Template talk:American socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I feel the list is far too long to be any help to anyone interested in studying some of the main personalities of American socialism. People like Eugene Debs or Daniel De Leon are perfect for a list like this, but Chomsky (a self proclaimed anarchist) and Kshama Sawant (A city councilman)? The list should not include every single individual in American who may have had some ties to socialism. --xcuref1endx (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded, this feels like a WP:POV-pushing exercise, or to be frank a cruft-magnet. It's also far too big and obtrusive visually, for something that is going to appear high up in articles. I'd suggest that at the least it should be swiftly converted to a normal bar to be placed at the end of an article along with all other such bars, if deletion isn't available as an option. On the problem of including Chomsky, Sawant and thousands of other potential leftists, there is no solution other than deleting either the 'people' section or the whole template, because they are American and they can be shown to be somewhat left-inclined, so it's hard to see how any restriction can be placed on list inclusion. It's only going to get worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed anarchist (Chomsky, Graeber, Goldman, Berkman, etc.) as well as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. The latter two never identified as socialists. Helpsome (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect, Chomsky is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.[1] Martin Luther King Jr. advocated democratic socialism (according to his Wikipedia page) and Malcolm X was a speaker at Socialist events (also according to his Wikipedia page). As for Goldman, Berkman etc. they were socialist Anarchists which is a form of Socialism and Anarchism. If any should be removed they should be individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell or Michael Moore.(Guest, November 12th 2014)

Advocating something doesn't make one an adherent. Goldman and Berkman were individualist anarchists and they didn't consider themselves socialists. Don't add people you want to be socialists. Helpsome (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly what Helpsome said and what Chiswick Chap said above. I suggest we only include people who have made a significant contribution to American Socialism. Not people who happen to be both Americans and Socialists. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. has not only added non-socialists to this template, but they have added the template to many articles where it doesn't belong. Why would this template be on the Cindy Sheehan article for instance? Helpsome (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeeze. It looks like he hit every page out there.... I don't have the time to undo all that. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I reverted the ones where it obviously doesn't belong like the anarchists I removed from this template. There may be more. Helpsome (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate all the work you are doing on this article. If I may make one suggestion, I think Kshama Sawant might belong here insofar as she is the first socialist to win a city-wide election in Seattle since 1916. If you disagree, I'm not pressing it. I just think that is notable. Helpsome (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it isn't my list to determine what goes in or what doesn't. However, my argument against it is that we should attempt to make the list representative of people who have made major contributions to "American Socialism". On the list there are some elected officials (there is at least a governor and a senator). Sawant's influence doesn't go beyond Seattle. It would probably be relevant for a template that focuses on socialism and Seattle, but only having been elected for local city government, I just don't think it is notable enough to be included in a list for those who have made a significant contribution to Socialism in the United States. That's my two cents. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Helpsome (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To proclaim that Sawant's influence doesn't extend beyond Seattle is to be ignorant of the facts. She is clearly a figure of international renown, and has been featured in such media as The New York Times[1], The Guardian[2], RT[3], and The Times of India[4], among others. Not only that, she has been a prominent speaker at various conferences both inside the United States [5] and in Great Britain[6]. Considering Sawant is a prominent and a successful socialist (the minimum wage hike has been attributed largely to her efforts[7]) in the United States in this day and age, she absolutely belongs on this list. Albert Einstein, author of "Why Socialism?" for the Monthly Review, was also a self-proclaimed socialist, and is featured here: [8]. Based on this he also should be restored to the list. Martin Luther King. Jr, according to sources, was a democratic socialist but was not open about it to avoid being red baited[9]. I'll not restore him to the list without more discussion on the issue. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only read the preview of the link you gave for MLK but the intro states "The essay argues that King was in fact a democratic socialist" it doesn't say anything about offering incontrovertible evidence such as King himself declaring himself a socialist. I don't disagree about Sawant but I can see the argument that we would be opening up the list to including every socialist political candidate. Helpsome (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The posting of multiple articles is unnecessary. We aren't trying to establish if she has notability to justify having a wikiarticle. We are merely asking what is appropriate for being listed on this page. As stated above, merely being a city councilman should hardly warrant being on a list of prominent socialists, especially when that list includes individuals elected to much higher positions. The Albert Einstein removal is because of what was written above. He did not make a significant contribution to American Socialism. Yes, he was a socialist and he was American. But as it was written above, the criteria to get on the list isn't if they were both American and a socialist. There must be some significant contribution. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the user who does not want names of anarchists in this template. I will remind that user that anarchism is a form of socialism since it is an anti-capitalist ideology. If that user wants me to bring references for this it will not be to hard to do and i will bring them tomorrow. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman self identified as anarcho-communists and so they are obviously socialists and they also self identified as socialists. Communism is a form of socialism also. And as far as individualist anarchists, they are socialists also since they critizice the capitalist system. In the case of Benjamin Tucker, he self identified as an "anarchistic socialist" and so he clearly belongs in this template. How individualist anarchism is socialism is also visible in the recent individualist anarchist compilation called Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. As such anarchism is included within socialism both within the english wikipedia article and in most entries on it in political encyclopedias. I will be waiting for any responses from user Helpsome but it seems to me he or she obviously does not have too much knowledge of anarchism if he dares to suggest these things. Any general work on anarchism as a political position will tell him these things and the user who is speaking here is a long time dedicated editor of the main anarchism article in english wikipedia as can be seen in that article´s history and in articles on anarchism in general in english wikipedia. For this reason i think what needs to manifest here from now on are references and sources. As far as Martin Luther King check the article The Uncompromising Anti-Capitalism of Martin Luther King Jr. by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D on the whole issue of MLK adhereing to socialism and criticzing capitalism. The english wikipedia article on Martin Luther King, Jr., a wikipedia good article, does not have any trouble on dealing with the socialism of MLK and so it identifies him as an american socialist and as a christian socialist.--Eduen (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most, not all, anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchist. There is already an anarchism template so they don't belong here. Helpsome (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not presenting any arguments or sources. You are also not responding to what i have said before. To the only things that you have said here i have to remind you that nazis are also fascists just as communists are also socialists and so called american "libertarians" in the rest of the world are known as liberals. In the same way anarchists are also socialists. And you don´t even talk about specific names. You are just repeating some inmensely general sentence while not specifiying what name are you talking about. Anyway, sources must speak here, and you have not brought here a single source while you decide here to revert other editors editions who have brought sources here and this is not only my case as anyone can see other interventionshere. This is almost just vandalism. Wikipedia does not work with mere users opinions.--Eduen (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once I wade through all the snark and incredible hyperbole ("this is almost just vandalism." Really?) basically you seem to think that consensus doesn't matter. You don't get to steamroll your preferred version. MLK didn't self-identify as a socialist and Emma Goldman went back and forth writing a large body of work criticizing "socialists". Helpsome (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don´t see your sources.--Eduen (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You think I need to prove a negative? I need a source which shows MLK didn't self-identify as a socialist? Helpsome (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eduen, this conversation is pointless at this stage. The question at the moment (see below) is whether there should be a people section at all. It is evident that having the section is problematic because there appear to be no finite limitations as to who can be included the section making the section a completely pointless and unhelpful example farm. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People Cont.[edit]

It appears that there is a rough consensus here to have the section removed. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section as it stands right now is useless. It seems to have all the disadvantages of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and none of the benefits. It is much too long, unmanageable, and disoriented. Some editors seem to think that anyone who had some ties to socialism and living in America warrants their name being included, I personally do not think that this is helpful to anyone. It seems to be subject to the whim of a few editors (myself included) in regards to who/what should be included. I suggest that we do away with all the names and maybe start it off it off with just a few names that are not controversial and build from there, requiring consensus for the added names to avoid any POV pushing or agenda driven additions. I also believe that maybe we should do a request for comment or seek a third party perspective? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support removing names entirely. Helpsome (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Complete Removal I'll second the removing names entirely. Also no names to be added unless some strict criteria can be developed as to who and who should not be included. Until then, the section should be removed. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Complete removal: I agree with Xcureflendx, word-for-word. This is pointless, trivial "list-itis", representing unverifiable, subjective opinion about who kinda-sorta qualifies as a socialist, under one definition or another. If it were a complete list of notables, it would be 10s or 100s of thousands of names long. No use for that at all. If it's not, it's some kind of popularity contest (or anti-popularity; right-wing soapboxers will randomly add anyone left of center to make a WP:POINT, as is already happening, just as socialist activists will add names of not-really-socialists in an attempt to politically "claim" them – thus the disputations about the dumb list's contents).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are many of these templates on political ideologies who have a "People" section and there are not any important problems with them. Why should there be a problem here? In specific cases where there is a controversy, there should be a discussion here in talk section with the appropiate sources whether to include or to exclude a particular name. This is the same mechanism that is used for resolving disputes in the bodies of articles so why should it be more difficult here? Also, in order to establish what is socialism and what is not, the main article on socialism should be our guide and to what is included there as a socialist tendency should guide us as to what people belonging to what ideology should be included here. I remind some users here that the socialism article includes anarchists as socialists so anarchists should also be included here.--Eduen (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do we keep the list from being a random collection of names of varying importance to what should be considered "American Socialism"? A list with 50+ names isn't helpful and a waste of time and space. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well. We can also decide from negativity. So if someone can provide specific names of people not being "important" or "relevant" enough then we can consider removing some names. The thing is that these templates exist all over wikipedia and so this shows they can work well. I will love to see discussion on specifc names here and not just a wholly negative and too general criticism. And even if someone decides to keep this view of the section on "people" I think we can ask that person to provide specific examples which support their view. Otherwise I will be harder to understand their view and clearly such an argument will not have enough weight.--Eduen (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if someone can provide specific names of people not being "important" or "relevant" enough then we can consider removing some names. - What exactly does this mean? Because this is the essence of the problem. If the problem is the over inclusion of names, then without a strict standard of who can or cannot be in, we once again just leave the determination up to the caprice of certain editors opinions of who should be included. The reliance upon reliable secondary sources is also problematic because it misses the point. We aren't arguing if there is enough notability for the individual to have a article dedicated to them according to WP:GNG, we are arguing over who is important enough to be included in this list. So it would be a comparison between say a number of newspaper articles that provide Kshama Sawant notability in contrast to the relatively larger size of academic and journalistic sources dedicated to Eugene Debs, they both have notability to warrant an article about themselves, but do they both deserve their name listed here? What mechanism can we use to determine that other than the opinion of one who feels one is important enough to be included? Do you have an example of a template that you feel covers ideology adequately and has a helpful "peoples" list? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Complete Removal seems to be the most sensible solution to avoid arbitrary inclusion criteria. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civil Rights/Anti-Imperialism Section[edit]

This section seems not to be directly related to socialism, but some issues that socialists may have been concerned with. However, so have many other ideologies. This looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK. The inclusion of the "I have a dream" speech and the March on Washington seem particularly out of place. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haymarket affair vs Haymarket massacre[edit]

Personally, since the title of the article linked is Haymarket affair, I think the link should be changed to reflect this; to do otherwise I think violates WP:NPOV. Hence I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. If there are any objections, I'd be happy to discuss. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, if the title of the article is Haymarket affair, the link to it should also reflect this. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great society and war on poverty[edit]

These programs are not part of the socialist movement because LBJ (who started them) was not a socialist and was an anti-communist and more importantly the democratic party (which LBJ was part of) is not socialist at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being anticommunist doesn't mean antisocialism. Furthermore, the template isn't about a socialist movement, its just capturing socialism in the United States. Both of those were massive social programs and I believe should have inclusion in the template. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-inclusion of "People"[edit]

I would like to second the re-inclusion of "people" in this article. The previous "people" section was both long and not organized in any coherent manner. That said, I think that the differentiation of people into categories i.e. "theorists," "economists," "activists" would help to prevent the visual bloat of having that many names in one place. RnRa76 (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanders and AOC[edit]

I know these two call themselves socialists, but they are really social democrats, something that both liberal (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html), conservative (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/thats-not-real-socialism/) and socialist (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9767096/bernie-sanders-socialism-jacobin) commentators agree on. Island Pelican (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you say is true. What is the point though? Carrite (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can SDUSA (Social Democrats, USA) still be considered "active" ?[edit]

Are there any active current organizations that call themselves SDUSA ?

When an organization dies out without a formal dissolution or merger with (or into) another group, there's often no clear indicator; things just stop happening. And it's hard to prove, demonstrate or document a negative.

After December 31, 1972, SDUSA became the new name for the Socialist Party of America-Democratic Socialist Federation (SP-DSF, formed by a merger in March 1972).

But it faded from view in the early years of this millennium. After its URL fell back into the public domain, someone did buy its ICAAN license for a rather fleeting attempt at reunifying the disparate strands of American democratic socialism and social democracy, but I don't think that this effort lasted very long.

The former SDUSA members I know don't treat it as still active; nor did the former Yahoo! Group for American Socialist history.

My strong inclination would be to move SDUSA into the Inactive section, which already includes the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) who split away from SDUSA and later merged into the current, quite active DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).

But I hesitate slightly to do so without either a Reliable Source or an editorial consensus here.

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that listing SDUSA as "inactive" is the best reflection of reality. There are periodically microsects of one or a few people who attempt to revive the name, but these "organizations," if you can call them that, are basically efforts to capitalize on a name and history rather than being true lineal descendants of the original organization... Carrite (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed "Defunct organizations" to "Inactive or defunct organizations" and moved SDUSA to the latter. No doubt the same can be done for the World SP of the US, which, like SDUSA, seems to have more of an on-line than an active life. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]