Talk:Workers World Party

Poorly written
This article is really, really odd and doesn't seem to jive with the tone of the rest of the wiki. Anyone wanna take a crack at rewriting it? --98.194.81.104 (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides all of the unsourced statements, this article seems to have a racial prejudice bent. Whoever wrote it bashes the 1960s riots in Black, urban communities which, AFAIK, were motivated by the assassinations of civil rights leaders well as the continued entrenchment of poverty and Jim Crow. I also looked up which is the practice of transporting students to public schools in order to desegregate them yet the article casts doubt on it as an anti-racist practice. Lastly, I haven't looked very hard, but I can't find 's (which the article refers to as Committee to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary) association with WWP; WP doesn't have any info on there supposedly hardline stance on Affirmative Action.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Knowing the context behind race riots doesn't mean one has to find them justified or excuse them, unless you think that rioters wrecking havok is a good means of expression. I know you have horribly warped opinions on political thuggery, don't spread them to the entire wiki. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While Owlman certainly has a point about the forced busings and the reasons behind race riots (and likely the affirmative action stuff), the overall tone of the article against this supposed deplorable tankie organization is spot-on. Reverend Black Percy (talk)

Percy|talk]])
 * @NFH Clearly, you didn't actually read the article and instead just stalked me. That article snarkily bashes them as "heroic black uprisings" and sarcastically puts them down as not being "elevated class consciousness" but I wouldn't expect a racist calling Black people's anger "political thuggery" to be that nuanced.
 * @RBP Sure, if the tankie stuff is true, then this article is completely missional which is why I didn't mark it down as a Afd.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, idiot. There's nothing racist in calling either violent riots that lead to death, injury and destruction of property or the torching of offices "thuggery". That's what thuggery is, and you bloviating about "racial prejudice bent" changes nothing of that. You're excusing the riots by "anger", I'm rejecting that line of thought entirely. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and "thuggery" has always been used against Blacks but let's look at this "political thuggery" shall we. Did African Americans stone any poor White men to death, did they kidnap a young White boy in the night and lynch them, did they beat to death any random White bystanders? No, well I am sure you can point me towards the Black politicians who agitated for violence in order to uphold Black supremacy... oh wait, there weren't any Black politicians. Then, maybe they were angry at Whites demanding that they get equal treatment... shit, I forgot Whites had all the power. So why did they riot; maybe it was because instead of protecting the civil rights leaders the FBI and other police forces decided to spy on them and persecute them. So yeah, your logic makes you a useful idiot to white supremacists, dipshit. Also, I doubt you did read the article since the author writes lambasts affirmative action and forced busing as racist and ineffective w/o sources.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys, guys, guys... I think we can all agree that african american riots during the 60's were fueled by a most open-and-shut case of systemic racial discrimination against that ethnic group. That being said, one could certainly take the line of Dr. King or Ghandi and concede that a philosophy of absolute nonviolence is the only morally defendable option, even so. But we should remember that neither Dr. King nor Ghandi advocated inaction, or passivity to the status quo. Everyone should therefore be able to agree that the black community had the perogative (and every right) to get in the face of the system during those days. And that that by necessity meant friction, conflict and controversy — which represented the qualms of the haters, not any problem stemming from black action, per se. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Did African Americans do any of these incredibly specific and irrelevant things towards White people?" No, what they did is that they started riots that led to more than a hundred deaths and thousand of injuries. If African-Americans can legitimately kill hundreds and injure thousands in riots to make their voices heard, why shouldn't White supremacists hang colored folks from trees is they feel that's how they'll be heard, uh? Aside from "well they're obviously wrong, brutal violence is only right when causes I support do it? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice bullshit stats but I will breakdown each riots' death count.


 * Rochester, N.Y. 1964, 4 dead (3 from helicopter crash)
 * Harlem, N.Y. 1964, 1 dead
 * Philidelphia, PA 1964, no deaths
 * Watts, CA 1965, 34 deaths (31 killed by police officers)
 * Hough, OH 1966, 4 deaths (all by unknown gunman)
 * Omaha, NE 1966, no deaths
 * Newark, NJ 1967, 28 killed (clash between cops and rioters)
 * Plainesfield, NJ 1967, one killed (a cop who was surrounded by rioters)
 * Detroit, MI 1967, 43 deaths (33 Black 10 White; 17 Blacks killed by cops)
 * Omaha, NE 1968, 1 death (Black teen killed by a cop)
 * Chicago, IL 1968, 11 deaths
 * Washinton, DC 1968, 12 deaths
 * Baltimore, M.D. 1968, 6 deaths (one from a traffic accident)
 * Glenville, OH 1968, 9 deaths (7 from an early shoot out, 2 from the riot)
 * Omaha, NE 1969, 1 death (Black teen killed by a cop starting the riot)

That was a whole decade of riots which didn't result in "hundreds of deaths" nor did Blacks kill most of them; in several cases they were the main ones dying.

In almost all cases, the riots were caused by poverty, racial segregation, and police negligence and brutality; in Omaha, NE 1968, the riot was caused by Whites attacking protesters.

In most cases, the mobs didn't target White people and those who were attacked weren't attacked for demanding equal rights.

In Washington, DC 1968, the J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI director, suggested that rioters should be shot. Spiro Agnew became Nixon's VP because of his racist remarks after the Baltimore riot in order to cull George Wallace's supporters.

Now, let us compare these riots to one riot by White supremacists: the 1921 Tulsa, OK race riot killed upwards of 300 people, burned down 31 districts of the richest Black neighborhood in the US, and forced many Blacks out of the city while the National Guard firebombed Blacks in the city.

To compare these riots to what White supremacists did is sickening and a fallacious "just as bad" bullshit narrative. I also never said I supported the riots, as I have said before, only that the article bashed Blacks for fare rioting. So, again, you are a disgusting racist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What the article needs above all else
...is sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

kill it with fire
this article is fucking atrocious. it needs a complete rewrite or should be deleted. the above bickering seems to ignore the article is a steaming pile of shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, how about starting the AfD, ? Bongolian (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Badly Written
Not sure why ya'll ask for help improving the article when you immediately revert very minor changes or clarifications.
 * The article doesn't need apologia for murders, nor victim blaming. If that's all you have to add, you have nothing worth hearing. 02:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's take an example we would both be comfortable condemning absolutely, say Nazism. Condemnation of Nazism that accurately characterizes its views is far more effective than condemnation that does not. Absent accuracy, what are you actually condemning? If WWP are apologists for atrocities, as you say, an accurate characterization of their apologism would give grounds for condemning it. The article presently does not.
 * Hey, ! Nerd (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You either cannot read or are dishonest. I'm calling you an apologist. From this edit: Removed "Supported the crackdown in Tiananmen Square, even though by that time they regarded the Chinese government as "reactionary." Just fun seeing those tanks rolling and showing those pesky students who's boss, huh?" and changed it to "Supported the crackdown in Tiananmen Square, even though by that time they regarded the Chinese government as "reactionary," considering the dominant forces within the student movement to be pro capitalist". Considering the fact that the Tianamen Square massacre is widely held to be a fucking human rights  violation, excusing it with a "well they were capitalists" and a heavily implicit "they deserved it" is truly sickening.  03:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Really going out of your way to live up to the "rational" name, I see. Any plain english reading of "considering" clearly indicates that it is describing the views of the WWP, not presenting them as fact.--172.58.23.234 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)just_passing_by