Talk:American Solidarity Party

Primary sources/notability

As it is now, this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. You will need references from reliable third-party sources. (See this page for a similar situation) Bulbajer (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Navbox

Having been reverted by PeRshGo with the following edit summary, I'm bringing the matter to the talk page for further discussion: "Cannot find anything in WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that explains this removal [of {{Christian Democracy sidebar}}]." Given that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional", I'm wondering why he or she believes this to be an exceptional circumstance. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words, the {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} contains links to several articles. However, the American Solidarity Party isn't one of the links in this template. Therefore, the ASP artice shouldn't include the Christian Democracy sidebar?

I agree that this is what the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL rule clearly states.

Is this actually common practice, however? Here is a test. Two of the links that are included in this sidebar are Christian Democrat Organization of America and European Christian Political Movement -- these are trans-national organizations that include parties from many different nations. These two articles each contain a long list of Christian Democratic parties in the Americas and in Europe, respectively. These individual parties are not individually listed in the sidebar. So they are all analogous to the ASP. Do they transclude this sidebar? I clicked on all 46 of these parties that have Wikipedia articles. Of the 46, only five transclude the sidebar! (Namely, Christian Union (Netherlands), National Action Party (Mexico), Christian Democrats (Sweden), Evangelical People's Party of Switzerland, and Party of Estonian Christian Democrats.) The remaining 41 out of 46 Christian-democratic party articles obey the BIDIRECTIONAL rule.

So it's not only the rule, it's also common practice. I vote that the sidebar should not be included on this page. Instead, following the example of most of these parties, in the See Also section there should be a simple link to Christian democracy. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: I must disagree with the last point, regarding linking to the article Christian democracy in the see also section. The aim of that is already accomplished by the link to the Christian democracy portal in the see also section. And, moreover, MOS:NAVLIST tells us that see also sections should not normally repeat links that are already in the body of the article.

Other than that, however, I completely agree. The central consensus on the matter is well-established and, if that were not enough, the current practice in this area is clear. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, given the portal, there's no need for a See Also. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "Economically liberal"

There's a dispute over whether the terms "economically liberal" and/or "economic liberalism" should be used to describe the views of the American Solidarity Party. I suggest that this should be resolved on the Talk page, not in an edit war.

Moreover, two different questions are intertwined in this dispute, and both need to be resolved.

1. On the spectrum of United States politics, what is the economic policy of the ASP? Reliable sources show that on economic matters (e.g., tax rates, government health care, social spending) the ASP is similar to the Democratic Party. (Of course, since the ASP is pro-life, they differ greatly with the Democrats with regard to government spending on abortion, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in the current debate.) Some ASPers are a bit to the right of the Democratic Party on economics; others are to the left (those identifying as "distributists"); and others are quite socialist (the "Dorothy Day caucus"), but overall the bell curve of economic views in the ASP is quite similar to the economic views among Americans who identify as Democrats.

2. What is the best description of the economic ideology described in #1? I claim that "economically liberal" / "economic liberalism" is the best description. Anyone familiar with American political discourse knows that, since the 1930s, these terms are identified with the moderate welfare state espoused by the Democratic Party. On the other hand, some other editors [1] argue that the term "economic liberalism" is used on Wikipedia to refer to the economic ideology espoused by the Libertarian Party (pure laissez-faire) and Republican Party (mostly laissez-faire), and prefer that the ASP's economic ideology be described as "Social market economy".

My argument: It is true that the term "liberal" refers to laissez-faire capitalism in Europe and Britain, and that the Wikipedia articles Libertarian Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States) use the term this way in their infoboxes. However, I argue that Wikipedia articles on American political parties should use ideological terms as they are used in the United States. In the United States, the German term "Social market economy" is virtually unknown. The term "mixed economy" is used by some pundits, but not many. The vast majority of voters, school teachers, and political pundits use the term "liberal" to refer to economic views that are left of the (American) center. As the excellent Wikipedia article Liberalism by country states, "In the United States, the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European and worldwide usage. In the United States today it is most associated with the definition of modern liberalism which is a combination of social liberalism, public welfare and a mixed economy, which is in contrast to classical liberalism."

Let the debate begin! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

2020 Presidential Election Results Table

I've got to say that the newly introduced election results table is quite ugly. Can we remove it, summarize it, transclude it from the Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election page, or at least borrow the formatting from that page? If it's going to stay, then the reference column should be eliminated and references should just be appended to the state names. Also, ballot eligibility, is likely better reflected by cell color than by a separate row. It's probably better to just remove it entirely and then link to the third party page for the election. Dhalsim2 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with that. When I made the table the one on the third party page did not yet exist but now that it does it is probably better to just link it as you have done.Baconheimian (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article neutering

A certain user has decided to remove most all information sourced from the ASP website, as well as the bulk of the history section, which was admittedly based on sources not typically seen by Wikipedia as reliable (Blogspot, Reddit, etc). The alternative, a nearly empty (i.e., useless) history section, seems undesirable, however, and at least some of the info deleted was in fact from news outlets or sources reporting on themselves or from inside the ASP. This will probably be an ongoing issue on this page, but I plan to restore the reliable information. natemup (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been uninvolved in this dispute so far, but after reviewing the edits and sources in question, I have to side with Avatar317 here. The sources unambiguously fail Wikipedia standards of reliability, as detailed at WP:SPS. I understand that it is frustrating that this means that the history section will not be a full accounting of every dispute within the party, but Wikipedia simply is not the place for original reporting, analysis, or synthesis. We cannot get ahead of our sources.

You also say that information sourced to the party itself was removed. First, I don't see that in the diffs. Second, even if it was the case, note that per WP:V these can only be used in very limited fashion for straightforward and uncontroversial items. An accounting of the disputes between factions within the party does not fall under this category, and really requires independent, reliable, third-party sources that meet WP:V. I support the removal of the content. MarginalCost (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The point is not to include every dispute, and my edits do not. The point is to include the relevant history of the party, as opposed to nearly no history at all. Besides, the sources are largely speaking on themselves and the organization they were running, which to my knowledge (and according to Wikipedia policy) mitigates the concern of self-published sources in this case. natemup (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd hope Avatar317 can weigh in here, but in any case, the type of things we usually admit self-published sources for are relatively uncontroversial and objective things like date of founding, membership size, official name etc. Factional conflicts, where everyone will have their own spin on how to frame what happened, do not fall into this bucket. MarginalCost (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with MarginalCost. Unless those elements of the history are IMPORTANT enough to be mentioned in Independent Sources, than (as I said on my edit summary): "Independent Sources are necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE detail that no one other than one organization's fans care about. from: WP:IS "A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage..." Many organizations have small history sections. Just because YOU (Natemup) think that a small history section is "undesirable" doesn't mean others feel the same way, and is no justification for ignoring Wikipedia's policies.

Minor and SHORT statements like the founding date are acceptable for self-sourcing, but generally NOT the founding reason, because that is often propagandistic. We don't discuss internal conflicts at corporations, either, unless the conflicts are so big that newspapers report on them. (Such as Timnit Gebru's dismissal from Google)...99.9% of people fired or layed off from Google are not mentioned in Wikipedia, nor the reasons for their dismissals...and that goes for ALL companies.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Improper synthesis in infobox

There is an improper synthesis in the infobox - no reliable, third-party source that is cited directly states the number of officeholders associated with the party. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have dropped my demand for the the sources to be third-party, and deleted the other sources that create the improper synthesis. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

American English Political Nomenclature

This article for an American political party should and is written in American English (and should predominately use the political nomenclature of the United States which in many case is considerable different from that of Europe and most of the rest of the world. Clarification for non-American English speakers can or should be made when necessary. This includes having having economic progressives equally positioned in the infobox along with social conservatism, this may look redundant to non-Americans, but terms like “Social democracy,” “Christian democracy,” and “Social market economy” are incomprehensible to Americans or most American English speakers who haven’t studied European and Latin American politics (even your average American political scientist who mostly focuses on US & Anglosphere politics) would have a hard time understanding these term, although terms like “Social democracy” and “Social market economy” already tells most non-American readers that the party is fiscally progressive (center-left on economic issues) but far-left by mainstream American standards. To the average American reader, when you retain those terms rarely used in American English, retain “social conservatism” and remove “economic progressivism in the infobox, you’re making it seem like the sole ideology and position of the party is being “socially conservative” (center-right) which is only a portion of their ideological leanings, adding “economic progressivism” (left-wing to center-left) will give a fuller picture on the ideological positions of the party. To most Americans (of which who rarely know about Continental European and Latin American political thought/vocabulary) seeing terms like “Christian democracy” and “social conservatism” without the complementing term “economic progressivism” when describing the party, makes it look like the sole purpose of the party is being a far-right conservative-in-all-aspects party, overlooking its progressive leftist (by American standards / center-left by European standards) position on the economy, immigration, multi-culturalismes, anti-death penalty view, etc. 76.78.140.168 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• The articles for political ideologies are written in such a way that the opening paragraphs will tell you all the information you need to know, as should all Wikipedia articles. I still stand by not including economic progressivism in the infobox merely because I haven't seen it used anywhere else (the only thing to come close is "economic interventionism," which I have seen rarely), and it also sounds redundant considering SOME and social democracy is listed there as I stated before. Furthermore, the opening paragraph states that it is economically/fiscally progressive, and whereas the Libertarian Party's article states that it is "more culturally liberal than the Democrats, more fiscally conservative than the Republicans," this has a similar effect. I assure you readers will understand that this party mixes some ideals from both the Dems and GOP, and if they do not understand what "social democracy" or "social market economy" means, they can just click the hyperlink and learn it easily. Additionally, "social democracy" is listed as an ideology on the Working Families and Labor party articles, both of which are also American political parties.
  
  As with all other good faith editors, I appreciate your contributions. However, this is becoming an edit war over such a trivial thing and therefore I ask you to hold off on this until a consensus is made. - Rediculizer42 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the Liberation Caucus (the officially anti-capitalist faction) notable and large enough to be on the page?

As a supporter of the Caucus myself, I think it's cool to see it be referenced, but from an objective viewpoint I question whether it's a true faction yet (it was just created). It seems misleading to say that the party has a socialist faction when socialists are themselves just a faction of the Liberation Caucus, which is tiny itself. XP6287 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dorothy Day was also an anti capitalist Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Catholic worker movement Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The American Solidarity Party is referred to as economically progressive wouldn’t this translate to adding left wing to ideologies

Any thoughts? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Which independent, reliable sources call this party "left wing"? Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

Add redirect from "ASP"/"asp". I'm not the techiest and can't do it myself. Brdyfrnds (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Typing "ASP" leads to a disambiguation page; someone searching those letters could reasonably mean the Afro-Shirazi Party or Association of Software Professionals. I don't think the powers that be would be particularly happy if we made a unilateral redirect. XP6287 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)