Talk:Daily Worker

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.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Was the British Daily Worker the same paper or another publication? TIA, Mmartins

DJSilverfish: as the CPUSA articulates, the CPUSA was a Comintern organization, and not a domestic enterprise seeking a domestic agenda; neither were its objectives limited to domestic politics. Its funding sources also, were not entitely domestic. This is a disception, to state that the New Masses were a Communist Party of the USA publication, because both adhered to the Communist International Party line, and this needs to be clearly articulated, given Comintern activities worldwide in the 1920s, 30s & 40s. Nobs01 18:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The relationship of the CPUSA to the ComIntern is well known and has been clearly articulated in the CPUSA entry. The Daily Worker outlasted the ComIntern by more than ten years, so the emphatic reference to DW being "a Comintern publication" in the first sentence is factually incorrect. To go further and insist that the CPUSA was not even a domestic organization is to overstate the international character of the movement. It did have domestic roots after all and filled a domestic niche, like the Socialist Workers Party (US). Foreign funding may have helped the CPUSA out compete groups that did not receive such funding, but its speculative to say even that.

Regarding the publications, it is more correct to say that "New Masses" was a publication of the Communist Party USA, since this is how the magazine was collected, printed, distributed and sold. Beyond that we can characterize the publications in different ways at different times. The editorial line in the "New Masses" and the "Daily Worker" was more or less rigid depending on the politics of the party: more rigid in the Third Period, less rigid in the Popular Front period. As the article on John Gates explains, the Daily Worker reacted in a fairly open way to Kruschev's Secret Speech and the Hungarian Revolution. It is your opinion that the CPUSA was a wholely foreign enterprize and this POV is clear in your edits. The history of the party is more complicated than that. Your sources are interesting, so I appreciate your research. Eventually, balance will be restored, incorporating your work. DJ Silverfish 19:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good, and thank you. My point being in its origins til the dissolution of the Comintern 1943 it can be considered a Comintern publication, and it's founding or start up costs in all probability came from the Soviet Union. I would suspect this Comintern enterprise probably became self supporting and didnt need assitance later (just a guess though). It probably, as commercial enterprises go, was one of the Comintern more successful ventures.Nobs01 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This publication appears in an episode of Seinfeld (S6 E10, "The Race") - worth mentioning?

I just added a bit about it. OK with any Seinfeld lovers checking the page? - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Worker redirects here but needs to be dab'd from the Charlie Drake sitcom. Lee M 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Worker. 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/20080821121821/http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/01/11/06 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/01/11/06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daily Worker. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After WW-II[edit]

The section Post-World War II is confusing over the paper in the 1950s. The phrase "After a short hiatus" has no clear meaning if one does not reminds there that the publication did not stop with the popular front and the war, but went on to 1958. (But English is not my mother language.) Dominique Meeùs (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]