Talk:Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Van Jones#Earlier activism]] The anchor (#Earlier activism) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Reframed

This is all based on one anonymous document that has been widely circulated via right-wing sources, and does not seem to be available on any site that is in any way associated with a group like STORM.

Glenn Beck also seems to be responsible for making that document popular, I'm not sure if he is the earliest source for the document, he claims to have gotten it from another right wing source.

I rewrote it to reflect this fact (see below). If someone can provide any evidence that this is more than a hoax, please add that evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing hoax?

Is this another Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

The source for this article appears to be this suspect document:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41671/ http://media.glennbeck.com/downloads/10/06/STORMSummation.pdf

Reading this, it seems to present a vague right-wing stereotype of the scary left, written in the first-person plural, but it doesn't read like documents from real left-wing terrorist organizations. It reads more like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though better written, detailing a broad conspiracy using the kind of language those on the right would typically use in conspiracy theories.

Is this a hoax or a genuine document? If it's not a hoax, can anyone provide some real evidence of who wrote this, tie its contents to real events, etc?

I can see one historical news reference indicating that an organization by this name probably existed:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the-new-face-of-environmentalism/

But I'm looking for better evidence than what I see there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. STORM definitely existed. I have met people that used to be in it, and quite openly say so. I read the document in question several years before 2010 (on Scribd it was uploaded in 2009: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19285402/STORM-Manifesto). The document is too spot-on (in politics, wording, and tone) to be a right-wing hoax. It is, after all, a statement from a group of revolutionaries (note, not terrorists) deriving lessons from their group's experience for the benefit of the revolutionary Left as a whole. It does that, and it does that well. How is that possibly a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemokid70 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also circulated among leftists circles and is a vital part of contemporary american communism. See this reference from the freedom road socialist organization http://www.freedomroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16:meeting-the-challenge-of-crisis-and-opportunity-left-refoundation-and-party-building&catid=175:us-left-a-left-refoundation&Itemid=228&lang=es (there are numerous other references on their site.) 24.20.47.124 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blatently Bias

STORM was not a communist organization though some communists were in it. This should have neutrality tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is helpful, but a long time ago I copied the directory where this document had been stored. https://archive.org/details/ReclaimingRevolution/page/n1/mode/2up

There is deep connection to communist roots and philosophy in the document. Here are just a few.

"We now believed that revolutionary Marxist politics would be central to the development of a successful liberation movement in this country. We also thought that we needed to build an organization that maintained its commitment to these politics."

"STORM continued its political development through study, particularly of the Third World communist tradition."

"July 1998, three Core Members went to South Africa to attend the Congress of the South African Communist Party (SACP).The Congress was crucial in solidifying these three members' commitment to Third World Marxist politics.At the Congress, they saw hundreds of working class Africans who proudly called themselves Marxists and who were deeply engaged in serious political struggle. We saw how powerful Marxism has been and can be for liberation movements made up of and led by people of color."

If you observe the style, monikers, and content in relation to CPUSA.COM, it is clear the two groups spoke exactly the same language.

As I recall, at least one member of the Weather Underground was a member of STORM. The WU was overt... it explicitly stated its intent was to replace capitalism with communism.

Part of the intent of the STORM manifesto was to maintain ground as revolutionists... not to forget the lessons learned. As you study progress of revolutionaries inside the U.S., it is clear one thing they learned was to give as little usable content/ammo as possible to "enemy" media, police, the FBI, etc.. An important element of this was not to disclose names, but only focus on effective philosophy, strategy and tactics.

The fact that Wiki monitors are discussing the validity through tying names to the organization, itself, demonstrates the probable effectiveness of the members. The methods are classic communist obfuscation. 2600:8801:425:0:B1DF:26B2:3B2E:3885 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Jones

It is incorrect to say that Van Jones started STORM. He appears to have been involved quite early - perhaps even at the beginning - but did not start the organization. He did, however, start the Ella Baker organization. --AStanhope (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be revised for neutrality or deleted, its blindingly biased

The article presents absolutely no evidence at all that the organization it discusses is or was "communist" or "increasingly communist." The article needs to be corrected. --RichardKatz (talk) 8 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Katz (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article

This Wikipedia article has no reliable sources, and a single non-reliable, self-published document of dubious origin. Recent edits have attempted to cite an opinion piece from this website (which even warns that it publishes "not true" material) for the assertion of facts. There have also been recent attempts to insert the names of living persons while alleging "controversy", without the required high quality reliable sources. This article is a likely candidate for deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reliable sources. If you want to remove reliable sources you must explain why each of them is unreliable. Shii (tock) 15:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD: you added unreliable sourcing and unsupported content to the article -- that bold edit was reverted -- now, please discuss and resolve the above mentioned concerns instead of edit warring your edits into the article. Thank you, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Wow, I just stopped by your user page to leave a note and I discover you are an administrator?(!) I'll address any further edit warring at the more appropriate WP:ANI instead of here, should it become necessary. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the BLP issues, you cited the first sentence of the lede to an opinion piece by the "Ventura County Republican Party chairman" and an unpublished web document of unknown origin. Really bad form. How about we try to improve the article with Wikipedia-compliant reliable sources? I'm sure there must be some out there. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about, I cited FIVE sources. You only mentioned two. Shii (tock) 23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on all of the sources you inserted, and I removed 4 of them for the reasons stated above. If you have any questions about why any particular citation was moved or removed, I would be happy to answer those questions. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm responding to the WP:Third opinion request made about this page. Please have patience and I will get back with my comments. --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the conflict -- I added another source after you replied here. Shii (tock) 00:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FormerIP. Any constructive input you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

This looks like to me like the issue is whether the topic passes WP:GNG. Based on the sourcing currently used for the article, I'd say there is a good chance that it doesn't. The authorship of the Reclaiming Revolution pdf on Internet Archive is unclear. Unless some authentication of it is available, it is difficult to see how it can be used even as a primary source, and GNG can't be passed on the basis of a primary source in any case. The article from the ColorLines website and the book about Glenn Beck mention the organisation only in passing and also provide no indication as to its notability. The East Bay Express provides a little more information, but it's a low-grade source and also only really mentions the organisation as background.

All said, I would suggest that, where it is not possible to find a single reliable source which pays significant attention to the existence of an organisation, then it fails GNG.

I hadn't heard of Van Jones. It seems that he is a notable individual, but that doesn't mean that everything he has ever come into contact with is notable.

I would recommend that the article be nominated for WP:AfD. If substantially more impressive sources can be found, maybe it would be kept. Otherwise, I think this is an easy delete. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great point. I would not claim this organization did anything notable beyond merely employing Van Jones, and it probably was not a full time job for him. It would be better to make this a line in the Van Jones article using the exact phrasing of the three currently cited sources I found, in order to prevent any disputes over what exactly the group was doing. Shii (tock) 01:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, any problems with doing a redirect, or alternatively a swift deletion? Or you can make an AFD nomination if you prefer Shii (tock) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, and as FormerIP appears to agree, this article is a prime candidate for deletion. 'STORM' appears to be a small, short-lived group of "social change activists" who never did anything notable. It can be noted in the Van Jones article that he had an association with such a group, and that political opponents tried to raise that as controversial (in fact, I think his article already notes this), but the group itself isn't notable. In fact, it doesn't appear the group was even ever in a position to "employ" anyone, even part time. If there are no objections, I'll tag it with an 'A7' criteria speedy delete and notify the original creator of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Shii (tock) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion needed

User:Xenophrenic and myself are having a disagreement over whether this talk page should be redirected. (Note, there is no disagreement about the article itself not existing.) My position is that it documents the consensus that led to the article being redirected. His position is that since there is no article, there should be no talk page too. A Third opinion is thus needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above does not accurately describe the disagreement that exists between ThaddeusB and myself. For the actual disagreement, please see this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of uncivil behavior are not really relevant to this article. I have chosen not to dispute the target of the redirect, so the only actual issue to be decided, as far as the article is concerned, is whether the talk page should exist or not. Since you have declined to state your reasons why it shouldn't exist here, I can't seek a 3O. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cite on my side the fact that every policy page on reaching consensus uses words like "close" the discussion when it is finished (if necessary) or in some cases "archive" it, but never uses words like "delete" or "remove". I further point to the fact that XfD discussions are never deleted. I also point to talk page policy which says not to remove comments by other users except in very specific circumstances. Finally, I note that the default option across Wikipedia is to preserve the status quo - in this case the existence of the talk page is the status quo.

If there was an XfD that led to the redirection of the article, then the talk page would be unnecessary. There is no such discussion, so this talk page is the only documentation of the consensus to eliminate the content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]