Talk:Socialist Equality Party (United States)

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

List of Socialist Equality Party election results was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 May 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Socialist Equality Party (United States). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Untitled Thread #1

I don't think the changes made are "Sectarian". They elaborate what the issues were at the time that the organization was formed. If you leave out the substance of the discussions, and just say, "there were differences of opinion" then it omits vital information to the understanding of the subject.

It'd be great to include the substance of the discussions. Unfortunately your edits are propaganda for the SEP - the other groups involved would entirely disagree with them (as would groups not involved in them) Warofdreams 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Thread #2

There are many things wrong with this version:

"The origins of the SEP lie in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) of the early 1960s."

Actually, the SEP is a part of an international and has its roots in the various sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International. It can't seriously be argued that it all came out of the head of Wohlforth in the American SWP!

Also, I don't understand how you can remove all references to Pabloism. It is the SEP's long-running battle against the ideas of Pabloism that sets it apart from the SWP and other sections of the ISFI. It's a major theme in a lot of their writing, so why would you delete any reference to it?

Also, even though Wohlforth and the RT did not split over the Cuba issue, they did attempt to hold a discussion on this point, which was shut down by the SWP leadership.

This passage is confusing: "The two main leaders of the RT had different evaluations of the SWP. Robertson's position led the SWP to expel him and his supporters first. Wohlforth and his supporters were themselves expelled in 1964. They claimed that this was due to their insistence on a discussion of the decision by the of the Sri Lankan Lanka Sama Samaja Party to participate in the national government. They then formed the American Committee of the Fourth International (ACFI) and became the United States section of the ICFI."

Robertson's supporters did not become a part of the ICFI and eventually became the Sparticist League. They have nothing to do with the SEP anymore. Why is this not mentioned?

Alos, "became the United States section of the ICFI"??? The SWP leadership formed the ICFI, so how did a minority within the SWP suddenly become the American section of the ICFI??? If you just throw it in there, without explaining what the ICFI was, as I did, then you will just confuse people who come to Wikipedia for objective accounts of the events. Is that the purpose of completely undoing my additions?

Can you at least, piece by piece, respond to what is wrong with what I put in? If you can't do that, it seems to me that your are trying to impose your opinion on the subject matter. You seem to think there was no substance to teh debates occuring within the party and that all these splits are an indication of the stupidity of Trotskyism. Whatever your opinion is, I think you should leave it out of editing this entry and allow the facts to presented.

Thank you.

Thank you for being more fair about the new version. I just want to say that it is an objective fact that the World Socialist Website is the most widely read international socialist news publication on the internet. I don't see why this fact needs to be hidden from users of wikipedia.

Check alexa.com, which allows you to compare the number of hits between different sites. www.wsws.org gets about as many hits per day as the Nation's website or Michael Moore's website and far more than the socialistworker or any other international socialist publication. If you discover otherwise, then I think you would be right to take that sentance out.

--The reasons given in the latest version for the departure of Wohlforth are simply wrong. There was never any charge made that Wohlforth was a CIA agent. The other material deleted is simply extraneous and presents the history of the WL/SEP as one of personalities and sexual intrigues, rather than fundamental political questions.

Please stop deleting material without an explanation. Especially since it was already discussed on this page and you have not responded to it. Please see below for what has already been said about Alexa.com and the WSWS. Do not change without discussion.

I explained why I removed it in the edit summary, and it has been extensively discussed elsewhere. There is already a link to the WSWS at the end of the article, and more detail is inappropriate here, as this article is only about the SEP in the United States. What would you like to discuss? Warofdreams talk 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriousness of Running Candidates in the Existing Electoral Process

Objectively what is the value of doing so on a write-in basis? This smells like a confession of fundamental intellectual bankruptcy and a failure of principle but perhaps it simply focuses attention on the contradictions involved in the individuals in question holding the positions they do. Eugene Debs got a million votes. A modern socialist should be able to do at least as well in the first cycle where they're seriously considered again which should be 2012 barring a conjunctural event in the interim. Lycurgus (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SEPlogo150.jpg

Image:SEPlogo150.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I added a rationale. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian section of the ICFI

Has the Indian section of the ICFI disappeared? When?61.46.254.69 (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. It existed four years ago, at least. --Soman (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

The information on elections should be placed in a separate section. In the history section, it gives the false impression that the SEP is a party primarily focused on winning elections. The actual policy is clearly stated here: http://wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml This article states that the primary purpose of the election in question is not actually to win it. I am working on a new section (Recent Interventions) that will help to give a more accurate overview of the party's range of activities. I found one news citation that I provided for this section, but the article needs more non-primary sources to get rid of the altert that states "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications." Possibly there should also be another section on the resolutions at recent conferences. RShahnazarian (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consensus. Proposed Citations expansion beginning August 21.

If there is consensus (per WP:CITEHOW), I'll expand the citations with author, date, publication/publisher using templates. My rationale is that

1. Some sources are videos. This is commonly indicated by "(Video)" or "(Flash video)" and can be generated using the format= or medium= template parameters.

2. Links die. See WP:LINKROT. The WP standard is to cite an archived link, while still noting the original link.

3. The publication, publisher, author and date of a citation aid the reader. I believe this is of importance within this particular article, which discusses historical factionalization.

Procedures like (1) and (2) both break the "title only" style. So, in for a penny, in for a pound. --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vote here

Party Color

Hello all, I am editing pages related to the 1984 US presidential election. I am noticing a void in specific party color for Worker's World. I think this would be a good color to use for the Socialist Equality Party, for political spreadsheets and the like:

Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks!

--7partparadigm ^talk 23:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist Equality Party (United States). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsws.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 10:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]