The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate (the Social Democrats USA and Puerto Rican Independence Party are also SI members, but they are much smaller) of the Socialist International, which includes socialist parties as diverse as the Swedish Social Democrats, Canada's NDP, Nicaragua's FSLN, Palestine (region)'s Fatah (associate), Israel's Israel_Labour_Party and Yachad, and the British Labour Party (UK). DSA was formed in 1983 from a merger of Michael Harrington's Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (the largest remnant of the defunct Socialist Party of America) and the New American Movement, a coalition of writers and intellectuals with roots in both the "Old" and the "New" left. 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. Among DSA's notable members are AFL-CIO President John Sweeney (trade unionist), feminist Gloria Steinem, actor Ed Asner, author Barbara Ehrenreich, scholar and activist Cornel West, and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky. A few current and former members of United States Congress have, or have had, membership or other ties to the organization, including: Major Owens (D-New York), a DSA member; Ron Dellums (D-California), a former member; Danny K. Davis (D-Illinois), rumored to be a member; and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who has spoken to DSA conferences. While many Democratic Socialists are also members of the United States Democratic Party, electoral politics have been a secondary concern throughout the history of the organization. The main aim of DSA is to promote socialist ideas within the broader progressive social movements in American politics. On electoral questions, the organization supports what it calls the "left wing of the possible" on a case by case scenario, which meant being neutral in the 2000 Presidential race and backing John Kerry in 2004. DSA members have at times been elected to public office at the local, state, and federal level, both as Democratic Party and non-partisan candidates. DSA's involvement in Democratic politics has been a matter of some controversy with other socialists, particularly in the Socialist Party USA, who would prefer to see it support only explicitly socialist candidates. See also: List of political parties in the United States ==External link== *[http://www.dsausa.org Official site]
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. User: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? User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 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. User: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 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:wikiquette (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. :User:Radicalsubversiv User talk:Radicalsubversiv 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. User: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. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Democratic_Socialists_of_America:
Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Democratic Socialists of America
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate (the Social Democrats USA and Puerto Rican Independence Party are also SI members, but they are much smaller) of the Socialist International, which includes socialist parties as diverse as the Swedish Social Democrats, Canada's NDP, Nicaragua's FSLN, Palestine (region)'s Fatah (associate), Israel's Israel_Labour_Party and Yachad, and the British Labour Party (UK). DSA was formed in 1983 from a merger of Michael Harrington's Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (the largest remnant of the defunct Socialist Party of America) and the New American Movement, a coalition of writers and intellectuals with roots in both the "Old" and the "New" left. 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. Among DSA's notable members are AFL-CIO President John Sweeney (trade unionist), feminist Gloria Steinem, actor Ed Asner, author Barbara Ehrenreich, scholar and activist Cornel West, and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky. A few current and former members of United States Congress have, or have had, membership or other ties to the organization, including: Major Owens (D-New York), a DSA member; Ron Dellums (D-California), a former member; Danny K. Davis (D-Illinois), rumored to be a member; and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who has spoken to DSA conferences. While many Democratic Socialists are also members of the United States Democratic Party, electoral politics have been a secondary concern throughout the history of the organization. The main aim of DSA is to promote socialist ideas within the broader progressive social movements in American politics. On electoral questions, the organization supports what it calls the "left wing of the possible" on a case by case scenario, which meant being neutral in the 2000 Presidential race and backing John Kerry in 2004. DSA members have at times been elected to public office at the local, state, and federal level, both as Democratic Party and non-partisan candidates. DSA's involvement in Democratic politics has been a matter of some controversy with other socialists, particularly in the Socialist Party USA, who would prefer to see it support only explicitly socialist candidates. See also: List of political parties in the United States ==External link== *[http://www.dsausa.org Official site]
Democratic Socialists of America
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. User: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? User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 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. User: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 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:wikiquette (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. :User:Radicalsubversiv User talk:Radicalsubversiv 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. User: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. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Democratic_Socialists_of_America:
Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
