Talk:Democratic Socialists of America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV

Wikipedia is a great resource. If people were honest and objective it would be a perfect one. Its credibility is more likely to be destroyed however, by the needless editorializing that I've seen in some listings, particularly those related to politics.

On this DSA listing, the information regarding specific members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization is just not correct. Bernie Sanders has never been a member of DSA; he will tell you that, they will tell you that. Dellums left DSA five years ago. Danny Davis's membership is only rumoured, and Major Owens is hardly notable for much of anything.

And putting in a line about what one political group thinks about another is hardly a NPOV, and really out of line. It's a bit like saying that the Republican Party feels that the Socialist Party USA are godless murdering Leninists who should all move to Cuba. That may in fact be what Republicans think about that organization, but that has nothing to do with the Socialist Party USA, and shouldn't be included in their listing either. If the Socialist Party USA wants to use their own listing or their own web site to comment on other groups, more power to them, but it's really sleazy to put your own propaganda in someone else's Wiki listings.

Don't make Wikipedia listings your own editorial column. That's what blogs are for, and anyone can have one these days.

August bebel

Surely a dispute between two groups deriving out of the old Socialist Party of America about the proper role of electoral politics is different from what Republicans think of SPUSA, and is more relevant to an article on one of the groups? john k 17:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be more relevant in a listing for the history of the Socialist Party of America itself. Going into each one of the listings for each one of the groups that sprouted off 31 years ago from what was at the time a pretty stodgy and dormant SP of A, and inserting what each thinks of the other, seems to me to be a bit odd, not to mention petty and counterproductive to the encyclopedic idea. It would be better for each group to have their position stated in their own listing. The issue in question here - electoral politics - is not the driving issue for DSA. Other groups - mostly not from the old party - are far more obsessed with DSA's non-electoral focus than DSA itself. So I'll try it another way: the relevance of including the Socialist Party USA's opinion of DSA's electoral position in DSA's listing might be similar to including the SPUSA's opinion of Greenpeace on their direct action strategies in the Greenpeace listing. The two orgs (DSA & SPUSA) are as different today as Catholics and Protestants, who also used to belong to the same group once upon a time. The third group in the mix (SDUSA) might as well have become Hindus, to extend the metaphor. So while it is fair to deal with what divides the three heirs to the SP of A in a historical piece, it's not fair on a site like this one to speak about either group today through the eyes of the other. As I said before, it's the kind of thing that if it runs rampant will make the whole Wikipedia less credible. August bebel 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August,

Thank you for your original contribution, which added some valuable information. However, before you go around impugning other contributors' motives and making judgements about NPOV policy, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy and etiquette (you might especially want to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith).

As to the specific points of controversy here:

1) Thank you for clarifying the matter of the congressmen. However, the former membership, rumored membership, and semi-formal association of members of congress is worthy of inclusion in the article, assuming it's verifiable. Removing information from an article wholesale, without explanation, will almost always get reverted.

2) I added the sentence which you apparently find objectionable. I did not do so because I am a SP-USA member (in fact, I'm not), or because random SP-USA members' opinions of DSA are inherently worthy of inclusion (they're not). I did so because you removed information which was perfectly worthy of inclusion: that DSA's electoral strategy is controversial in democratic socialist circles (whether that's fair or not). Where there is significant controversy, it should be characterized fairly in the article, without taking sides. This is Wikipedia policy, which you'll see followed in plenty of article -- you're entitled to disagree with it, but it still must be followed.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Radical,

I owe you an apology for my own jump to conclusions. I guess what bothered me is the phrase "would prefer", which seems to suggest that what one specific group wants for another actually matters to the other. That is why I read it as partisan. My error.

Can I suggest that it might be more helpful to say something like "DSA's endorsements of Democratic candidates has been a matter of some controversy among both the right as well as the left. Other socialists in the United States feel that socialist organizations should support only explicitly socialist candidates, whereas right-wing groups have used DSA's support of progressive Democrats to try to red-bait the candidates themselves."

I'll come back to the members of Congress later. I appreciate the change, but it's still a bit awkward, and considering what I've mentioned above about red-baiting, you can see why I think it's important to be as accurate as possible on this, or omit it altogether.

August bebel 20:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The part about other socialists seems good, although perhaps "Other socialists, including the Socialist Party USA, feel that..." The part about right-wingers using it to red-bait is, I think POV, and should be described in a different fashion. john k 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally get everything said and think it was cool to see things resolved amicably. But my comment is that in the relatively arcane subject of Socialist politics in the US, there isn't much information except for the squabbling between the, what is it 12+? parties out there (I call it the Life of Brian syndrome). True it is hearsay, but if it is worded right like suggested above it might still perhaps be worthy of mention. The Democratic Party's posturing is also interesting. If they want to appeal to the moderate right, any mention of anything red, or even green would cause a knee jerk reaction. How to write this and conform to standards is a task I don't particularly envy though. Khirad 02:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Size

Does anyone have any evidence on the description of the DSA as the largest socialist organization in the US, or an estimate of its current membership? Rafaelgr 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing none, I'm going to remove the "largest" phrase. Rafaelgr 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

DSA use the phrase "largest socialist organization" as a recruiting slogan; but like you, I'd be curious to see the actual figures. I imagine it would still be true, although if their 2005 convention report is to be believed, their membership has fallen by more than 50% from 1993 to 2005. (Shame.) SPUSA's membership has reportedly been rising, although the last I heard they were still at not much more than a thousand members. I wonder whether P&FP, the ISO or other Trotskyist formations would be in the same league, numbers-wise... QuartierLatin1968 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The ISO is (in my opinion as an ISO member with some friends in DSA) definitely in the same league, as are (probably) SPUSA and CPUSA, and perhaps Committees of Correspondence. Of course these groups have very different standards of membership, so a comparison wouldn't mean much even if numbers were available. I'd be astonished if Peace and Freedom were anywhere near the same size as any of these groups, unless you count people who are only registered voters. Rafaelgr 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another item: Can anyone name any DSA members elected to office, or otherwise document their existence? Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

DSA is a social-democratic organization

Despite its name, DSA is clearly a social-democratic organization for three reasons. 1)It is member of the Socialist International,the largest organization of social-democratic parties. 2)DSA is partially anti-capitalist.We can verify this by looking at the first question about DSA organization in its website. 3)If it were really left-wing,it would not support candidates of Democratic Party. We don't have to be deceived by the name. There are many parties which call themselves "socialists", but they are social-democratic or even Trotskyst. So the organization is social-democratic and center-left both on fiscal and social issues. Itanesco (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A user put this in the edit summary box: "DSA is to the left of traditional social democracy. It is an anti-capitalist organization. This is why it doesn't call itself "Social Democrats of America." Regarding their distinction against "Social Democrats . . . ," it should be noted that this name distinguished the organization against the third splinter from the 1971 splintering of the Socialist Party: the Social Democrats USA. Dogru144 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That edit summary is somewhat specious, since SDUSA was well to the right of traditional social democracy. I also have trouble swallowing the description of DSA as an anti-capitalist organization, particularly given its participation in the Democratic Party. That said, I can't get too excited over terminology. How about opening with "Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is an organization of democratic socialists and social democrats in the United States, and the..."? I think that's more accurate than claiming it's exclusively one or the other. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Center-Left

I see that the ideological position for DSA is listed as left-wing. I believe that center-left would be a more accurate characterization, as DSA, rather than advocating a major turn away from the existing political order, chooses instead to function as an element of the Democratic Party.
If they were trying to build a working-class major party or popular front, the term "left-wing" would be more accurate. However, since they are trying to work within the existing political order rather than dramatically change the face of it, "center-left" would better represent the true nature of DSA's work.
In addition to their mainstream approach to electoral politics, their policy stances are hardly out of the center-left portion of the international political spectrum. I believe that as the ideas of social democracy and democratic socialism are not so radical in most modern countries, we shouldn't treat them like they are in an article about an American organization. Since most parties/organizations of a social democratic/democratic socialist nature in other nations are characterized as "center-left", the article about the American ideological equivalent should reflect the same. I'm therefore changing the positions to "center-left," is that okay with everyone?--Apjohns54 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has two wings, the center-left social democrats and the far-left democrat-socialists. In Europe this is common as well as the social democrat parties are mostly social democrats but they always have a left wing in their party of democrat socialists. Just like the US Republican Party being conservative but also has a wing of libertarians or the US Democrat being liberal with a wing of conservatives.

A Party or a Position?

I've heard of this party. Why isn't it on the list of "political parties of the USA" page, when there are so many less significant left parties there? Could it be that this party isn't fielding candidates, or what?

It's not a political party, nor does it claim to be. RadicalSubversiv E 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The DSA is a political action committee and works within the DNC and/or Democratic Party. The only democratic socialist party is the Socialist Party of the United States of America which does not work with the DNC and likewise, another Leftist party is the Social Democratic Party of America which is geared more in line with the Socialist International and the Christian Socialist Movement. The slight difference is "revolution" (militant) verses "evolution " (peaceful and reforming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.243.117.153 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate that DSA is a political action committee(PAC). DSA has a PAC, but it is primarily an advocacy organization; electoral work constitutes only a small part of its work. It also worth point out that the Social Democratic Party of America is a less significant group and is not a member of the Socialist International. User:Ripeugenedebs User_talk:Ripeugenedebs 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DSA and the democratic party

I'm going to try to expand on the DSA's relationship with and attitude towards the Democratic Party. I'm sure there will be some disputed points. Rafaelgr 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know it anyone can elaborate on DSA's decision to back Jackson in 88. I would also love it if we could improve the paragraph on prominent members; I think it mixes up people like Chomsky, who tends to sign up for things like this out of friendliness, with people who actually play a role in shaping the DSA, which I think includes Barbara Ehrenreich. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this to do much more. Rafaelgr 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I can work on cleaning this up a bit at some point. Chomsky has spoken at least one conference of the youth section (YDS) but is not really an active member. Ehrenreich is an honorary co-chair, like Cornel West, and is much more actively involved.Ripeugenedebs (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another absolutely pointless revert

RE: << (cur) (prev) 19:05, 26 February 2010 Trust Is All You Need (talk | contribs) (21,672 bytes) (There are many organizations which have a national convention, no reason to list them) (undo) >>

I'm out of here. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure

DSA is organized at the local level, and works with labor unions, community organizations, and campus activists on issues of common interest. Nationwide campaigns are coordinated by the organization's national office in New York City. As of 2006 the DSA website lists 24 chartered locals.

Governance of the DSA is by the group's National Political Committee, which since 2001 has been 16 person body. The organization's constitution states that at least 8 of the NPC's members shall be women and at least 4 members of "racial or national" minority groups. A 17th vote is cast by the representative of the DSA's youth affiliate, the Young Democratic Socialists, who elect 1 male and 1 female delegate who split the vote. The NPC meets four times a year.

The NPC elects an inner committee of 6, including 5 of its own members and 1 representative of the youth section, called the "Steering Committee." At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least 1 a "person of color," with the National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex-officio members. This Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call.

The highest decision-making authority of the organization is the organization's national conventions, which are held biannually. These gatherings of the organization are as follows:

Year	Dates Held	Location	Delegates
2009	November 13-15	Evanston, IL	82
2007	November 9-11	Atlanta, GA
2005	November 11-13	Los Angeles, CA
2003	November 14-16	Detroit, MI
2001	November 9-11	Philadelphia, PA
1999
1997
1995
1993

I have added the location and date of the 1999 convention, which I found here: DSA News- Bernie Sanders Speaks to the DSA Convention as well as here: New Ground 64 - Chicago DSA. Honestly, I think listing delegate numbers is rather pointless, and I am not sure that information will be easily found, anyway. Ripeugenedebs (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: For the time being, I have deleted the rows for 1993, 1995, and 1997. Until this information is added, it looks poor for the rows to remain blank. Also, I agree with the above comment that many (if not most, or all) organizations have national conventions, so they do not necessarily need to be listed. However, I see some validity in leaving the table there, so I am not going to unilaterally delete it until there is some consensus on the issue. Ripeugenedebs (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Social Progressivism

I do not see the need for "social progressivism" to be listed in the info-box under DSA's ideology. Nor do I think it belongs in the intro. The Socialist International describes itself as follows: "The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties." See: [The Socialist International Website]Ripeugenedebs (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Membership claim absolutely false

Fox News talking out their posterior is accepted as a means for estimating membership, but calculating membership based on the published sworn statement of circulation of the party's mag is not???

Here is my wording for language, which I stand by as more accurate than that which appears here. I object most strenuously to the revert.

DSA has never released exact membership data, let alone a reliable annual series of actually paid memberships, instead using round numbers and making use of words like "about" and "around" and letting stand uncorrected media estimates of membership strength. The best available metric for estimating the size of the actually paid membership of the group is their sworn annual "Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation" regarding its official magazine made to the U.S. Post Office in order to qualify for subsidized postal rates.

According to the 2009 declaration published in the Winter 2009/10 issue of Democratic Left, DSA shows an average paid subscription of 5,707 for its magazine — this representing an absolute maximum membership count for the organization, assuming a non-member subscribership of zero. Since every member of DSA receives a paid subscription to Democratic Left and since the number of non-member subscribers is certainly in excess of zero, actual paid membership may reasonably be assumed to be significantly less than this figure.

Claims are made that the DSA continues to be the largest socialist organization in the United States.

footnotes

Carrite (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We can post membership estimates from reliable sources or from the organization itself, but cannot independently calculate the membership. See: WP:SYN. It is possible that only one copy of the magazine would be sent to families. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "reliable sources" used for membership estimates in this article, unless you count a rank-and-filer from Portland, Maine making the (absurd) claim that membership was "about 10,000" in 2008 counts. THAT'S not a reliable source. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

May be absurd and wrong, but the source meets the WP:RS guideline, and seeing that there is not other sources rejecting this or claiming another membership total, it would be absurd to remove. If you find any sources which claim a higher or lower membership number, add it. --TIAYN (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I suspect "Four Deuces" is a sock puppet. 2. You are very close to violation of the 3 revert rule. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: 1. Your going paranoid and you are breaching WP:UNCIVIL, and yes i am breaching the 3-revert rule. But you have been breaching a lot of guidelines when editing this article today. Stop claiming, and stop promoting your own personal opinion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: If you really think we are sock puppets, nominate us to the Administrator sock puppet board. --TIAYN (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The pattern of these reversions serve to "glorify" DSA as having a continual upward growth of membership, something that is absolutely not proven on the basis of the evidence presented. The group claimed in 1982 to have "about 6,000" members and "about 7,000" in 1987. That's all you can say, unless you want to use a number pulled from the sky by Fox News (of all "reputable sources" on the topic of American Socialism, I think they're maybe not the best, putting it mildly) or the statement of a rank-and-filer from Maine in 2008 that the group had "about 10,000" — a round number that. And what is the basis of authority for the assertion?

I don't want to edit war with you — it's a waste of time. I see from your talk page that this is not the first time this pattern of behavior has been engaged in. I'll drop it for now, just remember the old saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out." If you are happy stuffing "absurd" and "wrong" material into this article for the greater glory of a group (NPOV, anyone???), that's on you, not me. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox News, meets the WP:RS criteria, Common Dreams meet the reliable source criteria. How do you know that Fox News have pulled this numbers from the sky? Do you work for Fox News? No, you don't! You can't say that some sources are not qualified because you don't support or trust those sources. I am neutral, i didn't even know about organization before late 2009, and by the end of the day i couldn't really give a dam about it (seeing that i live in another continent). But i am not the one breaching WP:NPOV, you are, i'm following what the sources say, you on the other include sources which includes your claims (as seen in your version above). Listen to what i'm saying. --TIAYN (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because something can be quoted off the internet doesn't make it true. A sworn circulation statement made by the organization itself — and PUBLISHED as a PDF, thus easily verifiable — tops the opinion of a rank-and-filer 500 km. away from the National Office... And Fox News has ZERO information about DSA's internal records. Carrite (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrite, so your editing at SDUSA is not the first time you have been cautioned about OR and synthesis.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

5,700 is actually approximately 10,000 and if they wanted to brag the fact is that both major parties have millions of members. The days of competition between the SLP, the Socialist Party, the Communists and the Trotskyists is over. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Harrington/Ehrenreich misquotation

This article misattributes a partial quotation from Bogdan Denitch to Harrington/Ehrenreich, who then write several paragraphs of their decades long criticism of Soviet communism and their rejection of a planned economy, and their criticism of top-down reforms and support for a revitalized civil society and labor unions, etc.

Since Ehrenreich is alive, this is a BLP violation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Is this party a center-left social democrat party or a far left democrat socialist party or is it both when two wings. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a party but an organization. It adopts positions somewhat to the left of the socialist and social-democratic parties of Europe, so its leadership could safely be called democratic socialist. The majority of its members probably would like to be more like Sweden in the 1980s. Some of its members could be considered far left, but that would be an unfair description of the organization.

The parties in the U.S. are extremely weak in comparison to the parties in a parliamentary system, where the party leadership has control over the lists (which makes independent voting a career-ending move), so it is difficult to understand these topics for non-Americans.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Control over the lists" sounds like one form of proportional representation, not just a parliamentary system... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In many parliamentary systems, the party leadership determines the ordering of candidates presented to voters on a party list. Low-ranked candidates have no chance of entering parliament. In such systems, like Sweden's, parliamentarians almost never vote against the party line (and those that do often change to another party). "PR" is another (related) topic about the apportionment of legislative seats to the parties, based on the raw votes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Socialists of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150223061908/http://www.ydsusa.org/sow15 to http://www.ydsusa.org/sow15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Stand Needs to be Removed from the Ideology Section

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the DSA or trying cover-up the behavior of this individual, but I don't think you can say that someone working for a foreign intelligence service is an "ideology" issue. This probably belongs in a "Controversy" section instead, particularly since the NEW REPUBLIC article that is referenced as support for his conviction says that Kurt Stand and his wife were "devoted Marxist-Leninists", and I don't think most of Lenin's ideas on political organization are compatible with the concept of democratic socialism. 214.3.138.230 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I know this comment is pretty old by now but I just wanted to respond to point out that, for the record, DSA's bylaws are specifically against Marxism-Leninism. --WhyBeNormal? ^{c · t · m} 18:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition to publications

The DSA recently launched a podcast, Rose Radio. Does this deserve listing, it is an official organ of the organization. I believe it would make sense to include in the infobox Wobbly99 (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Socialists of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008085049/http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/DSA%20Constitution.pdf to http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/DSA%20Constitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

DSA as an International

I find the opening description of DSA as a "political international" rather confusing. I am not familiar with the exact wording of resolutions passed at the 2017 National Convention. However, surely DSA's status as an international is aspirational at the moment. The organization has only just begun to form links with political parties and organizations in other countries since leaving the Socialist International, such as Podemos in Spain and PSOL in Brazil. The claim that DSA is already an international is misleading and could even be interpreted by activists in other countries as American chauvinism. Unless perhaps the "internationalism" referred to is with respect to colonized nations within the territory of the United States such as Natives and Puerto Ricans?- 128.91.19.11 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is an extraordinary claim that requires a high quality, independent reliable source. I suggest that the claim be removed until it gains consensus here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Change position to Centre-Left to Far-Left?

I am just suggesting this as well, the Lib-Soc and Left Caucuses represent more Radical, Far-Left segment, and some chapters of the DSA as a whole are Far-Left 24.191.233.28 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

DSA as a whole doesn't appear to fit with Wikipedia article Far-left politics... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They are anti-Semitic, support Arab supremacism, and advocate for the destruction of Israel. Those are far-left causes. See [1] and [2]. -- 10:56, 28 September 2017‎

I'm sorry you disagree with them about mideast policy, but that doesn't automatically change a democratic socialist group into a Maoist-Trotskyist-Anarchist faction.. AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Millennials

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/11/18/socialism-philadelphia-millennials/ Benjamin (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

State lower house?

The article shows a DSA member holding office in a state's lower house. However, there is no citation. I also can't find a source. Could someone dig one up, please? Otherwise that will have to be changed back to "0." Pretendus (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article no shows 3 with no associated citations. DSA members were elected on the Democratic ticket. They should be labelled as Democrats then for internal consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretendus (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Partyship and seats in infobox

Before an edit war begins, as I can see both sides of the issue, should we list the numbers of DSA members in the various elected bodies in the US? Editors should make their case here before reverting again. I'm unsure about the latest edit summary "see Political groups of the European Parliament for an example of organizations that aren't parties but have seats" by Jonathan Williams for several reasons:

1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the most superficial way to understand that argument, though may not be its intention
2. Unclear where, exactly, one should look there -- I skimmed the whole article and Ctrl+Fed a few likely words
3. Not only is European political structure wholly different than American, but that's compounded by it being a non-national body. It might make sense to have seats for unelected folks in the EP, just as there's observers in all sorts of international bodies, or the US Congress has regularly attending but non-voting members from territories, etc.

DSA is explicitly not a political party, that has to be made clear in any version. However, this can be tempered by the fact that it has political aims and membership involved in politics and the number of elected representatives who are DSA members is of obvious interest to the reader. JesseRafe (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

DSA is an activist organization. It has members but no one is elected under the DSA banner. AS JesseRafe wrote, it is explicitly not a political party. In fact, all of its members are elected on the Democratic Party ballot line or to non-partisan offices. DSA, like Sierra Club or many other organizations at Category:501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, has members in elected office. That's why I removed the members from elected bodies.--TM 21:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Jabari Brisport ran on the green party ticket Jonathan Williams (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

But he did not win. Either way, the infobox political party does not fit for DSA. It is not and has never been a political party. Claiming that DSA has won seats as a political party is factually inaccurate.--TM 23:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I think it's also worth comparing/contrasting with the activities of parties that benefit from fusion voting such as the Working Families Party. Although the DSA isn't a political party in a legal sense of the word, knowing the representation of DSA members in office is useful to reader. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs because the DSA is not a political party. It's not even similar to a fusionist party. The more closely resembles groups like Justice Democrats in supporting candidates, but that is not its main purpose. TFD (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think as long as the article makes it clear it is not a political party, listing its members who have attained elected office is informative for the reader, can we all agree on that point? And then, determine whether the chart in the infobox belongs? I also don't think comparisons to WFP are apt at all and am unfamiliar with the Justice Democrats. Further, Brisport ran as a Green and on a line that just read "Socialist" -- not with a party affiliation, but NYS allows single-purpose party declarations to sometimes absurd extents (2017 saw the party lines "Dump de Blasio" and "Stop the Mayor" -- obviously those aren't parties, just pointing this out lest we miss the forest for the trees when discussing New York races as not everyone may be familiar with the system there). JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that a full list is excessive and it has not been reported in secondary sources. Note there are now 35 members holding office. Going forward, they are also endorsing non-members and there is every likelihood the numbers will increase as there are actually 511,000 elected officials in the U.S. Readers can always follow the links to the organization's website. TFD (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements are not the issue being discussed, that is a strawman argument. JesseRafe (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the 35 DSA members in elected office are simply endorsed by DSA. They didn't run on a Democratic Socialist ballot line because DSA is not a political party. DSA is a non-profit political organization. Would we count how many members of Sierra Club or any other 501C4 organization are in office? No, but DSA functions in the same manner. They endorse candidates, some of whom are members and some of whom are not. This is the problem of using the political party infobox for an activist organization.--TM 16:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Endorsement doesn't mean dick, given its 501(c)(4) status, but that said within that set there is a subset of members who have won office (who presumably have been endorsed), so I suppose we'll have to deploy footnotes in the infbox sans original research eventually... kencf0618 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Kencf0618

Median

What does " The average median age" mean? Is it the mean of medians (what-ever that might be), or is it simply referring to "The median age"? Kdammers (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source which says "median," and corrected it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I meant "median average," which as it turns out is redundant... Median. kencf0618 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

As my ten recent edits to the article were reverted by JesseRafe, I am wondering why. The edit summary provided seems only to object to one of the edits. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been asked to make your case here due to your misunderstanding of what goes in the infobox, what the DSA is, and whether you made deliberately false accusations in your edit summary. If you forgo the opportunity to explain your reasoning or even to post any substantive content, why would expect the reversions to end? No one can form a consensus around a matter in the article if you choose to keep it hidden. You removed sourced material, you made changes based on a misinterpretation of fact, and you made further changes based on a misinterpretation of policy. This was all stated in an edit summary, which you reverted as "unexplained", which is false, given that the edit summary was the explanation. It is not unacceptable for the infobox to have a range of positions, nor is DSA a political party. Further discussion on both these matters can be found on this talk page.JesseRafe (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Am I correct in understanding that to be the only of the ten edits with which you disagree? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Having not heard back regarding the mass reversion, I will reverse it. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works, it appears you have no consensus to make your changes. See WP:BRD. JesseRafe (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: BRD provides for discussion, not monologue. So that we can get on the same page to move this discussion forward, I'll ask again: am I correct in understanding that to be the only one of the fifteen edits with which you disagree? Or do you have other objections? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Far-left"?

I'm not sure that one reference to a communist caucus (the size, activity and influence of which is unknown) is enough to justify having "far-left" as a political position of the DSA as a whole. Paradisets portar (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This shows why the field should not be used. In the U.S., Microsoft, Starbucks and General Electric are left-wing corporations, which is an oxymoron. TFD (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the DSA a left-wing corporation (and thus an oxymoron)? Paradisets portar (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for a while and then remove far-left unless anyone objects. My reasoning is as follows:

1. There has already been a discussion about adding far-left, and it concluded with it not being added.
2. The wording "far-left" is nowhere to be found in the link referenced. Placing Alternative for Germany as a far-right party was based on that being the overwhelmingly most common description of the party's political position in media ([3]).
3. If the existence of a communist fraction (again, of unknown size, activity and influence) automatically warrants far-left as political position, then the presence of social democrats in the organization should warrant a centre-left position as well. Here, it seems more practical use only "left-wing".

Paradisets portar (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I am saying that left and right are relative positions, but there is no agreement over absolute positions on the left or right for any organization. Hence what one person sees as center-left for example, another may see as center-right. Also, far left and far right vote in U.S. primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties, so by your reasoning their position would be far left to far right. TFD (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I agree with that. It's not "my reasoning" though -- on the contrary, I wrote this entry to discuss removing the far-left classification! Paradisets portar (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Paradisets portar, I agree that "far-left" should be removed from the Infobox parameter "Political positions." As you point out, "far-left" does not appear in the cited source, which is a self-descriptive. self-promoting blog and not a third-party WP:RS. Thank you for raising this issue. KalHolmann (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I edited the article, but it was reverted for lacking an adequate explanation. The article now also uses this article in reference to the DSA being "far-left" – yet another source that does not in clear terms refer to the DSA as "far-left". Compare to the discussion on AfD, where the use of "far-right" as political position has been accepted only after it was proven to be the most common description used for the party. Paradisets portar (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please both, 1, use edit summaries, and 2, read others'. It is stated in clear terms therein, and a quote is included in the edit summary to stave off this expected exact rebuttal. JesseRafe (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. When I want definitive information on political groups, I always turn to Chicago, a magazine that "concentrates on lifestyle and human interest stories, and on reviewing restaurants, travel, fashion, and theater from or nearby Chicago." It's no doubt cited in numerous political science textbooks. However, the article is using the terms "far left" and "far right" to refer to sections of the Democratic Party. Clearly the DSA members who belong to the Democratic Party are on its "far left," while people like Joe Manchin are on its "far right." And I suppose the remaining moderate Republicans are on the "far left" of their party. That does not mean that any of these people are far right or far left as normally understood. TFD (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the designation of the DSA as "far-left" in the article seems ambiguous at best. Paradisets portar (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's phrased such that it's not a measure of Dems, "Since that time, centrist Democratic candidates haven’t worried much about losing support from the far left in the general election, because there hasn’t been a plausible alternative." It specifically is pointing to general elections, not primaries, and says nothing to suggest that "the far left" is referring to any (registered) Democrats, but that they would vote for a Dem over a Republican, and the Democratic party relied on getting those votes without worrying about courting them. That's the plain meaning of the sentence. JesseRafe (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to read the sentence in context. Obviously the writer does not need to qualify the term "far left" with "of the Democratic Party" every time he uses the term, because it is clear from the context. The article is called "What Does 2018 Hold for Left-Wing Democrats?" not "What Does 2018 hold for the Far Left." There are of course groups to the left of the DSA, such as the Socialist Party USA, which was formed out the left-wing of the Socialist Party of America, while the DSA was formed out of the center, and Socialist Alternative. Both those parties run candidates outside the Democratic Party and are not mentioned in the article because they are outside its scope. TFD (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're simply reading the source incorrectly so it confirms with your pre-set view, and that's that. I explained the plain meaning above and you chose to ignore it. More than half the population is not registered as Dem or Rep, so the "far left" means just that in the general election, no need to wildly assume the author was talking about Dems specifically, if so they would have said "primary". If you want to challenge whether the source is RS there are avenues for that that I don't believe are this article's talk page. As it stands the claim is now sourced and verified and it should stay in the infobox, no matter how strong your POV is against its inclusion. JesseRafe (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting it. Also, it is clear that you chose this source because it confirmed you pre-set view. You typed "Democratic Socialists of America" "far left" into Google and picked the first source you found that appeared to support your view. You would avoid a lot of conflict if instead of looking for sources to support your opinions, you identified the best sources and reflected what they say. I would use for example sources such as the Historical Dictionary of Socialism or Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. TFD (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Logo Provenance & Due Weight

Given the prominence of the DSA as the largest contemporary Socialist organization in the U.S., how much weight should be given to the provenance of its logo? I'd put up a short paragraph about this last night but it was deleted without explanation by one User:79.27.160.118, whoever that is. kencf0618 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the edit, but your edit said that the red rose "is the most widely used symbol by democratic socialist, social democratic, and labor parties and organizations worldwide" and I think that because the red rose and the clenched fist are not exclusive to the DSA (and more relevant for the Socialist International) then an explanation of them should be on their respective pages, not DSA's. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Given its contemporary prominence as the largest socialist organization in the U.S., I think some explanation of its logo has merit, precursors and all. kencf0618 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Working groups section

@JesseRafe: As per this revert, what can I do to improve the section so it is included on the page? (or should it perhaps not be included?) -Xbony2 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the bold addition and the follow-up discussion. I'd say it's not meriting inclusion. They're detailed on DSA's website, but not encyclopedic. If a working group had any third-party coverage on its own, sure. Maybe just a single sentence or paragraph that DSA has these WGs as part of its structure. But if the only sources are the DSA website, then it doesn't pass basic RS requirements. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There is already too much in the article sourced to the DSA. Readers can always follow the link to its website. TFD (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So far as the caucuses go, I had included a citation from The Daily Caller but it was deleted as being polemical and unencyclopedic. This seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but if anyone has a better secondary source feel free! http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/marxist-radicals-democratic-party/ kencf0618 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not I don't like it but that the Daily Caller is not a reliable source. Articles should not be about what editors find important, but what reliable sources report on, per Balancing aspects. When they start covering the DSA, we can add it. TFD (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is what an LA Times reporter wrote: "Among leftists, the DSA is considered a "big-tent" organization. Decisions are made by topic-specific committees instead of through adherence to rigid ideology, which allows for a relatively wider range of opinion than other groups. The group also takes a more incremental approach to reining in free-market capitalism." (Matt Pearce, [www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democratic-socialists-20170308-story.html "Seeing red: Membership triples for the Democratic Socialists of America."]) That is contrary to what the Daily Caller article says, that it is a monolithic revolutionary Marxist group. Of course the Daily Caller presents a false narrative that the mainstream Democratic Party is already significantly Marxist controlled. TFD (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2018 (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:

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (official, high-resolution).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

I am a member, albeit not card-carrying member, inasmuch as it hasn't arrived yet. kencf0618 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am now a card-carrying Socialist! kencf0618 (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub section addition: DSA views on ethno-states, open borders/stateless society and Israel's current and potential incarnations

These are my comments about am Abraham Reismann article in the Daily Beast as a source that was used in a reverted edit that didn't properly explain DSA views. The edit painted DSA as anti-Israel without qualification. I quoted sections of the article that seem most relevant to how Reismann portrayed DSA viewpoints. More sourcing will be needed to expand on DSA's policies on ethno-states, rights of native peoples and open borders.

The DSA are anti-current incarnation of Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-ethnostate. Quoting the article: "the abolition of the state of Israel as it currently exists." They do not support ethnostates that establish a single religion, language (Knesset passed this law establishing a national language) or ethnic group as the foundation. One of the Jewish DSA members points out the hypocrisy of fighting exclusivist nationalism in the US (like declaring English the national language) but not in Israel: “As Jews we are uniquely positioned to challenge the nationalism that appears in our community as Zionism, and as socialists we detest all exclusivist nationalisms,” the document read. “The inconsistency of liberal North American Jews in opposing white nationalism at home without material opposition to nationalism in Israel undermines our ability to forge solidarity with the oppressed everywhere.”

To properly frame the addition to the article, you would need to point out that the platform ideas of the Jewish Solidarity Caucus which states in their founding statement: “Zionism cannot vanquish antisemitism,” that “Jewish collective efforts to realize the prophetic vision of a just world will only be fully realized through socialism,”

Reismann interviewed Jewish members of the DSA/JSC: "..18 JSCers; all were vehemently pro-BDS and all but one were united in their call for an end to the Jewish state and its replacement with either one democratic country with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians or, in a more utopian mode, a “zero-state solution” in a socialist world where all national borders have been done away with. Either way, the fact remains that they’re all Jews—though largely secular or only casually religiously observant ones—who celebrate their Jewish identity and want nothing to do with Israel.

One member's opinion: “We don’t need an ethnostate; they don’t work,” says 32-year-old “Lilith,” a St. Louis-based DSA and JSC member who requested a pseudonym for fear of being blacklisted by pro-Israel portions of the Jewish community for her viewpoints. “What Israel stands for now is completely against any Jewish values. We’re not supposed to be kicking people out. We’re supposed to be welcoming the stranger into our homes, not destroying their homes and destroying their land.” 47.40.52.156 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the convention has held in 2017 (not 2018 as stated in your edit) and is already covered in the "Internationalism" section, including support for BDS. The convention was also covered by CNN.[4] Your first source quotes Olivia Katbi Smith as saying, "We had a Palestinian flag that we waved as soon as it passed. We started chanting.” There's a youtube video[DSA vote BDS, posted by Ajenwy 92, posted August 9, 2017]. You will notice that the sponsors of the resolution, who are standing near the microphone, indeed wave a flag and chant about Palestine. But only one delegate in the room joins them. TFD (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

These are not the same IP editors. The "Anti-Israel" edit was added originally by User:E.M.Gregory, which was reverted by another user for heavy editorializing. The IP editor's above input was originally added on EMG's user talk page but was deleted by EMG and did not yield a response initially so I urged them to paste it here for discussion, if we gotta expand on the issue. I added my own rewrite based on detailed accounts from two sources. Though I didn't notice we have it mentioned in Internationalism section. Tsumikiria (T/C) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Before reverting the "anti-Israel" section, I rewrote it and then didn’t add it as I thought it was already covered. But, I think your addition is valuable. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Usage of "Trump" vs. "Drumpf"

I notice that a few places in this article refer to Donald Trump as "Drumpf". Regardless of the connotations of using "Drumpf" instead of Trump, the inconsistency is something I think we should avoid, and I'd like to see the page edited to the standard "Trump". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherymoe (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@SpanishSnake: We would like you to explain this particular edit you've made, in which you replaced all in-text occurrences of "Trump" into "Drumpf". Such edits are never acceptable in main article namespace. Did you use a browser extension to automatically replace such words? Please uninstall or disable it. Make sure it doesn't happen again. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake and I apologize. I was using [5] browser extension. I didn't realize that it effects Wikipedia edits. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 16:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

anti-Zionism in infobox

@UnknownM1:: It is already a category on the page, with the page citing this and this. ShimonChai (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is not an ideology and neither source says it is. See "Zionism Is Not an Ideology" in Haaretz which says that anti-Zionism is not an ideology. Nor is there any indication from the sources provided that it is part of DSA ideology. It says that at one time most members were Zionist, but that has waned as anti-Zionism has increased. There is a difference between a policy and an ideology. TFD (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anti-Zionism isn't an ideology, it says that Zionism isn't an ideology. ShimonChai (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds more like a policy resulting from an ideology than an ideology itself. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideology as defined as "a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons." With the examples given being overarching concepts i.e "Nationalist Ideology." ShimonChai (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Near as I can see, the DSA is against nationalist ideology, they see Zionism as ethnonationalist, and now have an anti-Zionism position based upon rejection of that ideology. That makes it a position. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, at least factions of the DSA have purposed a referendum on the existence of Israel. Which seems to be singling out Israel and Zionism specifically as a matter of policy. ShimonChai (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an opinion by someone in the DSA pushing a position. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I stated factions, because it is signed by factions within the DSA. ShimonChai (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A position is not an ideology. And there is no evidence that the DSA divides into Zionist and anti-Zionist factions. A faction is after all a group that caucuses separately and holds a distinct set of policies, like the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. TFD (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Multi-tendency

I have once again removed the descriptor "multi-tendency" from the infobox. There are several reasons to do this:

• There is no wikipedia article multi-tendency (see this AfD), just a dictionary link
• The dictionary definition is redundant, since it belongs to a list of multiple ideologies
• Multi-tendency is not an ideology, so does not belong on a list of ideologies
• The link has been removed several times by several different editors, and no one has made any attempt to justify including it

--JBL (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, isn't this the same as the more widely used terms big tent or catch-all? --Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It's multi-tendency in the sense that it allows a broad range of democratic socialist viewpoints. Most political parties also allow a broad range of views within their core ideology. TFD (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, the term is indeed used: On Internal Organizing and the Momentum Document Leak https://medium.com/@adamschlesinger1/on-internal-organizing-and-the-momentum-document-leak-22ff7d7c9f5b kencf0618 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideology section

So i have thought about wether or not we should remove anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and anti-fascism from the infobox, the reason is because these are all common tendencies of socialist ideology in general and as such might not necessarily be needed as separate ideologies in the infobox! Furthermore, in the ideology-section of the article, Internationalism is listed as an ideology, so should we perhaps add this to the infobox? I hope my fellow editors will think about and hopefully answer to these propositions, i will not carry out these changes unless enough responding editors agree with these propositions! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it would be nice to get some input! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernie an independent

This is a quibble, but where the lede says, "The organization has at times endorsed Democratic electoral candidates—notably Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders—and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader", it's potentially misleading to include Bernie Sanders in that category. As an independent senator seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie doesn't entirely fit into either the Democratic or the third party box. What would people think of changing this to "... Kerry and Barack Obama—as well as Bernie Sanders and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader" or some such? Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a concern, but think that rephrasing could be more spelled out rather than rely on the reader to know that Sanders is both an independent and ran for the Dem nom, perhaps "... Kerry and Barack Obama—as well as the independent candidate for Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader"? Also those were all caniddates for POTUS and that should be said, maybe instead:

"The organization has at times endorsed Democratic candidates for U.S. President, notably Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, as well as Bernie Sanders's independent bid for the Democratic nomination; they've also supported the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader."

While a bit wordier, I think that resolves a lot of the issues with the article's current phrasing. JesseRafe (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Seats in house" Count

The box at the top right of the page (when viewed on a desktop) shows that the DSA has 2/235 seats in the US House of Reps. Shouldn't this read 2/435? The 235 number seems to come from the number of seats held by Democrats rather than the total number of seats in the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.116.26 (talk)

The questionable nature of the relevant comparison is one of several good reasons this should simply not appear in the infobox -- it should instead be treated properly, in the article text. Other good reasons are that DSA is not actually a political party: no one was elected on a DSA ballot line, belonging to DSA does not preclude one from belonging to political parties, and so on. It was removed (again), hopefully it will not be added back. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The practice of including seats in the house is standard for pressure groups like the Blue Dogs. Admittedly that is a formal caucus, but they didn't run as Blue Dogs either. Zellfire999 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

The link for citation number 74 is a dead link I found a correct link on the wayback machine for the same article https://web.archive.org/web/20110205130627/https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65995,00.html Gnostic1980 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! JesseRafe (talk) 17:16, 7 October 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)