Talk:International Workers Party

Untitled

This entire article has been removed by vandals except for the first sentence. Curiously this was done the same day that a major story broke in the New York media exposing the IWP's Lenora Fulani. Thus wikipedia's IWP article (which has been vetted by several experts and former members of the group in question) has been unavailable to the media at a time when it would be most useful on this subject. This is the same type of vandalism that followers of Lyndon Larouche engage in. I hope that wikipedia's editors will correct this situation speedily.--April 2005

After this article was restored, substantial changes were made on May 1. To the latest editor's credit, he or she did not try to throw out the previous Wikipedia version and produce a piece of pure propaganda in the way the LaRouchians are fond of doing. I have kept a number of the changes but there were some things that I just couldn't let pass. For instance, the reference to ex-IWPers who have criticisms of Newman as being "angry former members." And the reference to the Newmanites as "less dogmatic" than the Class Unity Faction of the IWP. These are word games that have the effect of demeaning former members who have spoken out. I feel strongly about this because I know these people (including the former Class Unity folk) to be individuals of courage and integrity.

I also removed the absurd rhetorical questions about the IWP: Did it ever exist? Does it still exist? Of course it exists--it published a public newspaper The International Worker from 1974-76. It had a little red membership book that included the names of the Central Committee members. Since 1976 it has continued to circulate party documents internally; such documents of recent (since 2001) provenance have been quoted in the New York Post. Even some of the latest wikipedia contributor's own sentences confirm its ongoing existence up through the 1990s. Anyone with any doubts can go to ex-iwp.org and read huge amounts of material on the IWP. Do you think webmaster Marina Ortiz simply made all this up???

I disputed in detail the Newmanite claim to be the first people to denounce LaRouche's turn to the right. This claim is so far from the truth that I can only compare it to someone saying the Moon is made of lime-pie filling.

I also removed the claim that Lenora Fulani led the black community in New York in an upsurge for Michael Bloomberg. If the latest editor wants to make such an extraordinary statement (as opposed to simply saying that Independence Party voters of a variety of ethnic backgrounds gave Bloomberg his margin of victory), he or she should provide evidence from the election returns, petitions, etc. I have no objection to this claim being restored if the person making it can provide adequate data.

I removed the jargon words like "independent progressive"; if the latest editor wants to restore them, he or she should put them in quotation marks and clearly state that this is a term used by the Newmanites specifically to describe themselves and certain forces they are or have been allied with in the third party electoral political movement, and that many people think the term is misleading. It would be helpful also to define the term in a precise manner. What does "independent" really mean? Is the former Newmanite ally Pat Buchanan an independent?

Newman and Fulani do claim to be influenced by Vygotsky, and it is true that their foray into primary education (the Barbara Taylor school) purported to utilize such Vygotskian concepts as the "Zone of Proximal Development" (I didn't mention it in the article, because the article is about the IWP, not about Newmanite educational endeavors; there are several other Wikipedia articles on various aspects of the Newman movement where a more detailed comparison of their views and Vygotsky's could appropriately be made). But I just don't see any connection between Vygotsky and social therapy or Vygotsky and Newman's philosophical views, and certainly none between Vygotsky and the Newman group's political activities. Vygotsky's collected works are available in English, as is a masterful summary of his work by the Canadian psychologist David Lethbridge ("Mind in the World," Minneapolis: MEP Publications, 1992; see Part III). Wikipedia readers can check this out for themselves.

I removed the references to Fulani and Newman as "Dr." They both have Ph.D.s, as the Wikipedia articles on them either point out or should point out, but neither of them is a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist or any kind of medical doctor. Thus the use of the honorific in M.D. style is inherently misleading in an article discussing a group that bases itself on psychotherapy. (Newman's doctorate is in Philosophy.) Furthermore it is not the practice in American journalism to refer to Ph.D.s as "Dr." when they are being written about as political candidates or activists. If Fulani were being interviewed specifically on her academic specialty it would certainly be reasonable to quote her as "Dr. Fulani." But in the IWP article she is dealt with as a political figure.

I note that the latest editor doesn't like the term "Newmanite." This amuses me, because I recall how the Newmanites marched through the streets of lower Manhattan around 1994 chanting that they were proud to be "Newmanites" and that it was "all right" to call them that. This was on the front page of their newspaper the National Alliance.

Finally I restored the quote from Fulani in which she calls herself a "post-modern Bolshevik." She said it, in print, in an academic anthology. And why should a follower of hers want to remove it? The statement shows she has a sense of humor. -- Dennis King, May 8, 2005

This is a Personal Essay by Dennis King, not an encyclopedia article

And full of serious WP:BLP issues.

The article was simultaneously posted on King's personal website and "announced" anonymously on another Newman obsessed site. This is not an encyclopedia entry. It is a personal essay, and Wikipedia is simply not a place for biased, POV, BLP violating personal obsessions that the author cannot find a reputable, or even a disreputable, publisher for. BabyDweezil 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Total POV nonsense from an advocate. Reverted.--Cberlet 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

removing unsourced information

Since this article has been thoroughly marked as needing citations for years, and none have been provided, I've removed the bulk of the unsourced text. Please feel free to restore any text that can be sourced to reliable sources per our core policy on verifiability. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)