Talk:Labor Party (United States, 1996)

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

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).

On 16 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to South Carolina Workers Party. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Untitled

Regarding the move, is there a naming policy on political party articles I'm not familiar with? Obviously United States Democratic Party, United States Republican Party, United States Green Party need to be where they are in order to distinguish between parties of the same name in other countries. But there's nothing ambiguous about Labor Party of America, or Socialist Party of America, so shouldn't we be using their actual names? RadicalSubversiv E 23:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the naming policy is that it should be listed as United States XYZ unless there is some other name the party uses that is unambiguous. So Communist Party USA is fine, and Labor Party of America is fine, too, if that's what they call themselves. However, I did some research be for the switch, and I couldn't find anything that says Labor Party of America is the official name. Their bylaws online just says the name of the party is "Labor Party". I'm not sure about Socialist Party of America, either; I've only heard of the Socialist Party USA, but apparently the older group was "... of America." - Nat Kraus e 06:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. I was for some reason under the impession that Labor Party of America was the official name, but it's clearly not. Incidentally, the Socialist Party USA is one of the successor organizations to the Socialist Party of America, which eventually wound up in a three-way split, with none of the factions sticking to the original name. RadicalSubversiv E 07:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lp2.gif

Image:Lp2.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

Social Democratic or democratic socialist? Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperionalis (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were some of each; and a few of the folks involved I knew were more like Scoop Jackson supporters than anything else. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they still around?

Their homepage does not seem to have been updated since 2006 and that seems a long time for a political party. The copyright at the bottom also does not go past 2006 and their party newspaper does not seem to have been updated since 2005. Perhaps someone could try and find out if they are still a political party or not. I have tried to find some information, but I could not find anything. 76.183.160.130 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any signs of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make mention of it in the article that the party is probably now defunct while mentioning their homepage has not been updated since 2006. Then change it later if their is a sign that their is still life in this party. 76.183.160.130 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They ran a candidate in 2020 and I know multiple of their supporters, so yes they are indeed around but it seems only as a small scale operation in South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.173.208 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated to reflect recent changes, including a name change. RaptorJesus1918 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labor Party (United States, 1996). 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/20060906183657/http://www.thelaborparty.org/a_orange.html to http://www.thelaborparty.org/a_orange.html

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) 05:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Per lack of participation. NPASR. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Party (United States, 1996) → South Carolina Workers Party – Labor Party (1996) is now defunct but its history is still important to the now active SC Workers Party. RaptorJesus1918 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 16:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. ExtorcDev (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the info on the page and added new external links as well as images. RaptorJesus1918 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest to review WP:DEFUNCTS. Topics don't need to be currently active in order to be notable and worthy of an article on Wikipedia. From a cursory look at the article, the South Carolina organization is a branch, rather than the main body of this party. Is the prior party notable only for being a precursor of the South Carolina party? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The South Carolina branch was the only politically active section of the party for much of its life. The national party was essentially dead on arrival, in this sense it was the only relevant organ of the party. RaptorJesus1918 (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello - The Labor Party founded in 1996 is indeed notable for much more than its project in South Carolina. The Labor Party 1996 Wikipedia page should stand alone. It would be entirely appropriate for the SC Workers Party (which, by the way, was not sanctioned by the Labor Party) to have a separate page of their own. Robal96 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]