Talk:English-language press of the Communist Party USA

Needs lots of work

This page is a little bit of a disaster the way it sits. Publications at the bottom need to be integrated into the main list, dates of publication — establishment and disestablishment — need to be added for each. Things need to be alphabetized. The names dropped as editors or contributors need to have years attached. Earlier and later publications need to be added. In short: it's a huge job ahead.

That said, there's some pretty good information here and the list is useful, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's getting there. I've been busting my hump to get the foreign language stuff up to snuff first. It's probably going to wind up long and unwieldy enough that it will need to be broken between English-language and Non-English material in the end... There are still a number of very important English-language publications not included and they all need to be dated and better descriptions written — but Rome wasn't built in a day. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

HUAC as a Source

Is it legitimate to use HUAC as a source on so-called Communist papers? As is well known, during the 1950s Red Scare many left of center organizations and individuals were accused of being Red Fronts. I don't think HUAC can be considered a legit NPOV source for what is and is not a Red periodical. Maybe we can have a section on papers accused of being Red. Even if we were to accept that some of these papers were so-called "fellow travelers", it should still be differentiated from actual Party publications such as the Daily Worker.

Perhaps this is the influence of Conservapedia as related in the above OTRS ticket. --Gary123 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)