Not as simple as, "pay $5." Many examples,

"Establishing a National anti-Fascist Working Group, passed 521-493." and this one " DSA votes to endorse Open Borders and a Green New Deal program at Atlanta Convention" and this one "We are pleased to announce that Decolonization, Cuba Solidarity are now officially democratically adopted positions of the DSA." and an overview of it all, They quite literally did vote on these resolutions, and almost all were passed. This is all beside the point, though, as these resolutions are the base of the DSA, and were the ones approved to be considered for debate. And as OP stated, plenty of sources list the DSA as far-left. It is true, though, that the votes were non-binding, and that the actual concrete platform is delayed until 2021. 2601:982:4200:A6C:C42A:E91:1D46:17DE (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are over 2 billions english-speakers on this planet, and only 300 millions in the USA. Wikipedia is a place to seek objectivity and neutrality through consensus, and that would be non-sensical to accept national criterias when those criterias are an exceptionalism. If you want, say that they're far right by american standard, where a generation of cold war brainwashing made people believe public garbage collections is litteral stalinism --37.228.239.146 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Green New Deal has been endorsed by a large number of Democrats, including presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Mike Gravel, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang. Open borders is a Koch brothers proposal. And opposition to fascism is not far left. In any case, you would need a reliable source that says the group is far left. Bear in mind they are the center group of the successors to the Socialist Party of America, and the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party etc. are all to their left. TFD (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Socialism unclearly defined until late in article

Socialism is something that is not clearly defined in most people minds, especially after Bernie Sanders statements that socialism is the same as social democrat european parties, but there is actually a very big difference between social democrats and democratic sociaslism. Socialism is the abolishment of private industry and private profit in favor of socializing ALL of the economy, which is to say it is almost or exactly the same thing as communism. It is clearly stated in 5.1 Socialism, and alluded to in the top right menu in the form of the "anti-capitalist" epithet. But the introductory paragraphs explain nothing of this, so it would be very easy for a common reader to think Democratic Socialists DO NOT want to take over all private companies of the USA, as is stated clearly in 5.1, which is midway into the article and I found relatively hard to find(took me 5 minutes of searching around myself because I wanted to verify for myself that DSA were in fact communists). This is for the sake of clarity, since it is clear at least to me that a party advocating for the end of ALL private industry and profit is NOT the same thing as social democratic european parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.153.65 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

While the Communists in the Soviet Union established what they called a socialist system and the Social Democrats in Sweden established what is often called a social democracy, socialism in the name of the DSA refers to an ideology. As described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism (p.1-2), socialists consider social problems to be caused by capitalism and recommend collective action to establish some degree of social ownership and/or control. But there is wide divergence over how far this should go or how it should be achieved. TFD (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of DSA members want to abolish capitalism. They agree that it is not possible in the short term, but that is their goal, and the amount of people in DSA who are actually social democrats and not socialists are a minority. The majority of members are true socialists with some full blown communists. The point I'm trying to make is that the majority of people don't know DSA want to ultimately abolish capitalism. I meant for it to be clearer, like in the intro paragraph, but it seems instead they even made it less clear in the parts that were clear about it. Ultimately, it is the long term goal of DSA to abolish capitalism. 128.129.49.7 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

What's their supposed timetable for eliminating capitalism? TFD (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How do you know what the majority want? Do you have reliable secondary sources for any of this? O3000 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Their timetable is: Weaken corporations on the short term, end private corporations on the long term. There isnt specifics because they dont have power. Are you even reading what I'm reading? DSA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II "We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit" How could this be clearer? Astounding! 128.129.49.7 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I just realised that this discussion is a waste of time as the IP thinks they are communists. Anyone who doesn't know the difference needs to avoid discussing socialism or communism. I reverted the attempt to add "According to their constitution, they reject America's economic order based on private profit.' That's an extremely pov example of original research and cherry picking, what they say is "we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo." You can't just pick one bit out and use it, ignoring the rest. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I never said they are all communists, and it is verifiable fact some of them are, but your edit was made in bad faith in 4 minutes. This article HIDES the fact they want to end private enterprise, which was always the goal of its founder. Why? I dont get why basic facts cannot be published. This is misinformation! 128.129.49.7 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

PLEA TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DSA IS FUNDAMENTALY ANTI-CAPITALIST AND WANT TO SOCIALIZE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES IN THE USA. Alright, since the mod came and removed my edit after 4 minutes of looking at it, I need to discuss with the editors. So let's discuss. Anybody here in good faith believes that the DSA doesn't want to abolish capitalism, with verifiable sources? 128.129.49.7 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I HAVE to add this. Wikipedia in a nutshell:

Try to make it clear a socialist party are true socialists, 2-3 gatekeepers and an administrator prevent you.

On the other hand, look at many conservative figures who havent done anything racist, same kind of gatekeepers write they are white supremacists with admin approval. 128.129.49.7 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The DSA is similar to the NDP, and in fact had ties with them. Both evolved out of 19th century socialism and retain some of the terminology, with a broad tent of members with differing views on socialism. Specifically socialists disagree on the amount of social control and/or ownership of the means of production that is necessary to mitigate or eliminate the inequities caused by a competitive system.

Even if you were right, you would need a reliable secondary source, i.e., not an opinion piece, that supports your interpretation.

TFD (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"The DSA regards the abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal" This is already written 60% into the article, with multiple sources, by someone else. This kind of statement should be included in the TOP of the article, because of the relative importance of capitalism to the USA and the whole world. I would say that "Abolition of capitalism" is a very important piece of DSA's views. I tried to put it in the top but was prevented now 3 times. I feel that anything I will change will be reversed at this point. 128.129.49.7 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. It's a bit like the patient who after looking at Rorschach pictures, says, "Doctor, why are you showing me all these dirty pictures?" You need a reliable source that draws the same conclusion you do. TFD (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

My edit was "made in bad faith in 4 minutes"? This really is a waste of time if the IP is going to make such wildly incorrect claims. As shown above, at 18:07 I replied to an edit made at 15:57. In other words, 2 hours and 10 minutes later. A bit more than 4 minutes. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Undue Harrington

The article claims:

The DSA's ideas are somewhat influenced by those of its first chairman Michael Harrington...

but then there is a whole separate chapter about Harrington's ideas even in its title. Let us balance it. Zezen (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

No criticism, 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.[4] 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)