Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Publications and periodicals[edit]

This whole section needs to be fixed up. This is just an index of a library's collection in New York, but is not systematic or updated. Much of this is related to historical files from the 1970s and doesn't include their recent output or seminal works.

The list is not taken from a particular archive, but is meant to be an indication of what the RCP was producing at in its formative period. In the future, rather than wholesale deletions of sections that you'd like to rework, either do the work, or move the section to this Talk page for discussion. DJ Silverfish 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This list is not representitive, rather it is a repost of the archives at NYU's labor library archives -- an entirely partial list of one 2-year period. Most of these publications were short-lived local papers before national consolidation, over 25 years ago... That was my thinking, and it would make much more sense to list relevent national publications, maybe with a note that they once ran localized editions... but the ettiquette is understood...

I've removed the 30-year old pamphlets. Currently the RCP prints Revolution, but the other stuff is just clutter.Bandit alley (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi ender,

I have removed the bit about SL's terrorist label in this article not because I don't think it's true, but because this is the wrong context for that information. That information belongs on the page for Shining Path (and I believe it is there). But having it here seems to me just like an attempt to label RCP, USA as a terrorist group by association, because they are in the same Maoist league as SL & the Nepalese maoists. We already say that RCP, USA advocates revolutionary Maoist warfare in the US; there's no reason to include tangential information to try to force inferences on the reader.



I restored the article to a previous edit. Someone changed the article to remove any negative point of view and only show a positive point of view.



I have removed two links which are now defunct.

Page moved[edit]

The comma is used at, so we'll use it here (instead of parenthesis). --Jiang 22:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ending for article[edit]

The last sentence sounds kind of terse: "The document also puts forward Bob Avakian as a great leader." Also the article seems to focus on some perceived negative aspects of the RCP's work and ideology, such as the only part of the new programme of the party that was mentioned being the change of line on homosexuality. The article also does not mention at all the party's newspaper except for a link; I think it should be mentioned at least in a paragraph because it is one of the main parts of the party that's known to people. Also the work that the party does in the projects should be mentioned.

Refuse and Resist[edit]

I removed the new paragraph and links on Refuse and Resist to this page for discussion. I tried to remove the POV from the text in the article itself. Claiming unanimity of opinion is overstating the case. Horowitz is pretty out there. RCP members or supporters may be leaders in some chapters and not in others. I will cite this if possible and add it to the article.

POV: RCP is thought to maintain a front group called Refuse & Resist! (RnR). RnR does not articulate clearly Maoist viewpoints. RnR acts on behalf of many anarchist and left-wing causes like the anti-war movement and the case for Mumia Abu-Jamal. RnR has been known to covertly fundraise through its Youth Network on behalf of the RCP. Both the radical right and the radical left seem united in this theory of RnR being a front group for the RCP. Below are links to an anarchist infoshop website, and an article by Michelle Goldberg from a conservative magazine that both that acknowledge the connection. The conservative ex-Marxist, David Horowitz, edits FrontPage Magazine that published Michelle Goldberg’s article.

Refuse & Resist! an RCP Front?

DJ Silverfish 15:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, i am newly registered and am really digging the whole process, anyway, I really appreciated your changes, they were deft.
in peace
Fluid~axiom 08:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV and Avakian[edit]

I removed the following update by anonymous one-time user

Although the RCP puts forth a Socialist agnda they are isolated from many Socialists and Communists in the United States and abroad due to the Authoritarian way the RCP is run by Avakian. Many expect the RCP to die off with the death of Avakian and his cult of personality.

I removed it for POV and foretelling the future, but I'm placing it here because it raises the issue of the centrality of Avakian to the RCP. DJ Silverfish 14:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Many believe the truth expounded by Avakian and RCP will live on after the former dies.

Plain Dealer article[edit]

The Plain Dealer article is gone now. Here's the URL in case the archives ever become accessible:

DJ Silverfish 20:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland PD article[edit]

I can still get this from - if that doesn't work for you it's definitely still on Google's cache. It's the printer-friendly version that includes the article in the entirety, someone should save it and upload it to an independent website for archival.

I used the URL for the print page and restored the link. The Google cache link would be too long, but if somebody objects to the print window, then we could use that. DJ Silverfish 18:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


There's recently been some controversy on the H. Bruce Franklin article about various issues, so I e-mailed Franklin to ask for his side of things. This article's depiction of Venceremos seems to contradict Franklin's own account in several ways. I've tried to summarize the various points of view on the split in the Franklin article, and I think the RCP article, in its present state, is either wrong or unbalanced.--Bcrowell 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody should mention the fact that the RCP doesnt have a very clear organization, and the fact that it is extremely difficult to enter into the official party ranks. The RCP, does in fact patronize minority groups into joining its viewpoint, but not the party. There's also a very elusive command structure, the lack of appearance by the actual Chairman himself, and the unclear and oft-sounding Utopian idealist program for the future isn't well-established. The RCP is a very large and sloppy party, with muddled ideas and a defenite cult of personalty. And I know people would say it was POV, thats why i posted here. I am an active member in various groups in the LA region of the party, and I can tell you the aforementioned from experience with this group and on my word.(UTC)

Check out the muddled ideas in the draft programme of the RCP, 130 pages of vision that doesn't miss a word: . The accusation that Avakian patronizes minorities is a bald-faced lie.

external links embeded in the main text[edit]

I've removed an external link to the October 22 Coalition which was embedded in the main text. I've replaced it to an internal link, in the hopes that some one will create the article. The previous edit to this section had replaced the link to the actual Oct 22 page, to one that was critical. An internal link to a article specifically on the Oct 22 Coalition would avoid such point scoring. Here are the two links, for reference on the new page.



DJ Silverfish 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

all the criticism[edit]

The criticism section is in danger of overwhelming the article with POV. Rather than simply dividing and supplementing recounted counter-polemics at the bottom of the page, why not incorporate instructive, and controversial, portions of the RCP history into the chronology of the article. The experience of Vietnam Veterans Against the War deserves an NPOV section, for example. DJ Silverfish 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is also contention over their basic orientation. Much of it is guided by partisan anti-communism, other by partisanship for the organization if critical. Motivated adherents of these and other opposing viewpoints seem intent of making the discussion fit their assessment.

The whole discussion needs considerably more history, in terms of events and the group's orientation -- and a lot less judgement as history. I have begun filling this entry out, others should also add as well. The idea that a criticism subsection should overwhelm the basic entry is skewed, as there are plenty of such venues already in existence.

HI sorry but the basic facts are that the RCP is a completely bs organization who indoctrinates everyone and tries to make Bob Avakian into a god. A criticisms section must exist, if not in a different article —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalTech (talkcontribs) 07:08, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Internal Contradiction?[edit]

The introduction says that the RCPUSA views the Soviet Union under Stalin as inherently socialist, but the Contentious Issues section has them as denouncing the Soviet Union as state capitalist. So which is it? The first view sounds like a deformed worker's state, but that's explicitly ruled out. Do they view post-Stalin Russia as state capitalist? Someone with more knowledge should check this out. Supersheep 09:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

the rcp usa views the soviet union in stalin's time as *essentially* NOT 'inherently' socialist. they date the resotration of capitalist with kruschev. they believe that class struggle continues under socialism, with the state and it's leading heights as a fulcrum of this struggle. they do not hold views, such as the 'deformed' or 'degenerate' workers's states, that are associated with traditional trotskyism -- but they are sharply critical of stalin's legacy not just in the former soviet union, but internationally -- see avakian's writings. In the Stacks

Boston busing[edit]

I don't know enough about the subject to add it, but I think a it would also be good to discuss, in an NPOV fashion of course, the RCP's support of those who opposed busing to acheive school integration in Boston in the mid-seventies. At the time, many on the left summed this up as "right opportunism" and I suspect that the RCP itself might say the same thing today (although I could be wrong). --Midnite Critic 22:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, harrassment[edit]

There is a dispute over the placement of an anonymous external link by an ideologically motivated person. Efforts to impose anonymous rumors as external links, particularly those false from start to finish, will be blocked. This user is on record as Chuck0. His history of edits is clearly aimed to spread animosity through anonymous attack ads, not published and reasonable criticism, which it should be noted is included in the basic entry here without dispute. This Talk page will also not serve as a bully board. Anonymous, unsourced articles are by their very nature not "verifiable."In the Stacks

I'm wasting my time at this point, but In the Stacks has removed my comments from this page several times today. Chuck0 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove things either though. You are both out of line here. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
absolutely -- Chuck is throwing names around with no basis, which is why his links and harrassment are being removed. He has attempted to jack this talk page to use as another source of planting rumors. Noted, dealt with. In the Stacks
So have you. You're both pissing me off. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry. I don't want to piss you off. I just want to add links and contribute to Wikipedia. Chuck0 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

all personal attacks and notes are being removed to end this fake dispute. Anonymous, unsourced political hit pieces will not be linked here. Criticism in in the main body and other SOURCED and signed links. The issue here is verifiable info and a clear campaign by one individual with helpers to post disinformation that cannot be verified.In the Stacks

There is nobody helping me. You can keep pulling stuff out of your ass all day long, but in the end you are wrong to censor links and bad-mouth people who are trying to play by Wikipedia's rules. Chuck0 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
User Chuck0 is attempting to talk nice here, but a cursory review of his editing history, prior issues with Wikipedia and comments on the editorial history show the plain truth. He is attempting to insert an anonymous, unverifiable slander piece from his personal website. It makes allegations that are not factually correct about the legal relationship between various oragnizations. They are false. But the general issue is already discussed in the entry. This user's harrassment of individuals and attempt to jack the Talk page is why the conversation has been moved into the history, available to interested parties in both the Talk and entry pages. User Chuck0 is also attempting to force the issue through a revert lock. In the event of such an instance, the unverifiable and false link should not be included. Unsigned, anonymous, unsourced = unverifiable.In the Stacks

I put some very non-controversial and widespread criticism in and User: In the Stacks edited it off and replaced it with a defensive message about FBI tactics. I think this move was inappropriate. If he doesn't agree with the criticism, then fine, but it exists nonetheless and should be mentioned. I didn't not state that the individual points criticism are fact, simply that the existence of the criticism is a fact and clearly belong in this article. If User:In The Stacks would like to challenge me on whether or not such criticism can be verified, wonderful, that is easy to confirm, but simply removing it is inappropriate.Sarsnic 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say in good faith that it's charming to admit you aren't posting something factually true, then getting bent out of shape when it is removed. Front Group, as a term, derives from J. Edgar Hoover to describe any organization in which communists play a role, particularly an influential and leading one. Post factual materials, not NPOV violations and there won't be an issue. Since what you post is not verifiable (and certainly not true), you should find a better use of your time like exposing the how "some critics allege the Freemasons are behind the Federal Reserve Board" or "Some critics allege that people from the richest zipcode in America are often impressed with their own opinions."In the Stacks 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If you compare the criticisms that you keep deleting (which you did several times without even discussing, and I am glad you are finally engaging the discussion) you will find them to be truly much more widespread than the ones in the paragraph before which pass your standards for some reason. There is nothing wrong with the full range of criticisms to be included on this page. I think in the interests of wikipedia you should step back a bit here and consider making a good encyclopedia instead of a promo piece for the RCP that doesn't include the full range of criticisms. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,530,543 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. Sarsnic 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now for proof that the criticism, right or wrong is widespread, a few references out of the hundreds: (a chapter of WCW defends itself from charges of being a front group) I hope this makes it clear that the charge is very widespread and belongs in the wikipedia. The criticism is shared by a wide array of political groups. Sarsnic 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As your post is not properly about the RCP, but rather a coalition in which it is involved, and is fatuous, I don't see the debate. "Front group" as a term has NO MEANING, save that communists are involved, and as mentioned derives from J. Edgar Hoover to force socialists and communists out of political life in America. The legal implication is that activists involved alongside communists are their "dupes" or "stooges" and that LEGALLY those involved are taking direction from "seditious" organizations. While you may feel comfortable making these allegations, and linking to right-wing disinformation blogs, that does not mean this "criticism" has the slightest merit beyond the note that public supporters of the RCP did, in fact, help initiate this larger movement. It should be noted here that for your talk of decency, you actively attempt to jacket activists as communist stooges while not even pretending that such claims are VERIFIABLE. Should I post all the links I can find from "critics" that Freemasons control the Federal Reserve Board? I know I can find more than 10. From browsing the links above, not ONE contains any factual information to the effect that RCP members "control" World Can't Wait... because there is none, because it is factually incorrect and BY NATURE unverifiable. Penind such information, I will continue to remove NPOV violations. (and will note that this discussion is taking place under "Vandalism, Harrassment")In the Stacks 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You say that the term front group has no meaning but then continue to say that it involves communists. Brilliant! The term front group is a commonly used term by people familiar with politics as well as leftists. As for the RCP controlling WCW, I think that is pretty obvious. I even found C. Clark Kissinger, a prominent spokesperson for the RCP, as the owner of their web domain. Perhaps the connections are so obvious that WCW shouldn't be considered a front group of the RCP, rather a satellite organization or a special project of the RCP. Chuck0 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of if the accusations are true, they are common enough and notable enough to deserve mention. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You lack of concern for what is true is genuinely charming. Of note, C. Clark Kissinger is not a spokesperson for the RCP. That is just factually incorrect... Also of note: User Chuck0 has been attempting to stir up additional vandalism on a number of entries regarding left-wing organizations on various listserves. One linke: This is his perogative, but it should be noted here. Sidenote: as with the disputes about the unverifiable materials he has attempted to insert, his narrative is – to put it kindly – unreliable.In the Stacks 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
User In The Stacks is not a reliable source for anything. They are an anonymous troll with a long history of vandalizing entries, shit-talking other Wikipedians, and otherwise being a dick to anybody who blocks his agenda. People at least can figure out who I am. Anonymity takes away your credibility.
People should also note that In the Stacks uses the word "vandalism" as a weasel word. He is attempting to conflate edits that he dislikes with "vandalism." User In the Stacks has proclaimed on more than one occasion that he will not allow the addition of my links to these entries. This attitude spits on the spirit of Wikipedia, where people colloborate to create and edit entries. In the Stacks is censoring links to legitimate pages of criticsim of these organizations. What is the point of having external links on entries? In the Stacks has failed in his arguments against these links. Chuck0 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Please also see Talk:The World Can't Wait where the same poor excuse for a debate is taking place. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Membership Numbers[edit]

I was wondering if anyone can find membership numbers on the RCP? It would certainly be good information to have in the article. Topkai22 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It indeed would, but is probably not information the RCP makes public, which is not unusual for such groups. Generally, membership numbers are therefore based on SWAG's (scientific wild-ass guesses). --Midnite Critic 22:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Against my better judgement, I've started a clean up of this page. As of today, I've reformated the publications and the links using the citation templates found here:

The next step will be to reorder the language of the article, removing all the duplications and POV language. I plan to stick to a narrative of linear development within a template that is typical for political parties: Origins, History, Theory, Criticism. Sentences will be anchored with footnotes in a new Reference section.

Additionally, I think we should spin off the Revolutionary Union into a separate article. The Criticism section has become a place to develop arguments agains the RCP, taking over the article.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated, left in this space. DJ Silverfish 22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, the (Bay Area) Revolutionary Union was a distinct organization that was very telling in its time. All of those suggestions are right on. There's very little discussion of the industrial organizing in the 1970s, and day-to-day organizing efforts later on. The whole treatment is very ideological, which makes sense – but leaves out the muscle for the bone. In the Stacks
It has taken longer to finish this rewrite than I planned, but I am still working on it. DJ Silverfish 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please update this page to reflect current activities and publications? I will attempt to do this when I have time. Peopleriseup (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive or censorship?[edit]

I am preparing to archive all the "back door" commentary and libel.In the Stacks 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia policy prohibits deletion of content from talk pages. If you don't like the content that has been posted to these pages, then perhaps you shouldn't have gotten involved. Chuck0 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal website or a discussion forum. As the attempt to insert unsourced, unverifiable rumors and libelous material through a link to your website has generated more talk than actual content, there is no reason to use the Talk page as a vandal's sandbox. I will not be deleting the talk here, but archiving it.In the Stacks 15:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you won't. This page is not long enough for an archive and there is absolutely no need beyond you trying to scorch the earth of all criticisms of the RCP made by Chuck. Archiving isn't some selective process where you remove the things you don't like. And you yourself engaged in libel or near-libel just as much as Chuck, so don't whine about it like you are some innocent victim. And I may remind you that you have still yet to give any good reason as to why we shouldn't link to infoshop. It is a high-traffic website and one of, if not, the most well-known anarchist website. It is definitely a notable site and is a good external site for someone interested in an anarchist critique of the group. It may or may not be accurate, but that doesn't matter as it is an external link meant to show a particular point of view regarding the subject, true or not. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that you did "archive" all that stuff, so I'm adding it back. Moving comments to the memory hole is not archiving. My comment about selective "archiving" is all the more appropriate in retrospect. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
UGF: what is the means to seek mediation of this issue? I believe the attempt to post libelous material, that has no basis in fact, should not clutter up entries on Wikipedia. As you and Chuck have communicated in the past on this matter seeking reinforcement, as Chuck has posted this to numerous blogs and listserves catering to self-identified anarchists – I think it's clear he's attempting to use Wikipedia as a "forum" to spread disinformation on groups he is not ideologically disposed to support. The link isn't going up to a libelous piece without basis in fact that collects various other anarchist disinformation rants. They are untrue, and unverifiable. So – as this back and forth is literally longer than the entry, it should be archived unless someone has something new to add. Otherwise I would like user Chuck0's behavior to be mediated so the issue is resolved definitively.In the Stacks 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your speculation about my motivations and outside activities are irrelevant here. You continue to censor links to Infoshop pages that contain criticism of groups like the RCP. You have failed to give a reason to support your cenroship that has any basis in Wikipedia policies. Your stated reasoning, if it were based in Wikipedia policy, would invalidate most external links from Wikipedia entries. If you insist on this, why don't you remove the link from the Crimethinc entry to your review of one of their books? If critical opinions are "unsourced and unverifiable," by your reasoning there should be no links to any of your articles or blogs. It's time that you stopped your censorship. Chuck0 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if user Chuck0 ceased his personal attacks and efforts to insert intentional disinformation on entries related to various left-wing organizations. The previous talk includes all the relevant issues here.In the Stacks 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd appreciate it if you stopped being hypocritical with regards to the critical external links that are allowed in your opinion and the ones that aren't. As Chuck said, you seem perfectly happy to add criticism of crimethinc. As he also said, your stated reasons so far for not inlcuding links to infoshop would lead to the removal of a large number of external links on wikipedia. You have yet to address the points we have made regarding this but have instead just continued to repeat your claim that it is untrue and "libel". I have already said that it is irrelevant (although it is no where near a legal definition of libel). You still have yet to address that point. I really don't know how to seek mediation because I don't do it that often. Look it up. As for the talk page being longer than the article, a lot of talk pages are like that, especially for controversial issues. This talk page is no where near the level of long enough for an archive though, and it would definitely be bad form to archive a current discussion. As for Chuck's behavior off of wikipedia, I had nothing to do with it so that's on him. I'm still here and I have done nothing of the sort. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind about the crimethinc thing, that was User:Dtasripin who was adding crimethinc criticism while removing criticism of the RCP. You have edited one of the critical links on the crimethinc page to update it though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not inserting intentional disinformation anywhere on Wikipedia. This dispute concerns the censorship of links to Infoshop pages which contain critical information on various left-wing groups. These pages doucment criticism that has been made about these groups by anarchists and other people. Wikipedia entries frequently include external links to outside websites which contain criticism of the subject. If a link is not going to be made to the Infoshop page about the RCP, then I will insist that a paragraph be added to this entry that summarizes anarchist criticism of the RCP. Chuck0 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are inserting links to your own website where such disinformation is hosted. Though I'm not a lawyer, I can't help noticing the devil in your details. Libel is not encyclopedic in nature. Original research posted to your website doesn't turn disinformation into "criticism" through the magic of the world wide web.In the Stacks 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


A World To Win magazine prints in four languages, including Farsi. The political issues behind it's naming as Farsi, rather than Persian are not something I'm familiar with. But to the writers, editors and translators – they list the language they print in as Farsi.

Yeah, but "Farsi" redirects to "Persian language" here on wikipedia, so we should use "Persian." AFAIK there are no political issues involved, but there could be. It's like saying they print in espanol instead of spanish. It's a native name. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Whats the deal with the link here? - Francis Tyers · 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. It appears User:In the Stacks things the infoshop link should be removed, calling it unverifiable. If it is unverifiable, it shouldn't be used as a reference for the article. However, it isn't being used as a reference; it's being used as a source for what some critics think. I'm not sure I understand the grounds for removing it. Owen 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the point. Which is why I keep asking them to explain why it isn't suitable as an external link. They seem to have ignored all of my and Chuck's requests 2 sections up and in edit summaries, continuing instead with the same line about it being unverifiable. I take it it's safe to revert this again since everyone who has weighed in doesn't seem to see a problem. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This factually incorrect, libelous, slander sheet without the courage of a signed name is not criticism, it is disinformation. The site owner and political compatriot, whose very sign-in page includes images of an RCP-related "flag" in flames. This is not a "good faith" discussion. It is creepy. Wikipedia is not a forum, it is an encyclopia or it is nothing at all. Unsigned, unsourced, factually incorrect does not equal relevant, verifiable or even such a dignified thing as criticism. It is disinformtion and an ideological hatchet job. I will remove it every time it goes up.In the Stacks 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we consult Wikipedia:External links for guidelines, and see how it matches up. - Francis Tyers · 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, personally I think there are already too many external links for this page. So I wouldn't be opposed to trimming them all, maybe leave 3 or 4 at the most. We shouldn't, in choosing these links give "undue weight on particular points of view", so we should have the appropriate criticism (from relevant sides) included. I'll single out the Eric Gordon article in Communist Voice as a good example of this. However, it doesn't represent the anarchist criticism. The infoshop link is less of a problem that the other mass of links. - Francis Tyers · 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Eric Gordon's piece is signed criticism. Whether is has "weight" is a whole can of worms, but it is not disinformation from an anonymous crank hiding behind a self-declared political identity. Unsigned and unsourced materials defines disinformation, and for purposes here is inherently unverifiable. Any yahoo can post any nonsense to any self-operated website. Including within the Infoshop link (which is owned and operated by user Chuck0), are numerous factual inaccuracies and distortions. This is different in kind from "criticism," and is of the "when did you stop beating your wife" ilk. Intentionally constructed disinformation has no place on an encyclopedic entry. There is no serious discussion to be had beyond what has already been gone over (and over) here. If some mediative process is necessary, I am confident that this kind of libelous material has no place here.In the Stacks 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Stacks is simply not a credible source of information. He whines about unsourced and anonymous external pages, but fails to establiush who HE is. Once again he has reposted this nonsense about being "owned and operated" by myself. In the Stacks knows that Infoshop is run by a collective and non-profit, which includes two members in his city. He keeps throwing this nonsense around to deflect attention from his continued censorship of links to notable Infoshop pages. In the Stacks erroneously believes that he can serve as a gatekeeper to criticism of these groups. Chuck0 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you feel about trimming the rest of the links? - Francis Tyers · 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm always for more links, not less. It doesn't waste any paper to add more links. We're just talking about bits here. I think that providing more links is always more useful to the reader. I think any limit on the number of links should relate to existing Wikipedia polices. And I think that the links section shouldn't be larger than the main text entry. Chuck0 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation and made up libel, from authors who will not take responsibility – posted to user Chuck0's owner/operated website are not "criticism." Criticism refers to an object that exists in the world, not the ideological imposition, distortion and literal fiction that is here at issue. Regarding trimming the "rest of the links" – I think signed, sourced criticism has every right to be included – no matter the poltiical perspective. Libel enjoys no such right. Regarding a "paragraph" on anarchist criticsm, I think there is more than enough already. What anarchists think about communists is not the point of this entry. It is not a forum. If anti-communism is such an important part of Chuck0 and UGF's self-described anarchist worldview, then it should be included in the appropriate anarchist entries. Though, of note, libel such as the piece user Chuck0 has attempted to insert here has no place anywhere on wikipedia. The point here is not to score points, but to develop a better understanding of the world. Disinformation (known, intentional, fictional) does not serve that purpose. I will also refuse to engage in personal or ad hominum attacks of the kind continually being introduced here. And, this who thread should be archived, at this point it is just harassment and back-door vandalism on the talk page.In the Stacks 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a 'yes'? - Francis Tyers · 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As a general rule, criticism seems to have a place here on Wikipedia. Subject to dispute, no doubt – but I think we should err on the side of inclusion for links. Of course that doesn't mean including disinformation, libel, unsigned hatchet-jobs or the like.In the Stacks 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions about "libel" are irrelevant here. So is your continued fantasy that Infoshop is "owned/operated" by myself. You know that Infoshop is run by a collective and a large number of volunteers. For somebody so concerned about accuracy, you don't let your own agenda get in the way of posting lies and disinformation here about the Infoshop project. You finally admit that criticism has a place here on Wikipedia. If that's the case, you need to act like an adult and accept that there is criticism out there about things that you like. There are links on Wikipedia to criticism you've published about anarchist projects. I could easily respond that your criticism is lebilous and unsourced.
The criticism at Infoshop IS sourced! If there isn't a listed author for a piece, then the author is the corporate author, which is Infoshop. I would hope that somebody who works in an archives would understand the concept of corporate authorship. You don't need a professional librarian such as myself to give you a lecture about bibliographic classification. You've removed links to Infoshop pages that contain analysis and opinion about groups like the ISO and RCP. In the case of the ISO page, that page has been online since the 1990s and is pretty notable. It contains a range of anarchist responses to the ISO. The RCP pages contains anarchist opinion and analysis about the RCP. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the content, but you have no right to prevent people from visiting the page via a link. Chuck0 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How big is the party?[edit]

How many members has the party? It's in fact the only interesting info about it. Plus to that, it would be interesting to learn about public perception of it in the U.S., perhaps this could be based on some independent public opinion polls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Most Americans don't know it exists. If you were to conduct a public opinion poll, most people would either say they had never heard of it, or say they were against it just because it is communist even though they don't know anything about it. Only people active in progressive and radical movements would really have a strong chance of knowing about them. I have no idea how big it is, but it's a pretty small third party. I'd be surprised if it had more than a few thousand official members. They have a lot of recognition in the left here though because they have strong visibility (for a communist group in the US). This is mainly because of the wide distribution of their newspaper and of their various front groups. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I've had to take out a few things from this entry. I wanted to note that before adding or restoring info to any entry on Wikipedia, users should read Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Specifically, the quote from Jimmy Wales in WP:V: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." It's bad enough that a lot of this entry is unsourced (and has been left like that, even added to with more unsourced content, but no one has bothered to go back and source anything for what seems to be years), but things that are contentious and with no sources need to be removed immediately - and not restored with claims of improving the entry. If you wanna improve the entry, to start off with: you can find some sources for what's already on it. (Other weird things too: user In The Stacks adds a bunch of unsourced claims, then removes a link to the RCP's youth group from the list saying that "it's been dissolved." I then click on the link and said youth group's website lists some events it is apparently hosting later this month...doesn't seem to be dissolved. Again where are the sources?) BandieraRossa (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BR – I would encourage you to investigate the expectations of editors on Wikipedia. I have viewed your edit history and it would appear that you are making edits only on entries related to the RCP and Bob Avakian. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate board. Regarding the RCYB's dispersal, several former members of the RCYB have written in several fora about the transition from the RCYB to the Revolution Clubs. The website in Atlanta that you reference has not been updated for over a year, and the event listed is not sponsored by the RCYB. If you are aware of any events sponsored by the RCYB anywhere in the country in the last year, please note them.In the Stacks (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that, in most instances, people are capable of deciding which entries they'd like to edit, and this case is no exception - as long as encyclopedic standards are used it shouldn't matter. My last edit combined the section headed Avakian and the Cult of Personality into the already-existing Contentious Issues section, and removed two sentences (which seemed to be restatements of the following, which is still in the article: "Those opposing this have argued that promotion of leaders is wrong on principle, or that they disagree with Avakian's positions and do not think the RCP worthy of support"). BandieraRossa (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The RCP has plainly stated that they embrace and promote as one of their "two mainstays" the "appreciation, promotion and popularization of Bob Avakian". Considering the amount of effort and stress they lay on this person, it not only deserves a subhead – but should likely be mentioned in the opening paragraph. The whole "contentious issues" subhead should be removed, and the defining ideas and practice of the organization (both historically and in its current incarnation) can then be explicated. Contentious Issues as a term says nothing about an organization that has the word Revolutionary in its very name. lol. So, let's avoid an edit war. The RCP has repeatedly and aggressively promoted a cult of personality around Bob Avakian. BandieraRossa – since you are familiar with the organization, could you post some of the references? Avakian discussed his desire for a cult of personality in his memoir. The Engage campaign has been covered in the media (see Boston Globe article) and the recent split from the RCP promoted some polemical exchanges on this issue. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the RCP is a cult of personality. So there shouldn't be much of a dispute here. BR, you are also correct that people may edit whatever they want on wikipedia - but be aware that neither organizational minders nor vociferous critics are allowed to construct entries as they see fit.Bandit alley (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RCYB exists?[edit]

Does anyone know if the RCYB is still in existence? They have no contact information, e.g. a phone number or national office. There are no publications, nor publically listed events of any kind for at least a year. The last public RCYB event that was covered was the attendence of a few Brigaders at Sean Bell's funeral (covered on NYC Indymedia). There is currently no listed leadership anywhere, etc. Some reports (on RevLeft) stated that the RCYB was disbanded and superceded by the Revolution Clubs, which was the case in NYC. Does anyone have verfiable reports or public documents on this?In the Stacks (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like they're still actve in Atlanta:

--Midnite Critic (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Cartoon in "Critical Opinions"[edit]

This image was removed from the RCP page by an RCP supporter because it was supposedly "infantile". This cartoon is both popular and politically accurate. I believe it should remain in the article. (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Ben Seattle

This is a partisan political attack, and is unpublished aside from by its original author on the internet (and most likely here). It is highly unconventional to post these types of mockery on the entries for any political party I've seen on Wikipedia. It is inappropriate. There are other forums for such things. And, if you are the author of the image it would be wrong to engage in attempts to impose it on those grounds alone.Bandit alley (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than to simply get into an "edit war" with someone who appears to be a supporter of the RCP--I will ask others for their opinions. To reply to Bandit Alley: the cartoon was published in "A cartoon Guide to the Left in Seattle" (a leaflet filled with cartoons) and more than a thousand copies were distributed in Seattle in September and October 2005. The cartoons were highly popular. The cartoon series is also posted on the web at: As far as being a "partisan political attack", the same could easily be said for every article posted in the "Critical Opinions" section. If the cartoon was posted elsewhere in the article--then the complaint about being "partisan" might be valid--but the critical opinions section is about exactly that. As far as being "unconventional" -- as bandwidth increases, the use of graphics will be increasing also. The cartoon is posted in a very reduced size: readers would have to click on it in order to read it. I would like to see other opinions that are by people who are not RCP supporters. (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Ben Seattle
This was a self-published cartoon. Nothing wrong with that, and I've got no real thoughts on the content of this image. It overwhelms the entry, was never published (or received commentary as its own item. An entry on the Democratic Party wouldn't have an Ann Coulter commentary all over it. Or Ted Rall's depiction of Bush. This isn't about how anyone views an organization, but what is of encyclopedic value. So yes let's ask other people and I suspect it's not worth the argument. If you don't want to get into an edit war, please don't presume what other people think.Bandit alley (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In consistent political characterizations[edit]

While an earlier paragraph states "Major RIM parties, including the RCP and the CPN-M, argue that while the Soviet Union was essentially genuinely socialist under Stalin's government, power-induced "absolutism" nevertheless hindered the ability of the masses to rule, and to replenish the truly revolutionary CPSU ranks over time," the end of the article states "Highly critical of the Soviet Union, which they view as state capitalist and social-imperialist, they often traded polemical criticisms with the pro-Soviet CPUSA, as well as Trotskyist groups that have rejected the view of the Soviet bloc as state capitalists to be decried in favor of "deformed workers states" to be defended."

So did the RCP defend or not defend the USSR? For the RCP, was the USSR "genuinely socialist" or was it "state capitalist and social-imperialist"? Or did it just bend to whatever opportunist position afforded it the most support amongst liberals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The RCP (like all Maoists) has an analysis rooted in periodization. It believed the Soviet Union had a socialist period (1917-1956) followed by a period in which state capitalism and "social imperialism" were erected. So there is nothing inconsistent involved at all -- there view of "what is socialism?" is specific and elaborated, and their conclusion is that the Soviet Union meets the criteria in one period, but not in another. They believe that the Soviet Union what was dissolved in 1989-93 was not a socialist country but a state capitalist one (which was adopting more private and traditional forms of capitalism). user:mike-ely-kasama —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


The site currently has: "The RCP also runs Revolution Books, a bookstore..." where "Revolution Books' is a non-working link, apparently because there is no article on this bookstore. My question is, would it be OK to create an article on "Revolution books,' maybe to start off as a stub? Im unsure because i know there is a policy against promoting bussiness, although this bookstore is more of an organizing center for RCP activities, meetings, presentation, speakers, etc.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know if this party has a logo? TFD (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The RCP had a logo for many years (a redflag on a bayonet, with RCP in a white star). After 9/11 2001, this symbol was abandoned. And they have not adopted a replacement. I was editor of their newspaper during these discussions (and the brief adoption of a second alternative symbol, that was also subsequently discarded.) User:mike-ely-kasama

Tagging Article With No Explanation[edit]

User:Jrtayloriv used this tag ({{article issues|pov=August 2010|or=August 2010|cleanup=August 2010}}) without elaborating on this talk page. I request that he do so.
—NBahn (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The OR tag is due to a large number of uncited assertions in the article, such as The RCP enthusiastically supported the 1992 violent Los Angeles social unrest in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdicts as a "rebellion", and then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates went so far as to allege that the RCP was explicitly involved in the riots, something that actually echoed the NYPD's similar conviction about the Progressive Labor Party's involvement in the 1960s Harlem riots, which that organization was proven to have led or The RCP holds that its line against electoral politics has been vindicated by the dissolution of several of the Marxist-Leninist groups in the Jackson Campaigns, and others' perceived shifts of line away from open advocacy of revolution with "ultra-leftism." The RCP's critique of what they call the "voting trap" has led many other socialist groups to label them "sectarian" and "abstentionist" or Following the re-election of George W. Bush, the RCP released a statement called "The Battle for the Future". It calls Bush a Christian Fascist and calls on the masses to resist. The document also puts forward Bob Avakian as the party's leader. Several supporters of the RCP initiated a campaign entitled World Can't Wait: Drive Out the Bush Regime to facilitate a political "re-polarization" around the current right-wing shift in U.S. government. Hundreds of protests and rallies, as well as disruption of prominent governmental speakers has ensued.
  • The Cleanup tag is due to the fact that it needs a lot of copyediting for clarity and cohesion, and needs to be reorganized to have a more sensible section structure
  • the POV tag is due to lack of coverage of criticism -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this article along with many articles about the U.S. Left is a lack of sources. It may not be POV however, the party is pretty radical. TFD (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Mike Ely/Kasama edits[edit]

I have removed the paragraph about Mike Ely and his criticisms of the RCP. After looking carefully at this paragraph and Wiki standards, I do not feel the paragraph contributes to the purpose of Wiki entries – which is to present an objective, neutral, and carefully referenced description of the subject of the entry. In this case that means an objective description of the RCP's history and main activities and political views.

Wiki entries are not meant to be platforms for political debate between different groups, or over different perspectives. The paragraph as it existed was actually that. Such material violates Wiki standards of neutrality and objectivity, and does not contribute to an objective picture of the subject of the entry. It isn't the purpose of a Wiki entry.

I have also removed the reference to the last entry listed in the "Critical Opinions" section, called "Out of the Red Closet - Gay and Lesbian experiences in the previous communist movement". This is a collection of unsubstantiated personal stories and narratives by unnamed individuals. It does not meet standards of factual accounting of things and its inclusion in this entry frankly seems designed to do little or nothing more than spread innuendo and subjectivity. As such, it is a violation of Wiki standards of objectivity and neutrality.

The inclusion of the "Red Closet" link and the bulk of the paragraph on Ely's criticisms of the RCP were added by Ely himself. Further, the additions were little more than ways of sending a reader of the RCP entry to Ely's own website, Kasama Project. This ends up being nothing but self-promotion of Ely's own views. I thought it was notable that a couple of Ely's earliest entries as a Wiki editor – on the RCP entry as well as a couple others – were removed by "bots" because they were little more than links referring readers to his own Kasama site and materials posted there.

Ely was a member of the RCP at one point and left the organization several years ago, and has since published his criticisms of the RCP on the Kasama Project website and elsewhere. It is apparent from the entries on the Kasama Project site in particular and some other websites where Ely contributes that he has a personal vendetta against the RCP and especially its chairman, Bob Avakian. The RCP has published a public complaint about Ely and accused him of posting gossip and lies about Avakian and others associated with the RCP on the Kasama site, and publishing material on private and internal RCP affairs that persons outside that group have no business publishing.

Ely clearly has sharp disagreements with the RCP and an ax to grind. But the point is that Wikipedia is not the place for discussions of those disputes, nor are edits which simply direct people to a critic's own website and publications. The issue is not what one thinks of Ely's criticisms of the RCP, but whether the references improve the objective description of the subject of this entry, namely the RCP. I don't think so, and instead think it ends up turning what should be an objective description of the group's history and main activities and political views into a sound board for debate. That isn't the purpose of a Wiki entry.

Finally, I have also removed an entry that Ely posted on the Discussion page in response to comments saying that the entry needed to be rewritten. He stated that there were numerous errors in the entry as a whole and then proceeded to write several paragraphs discussing what he believed to be the organizational structure of the RCP in Los Angeles and in relation to the RCP nationally and speculation about the role of individuals in the RCP. By his own statements, Ely has not been a member of the RCP for a number of years and yet is trying to pass himself off as an authority on things about which he could not have any knowledge.

I do not believe Wiki should be a platform for discussion of private, internal matters of organizations, or of what is admittedly speculation by the person who posts such items. Further, entries about individuals and organizations should present things consistent with the public statements and views of the individual and organization, not what any person – especially any person who has the intent to slander and vilify – wants to post there.

EnRealidad (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of Ely's posting here on the talk page. That looks to me more like censorship as I cannot see that the provisions of WP:NOTAFORUM, and more specifically WP:TPO, come into play here. The post does address issues relating to the article's presentation of the subject and deserves to be expressed. Then you can decide whether you want to ignore it or address it. __meco (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted Meco’s restoration of the Mike Ely entry on the RCP, USA Discussion page that I’d previously removed because I still feel this crosses the line of Wiki standards. There’s a fundamental point here that Ely is simply speculating on things he has no basis to know. He has self-admittedly not been a member of the RCP for a number of years. Wiki should not be a place for speculation, it is supposed to be objective, neutral statements of fact and not opinion. Perhaps more importantly, the posting is a continuation of the very thing that the RCP has criticized Ely for, i.e., discussion of matters that the subject of the RCP explicitly asserts are private, internal matters that are inappropriate for anyone outside the organization to speculate on. It is one thing for someone to state that there are factual errors in an article and that they should be corrected, but it is something else for anyone to simply assert their own presumptions and opinions.
As I said in my original explanation for the removal, I think entries about individuals and organizations should present things consistent with the public statements and views of the individual and organization, not what any person wants to post. This is particularly true in this instance given Ely’s intention to slander and vilify the organization he is speculating about, but it should apply to things generally on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talkcontribs) 04:55, March 1, 2012‎ (UTC)
Since I have already given you reference to show your action is inappropriate I have referred the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. __meco (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed the disputed talk page edits and they do not violate any talk page rules. Whether or not they are supported, true or valid the edit is a commentary upon the article as it stands and not a simple violation of WP:NOTFORUM. I invite EnRealidad to self-revert by restoring the comments s/he deleted.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As EnRealidad has not edited for a few hours I'm going to re-add the disputed material myself in the subsection immediately below. This should not be removed again as it is entirely appropriate for a talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored material[edit]

There are numerous errors on this page -- some the result of changes over time, some just wrong. For example the piece says: "Los Angeles has long been one of the RCP's larger and more active branches, given the party's California roots. William "Mobile" Shaw was until recently its leader." In fact the Los Angeles branch was not that prominent when the RCP was formed (the roots were in the Bay Area, not LA), but more: the growth of the LA branch was the result of a specific and national shift of forces after the 1992 Los Angeles Rodney King events.

What would the best way to make such corrections, without triggering controversies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-ely-kasama (talkcontribs) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced speculation[edit]

I have removed the previous section of the article dealing with the LA branch of the RCP. It was problematic because the entire paragraph was unsourced and speculative. The only reference was to a completely secondary point in the paragraph (the NYPD's views about the activities of the Progressive Labor Party, which is not the subject of this article); everything else was unsubstantiated. My understanding of Wiki policy is that material should be objective and verified with credible references and sources, not simply opinion or unsubstantiated speculation. This, to the extent it is followed, is what makes Wiki valuable as an encyclopedic source.

There are significant amounts of material available that can be reviewed, evaluated, and cited to if an editor finds them credible. In particular, I know that the RCP itself publishes a weekly newspaper(including an online version), it has published numerous books and articles (the vast majority of which are also available online), etc. It seems to me that the starting point of an objective, nonpartisan article – whether on a group or individual, a scientific theory, an event in history, etc. – would be to start with those types of sources. I don't think it serves anyone's interests (including a simple desire to learn about a given subject, which is the reason people go to Wiki in the first place) to substitute unsourced opinions instead. EnRealidad (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


The lead looks way too long. It would be great to split it up into more sections. What would be the best way to do it? CurlyPop88 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation[edit]

There were elements in the comments by Mike-ely-kasama that contained unsubstantiated material that speculated on issues that are no longer even in the article itself. Comments about leadership and structure of the subject of the article (RCP, USA) that are at minimum unsourced, and therefore at best personal opinion, are not helpful. I recognize that the Talk pages need to be open to all kinds of back-and-forth discussion, debate and even contention, but there should be some roots in reality or it simply degenerates into people taking pot shots at other positions based on their own speculation. That does not help the article or the broader Wiki community. EnRealidad (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

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) 00:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2014 Rewrite Neutrality Contested [formerly "Major Edit"][edit]

I have done a long-needed major edit and overhaul of this article. The pre-existing article was extremely outdated and had become a hodge-podge over the years. It had long been cited as in need of major work. After resisting taking up this task for a long time, I finally gave in and decided to rework it. I have devoted a lot of time and effort to read and research a lot about the Revolutionary Communist Party and their views in order that this article be fair, accurate, and accessible. I have included extensive references (and links to writings and works of the RCP and its chairman, Bob Avakian) in order to document—and in some cases further illustrate—what is in this article. I am someone who is very interested in left and radical politics and philosophy and at the same time feel that all political views need to be clearly, succinctly, and accurately presented for the benefit of all. This implies diverse views being presented objectively and represented impartially so they may be understood and evaluated on that basis. I have tried to do this in editing this article.EyesWhyde (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That really was a "Major Edit"! When I found the content of this article to be especially dense reading and very different from my vague recollection of its previous state, I took a look at the diff page: [[1]] and found that the Aug 12 2014 edit deleted almost the entirety of the previous article. Deleted paragraphs include significant and detailed historical notes on the origin and evolution of the RCP, as well as (on an admittedly cursory reading) a credible attempt at balance between stating RCP views with some clarity on the one hand, and noting criticisms and conflicts on the other. Rather than contest any specifics of this material, other than to say that it is outdated, my fellow editor says that the material is a "hodgepodge" and removes almost all of it. More clarity on what was wrong with this material would have been very useful.
The replacement version is quite a bit longer than the previous text, and appears (again on a quick overview) to consist largely of what I would call a within-universe rundown of the ideological evolution of RCP. In my opinion, this is a disservice to a complex topic.
Praghmatic (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's now been more than a day since I wrote the above, and placed a note on the previously nonexistent page associated with EyesWhyde (to be clear to all: my comment caused a page to be created, for an otherwise seemingly rather inactive account) suggesting civil dialogue.
I've seen no response of any kind so far.
If this were a merely historical matter, that might be an extremely short window. However, the RCP is controversial group that is actively organizing right now in both women's rights (under "StopPatriarchy") and in the civil unrest in Ferguson, MO. Looking over the dramatic Aug 12 edit again, it seems more and more apparent, to me at least, that it takes the perspective of someone within the RCP, or very close to it, chronicling its (and leader Bob Avakian's) struggle toward revolutionary truths.
This is strikingly different from the balanced and more frankly historical approach of the preceding article, which I believe had been relatively stable for several years since some active edit warring c 2007.
If I'm correct about this, the Aug 12 edit will serve as a remarkably detailed and (compared to book-length treatments) concise resource for understanding the internal development of the RCP, which can be drawn on in the future to refine and expand this page (not something I have the time or patience to do at the moment). However, it is in no way encyclopedic. Someone curious about an active political organization should not come to WP to find an article primarily written from their point of view, and which gives very short shrift to the perspective of any external critics.
Therefore I am going to revert to the 26 June 2014 edit.
I strongly suggest that all interested parties, including anyone who may be deeply sympathetic to the perspective of the Aug 12 text, seek to build on the labor represented by the previous synthesis, incorporating useful perspectives from the Aug 12 document to give deeper understanding.
Praghmatic (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reinstated the major edit and overhaul of this article. The reversion of my entire edit (made on 12 August 2014) contests the neutrality of my edit and cites this as the reason for reverting to the previous article. When it comes to political (and many other) articles NPOV is, not surprisingly, a frequent source of argument about Wikipedia articles. I can only say that a serious reading of the article as I posted it will show that it does indeed factually, accurately and neutrally describe and represent the views of the Revolutionary Communist Party and Bob Avakian and includes numerous citations as documentation and further illustration. I have gone back over my article to see if there were places where NPOV is violated and did not find any. Clearly, the views of the Revolutionary Communist Party are the subject of controversy and debate and, obviously, I knew this when I challenged myself to do this major reworking. This was all the more reason for me to both be as fact-based as possible and to hew closely in regard to NPOV standards. I took this very seriously. Readers deserve this. I also think that it is important to say here that the use of loaded words such "propaganda" or "a within-universe rundown" are neither accurate in this case nor helpful. They depart from serious reasoned discussion especially where there may be disagreements—even major ones. It's not that I take this personally, but that it lowers the level of discussion.
The article as it existed before my major edit was indeed seriously in need of a major reworking. Much of the historical information was very old and outdated going back to the 60s and 70s before the Revolutionary Communist Party existed and my edit includes basic historical information and links to more about the history of the party and Bob Avakian.These talk pages are not a place to go into detailed explanations of all that was wrong with the previous entry. Clearly, there was a lot of very outdated material in the previous article and other editors have cited this page as in need of major work. Most importantly the previous entry did not give an accurate and up-to-date description of the organization and a clear presentation of its actual views. It was a "hodgepodge" and not a "synthesis". Yes, this overhaul of the article is much different from the previous entry, but much better in terms of what really matters when in comes to fundamental and crucial matters such as political and philosophical views, and questions of outlook and morality etc. from broad and diverse perspectives that I firmly believe people need to know about, compare and contrast and sift through.EyesWhyde (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This issue is being discussed on the NPOV page here: [[2]]
Praghmatic (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Quick update: I removed the word propaganda in my arguments above, rephrasing for more precision about what I was trying to get at. Below, in Discussion, I did my best to lay out the situation as I understand it, and made some good-faith suggestions that I hope are helpful. Cheers. Praghmatic (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Consensus and do not revert to add this massive edit until you gain a consensus. Collect (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this edit [3] have consensus to be used in this article? 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Bold edits once reverted typically require an attempt at gaining consensus. I do not find one at this point, and therefore would like to know yea or nay for the edit. The two involved editors do not appear likely to reach an agreement sans outside opinions. Collect (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above the previous edit of this article was in need of very major work which I did. It is a much better and much more accurate article and does not violate NPOV at all. There have been many comments for quite some time that the article was in need of major work which I undertook. Just because an article had not been edited for a while does not mean that there is any consensus about it or that it should not be edited, even very extensively, when that is necessary to make it much more factually correct and useful. This is the case regardless of whether or not any particular users agree with the views of the Revolutionary Communist Party. What is important for fact-based sources like Wikipedia is that views--political, social etc.--be accurately and neutrally presented. It is also quite wrong to say that the article is poorly sourced. It is extensively sourced.EyesWhyde (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I request that EW offer specifics about the ways in which the (at the moment) current version of this article is inaccurate/incorrect. It would also be very helpful to any editors who work on this page with you, IMHO, if you would be willing to identify those elements of the existing article that in your opinion are closer to being accurate. I hope that you will be willing to make specific suggestions for partial edits or expansions that address particular problems, and to work with other editors to iron out disagreements that may arise.

I apologize for using the word "ideological" in the header above. (I removed it & fixed the corresponding link at the NPOV notice board.) I gave in to my sense of urgency. Although in its colloquial meaning the word captures part of what I think, using it was questionable in a deeper sense, and needlessly inflammatory. (We may actually agree about this: people who insist they have no ideology are likely simply fairly comfortable with ideology that supports the status quo, though this can sometimes be a difficult thing for them to see.)

You are clearly deeply knowledgeable about the RCPUS, and appear to have sourced your text from many of its publications. As an inclusionist, I am disinclined to hammer people about "original research" in cases where some common-sense filling in of gaps is clearly useful. However, this goes beyond that, as noted by others above. Also, please consider (setting the question of original research aside for a moment): even if your text is scrupulously congruent with events significant to, and published theories of, the RCP, it may violate WP:NPOV by not including sufficient attention to perspectives of those outside the RCP, and to controversies that the RCP would rather not draw attention to.

On the other extreme would be an article that was essentially or in significant part a "hit piece", focused on outside perspectives, criticisms and controversies to an undue degree in order to discredit, and thus also a violation of WP:NPOV. The "weak tea" consensus (my term, not yours) which you criticize represented the considered opinion of some number of people interested in politics and activism, over a period of several years, that the existing article, whatever its flaws, is (among other things) not this kind of attack. If you feel that it is, you may wish to tackle that point directly and with specifics. Praghmatic (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have already commented once on another noticeboard (ORN perhaps I forgot). Much of the edit is based on primary source, which is not acceptable. Also, EW has given no real reason for why her total rewrite is better, except asserting that it is. This is not the ideal way to proceed, to put it mildly. I had already suggested remedies. Start with the original text, and add stuff in which is useful. Kingsindian (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the proposed text I was called by the RFC bot. The proposed text should be included since it is informative and it provides a suitable reference to the extant article. Kingsindian suggests that the primary source web site is not suitable however I do not agree, the web site is the primary source for information about the subject which the extant article covers, and one might suppose that a Wikipedia article covering the Republican Party could make legitimate use of references, citations, and texts lifted from the web site.
No editor working on Wikipedia agrees with every other editor on everything, and while we don't agree with the ideologies of the subject matter being covered, we must accept the relevance of web sites which are created for and about the subject we are editing, and looking at I can't help but note that it is a valid reference.
And yes, if there is anything inaccurate, unsupported, or flat-out wrong about any proposed text, that's an issue which can be hashed out. Rejection of a block of proposed text covering the extant article merely because the referenced web site is a web site that specifically covers the extant subject seems to me to be mildly unreasonable. Damotclese (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether can be used (of course it can), but whether it be used almost exclusively for an article about itself. A moment's glance at the edit shows this is true. Kingsindian (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It maybe a valid source however it shouldn't be the only source. Without reliable third party sources it does not conform with wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV, notability, and WP:UNDUE. -- xcuref1endx (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have previously given my reasons why the pre-existing edit of this article was clearly not up to Wikipedia standards and what Wikipedia readers are entitled to expect. For example, in the pre-existing article there was scant presentation of what the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA espouses and what its political and philosophical basis is. When it comes to political parties and organizations it is these aspects that are primary and people most need to know, whether they agree, disagree, or are somewhere in-between. Over half of the pre-existing entry consisted of a rather jumbled listing of selected people, events and disconnected facts from the 1960's and 70's most of which lacks significant present relevance. And, like the rest of the article, this was cobbled together over a number of years at the expense of more vital and substantive information. The RCP, USA has existed for almost 40 years--and this history is touched on in broad strokes in the entry I have edited--but I quickly realized that to accurately delve into this history in detail would result in a tome and not be what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be.

Further, the discussion in the talk pages above (going back to 2004) demonstrates a history of attempts to interject unverifiable information and/or information of little relevance about the RCP into the article and turn it into a locus of debate and even political sniping. This resulted in numerous reversions and counter reversions and multiplying smaller edits which also contributed to a substantial lack of cohesion to the article. This is another reason why it was clear to me that the article needed a major overhaul and to be based first and foremost on a coherent presentation of what the party is and what its views are--just as should be the case for any political party or organization wherever it falls on the political spectrum. I believe that my entry is a major improvement and puts the article on a good new footing. If something in the article is inaccurate then edits can be made.

A comment here: This is the first Wikipedia article that I have edited and I am frankly surprised at some of the reaction. My entire edit has been repeatedly reverted; I have been accused of engaging in edit warring; warnings and admonishments have been placed on my user talk page etc. with no basis. This is entirely uncalled for and goes against the ethics of Wikipedia in my view.

As to the main issues that other editors are raising, I very strongly feel that various violations of Wikipedia standards and practices are being wrongly cited:

As to NPOV issues: I continue to stand by the neutrality of my edit and cite the article itself as evidence of this. I paid a lot attention to this issue in writing the article and based it on a lot of research. Further, it is wrong and a violation of NPOV for Praghmatic (who first raised this issue) to seek the removal (even urgent removal) of my edit because she/he politically disagrees with the RCP, citing on the NPOV noticeboard his/her dislike of the activity of the RCP against the police murder of Michael Brown, a young unarmed Black man in Ferguson, MO. There is a whiff of an attempt at censoring speech here based on what he/she may consider unpopular political movements. And in making her/his case on the NPOV noticeboard, Praghmatic used as a source and links to a piece on the Gawker blog which is based upon and uses as its sole source a virulent white-supremacist website which has published blatantly manufactured lies, not only about the activities of the RCP in Ferguson, but many other political groups, as well as the people of Ferguson who have been protesting the police murder there. This is hardly a reliable source by any standard.

As to WP:CONSENSUS: Through looking at the edit history of this article I don’t think that there is any demonstrable consensus about it. Also, I looked quickly, and it seems that few to none of the editors raising this issue have themselves previously made edits to this article. The article has remained fallow for quite some time, but this does not demonstrate any consensus about it. Now that I have undertaken and done the work to improve the article, all of sudden the issue of consensus is being raised. The sudden attempts to apply this rule seem to be flawed and ironically seem to constitute some form of assertion of ownership of the article by some editors who have not even been editing the article and now claim to represent some form of collective consensus where no consensus actually exists.

Finally as to issue of sources. I think that the above comment by Damotclese is to the point and I would extend the same reasoning to all the sources cited in my edit. When I researched the article I did a lot of searching for sources that had reliable information about the RCP and used the most helpful. Again, if there are more sources that are accurate and reliable, they can certainly be added. But the existing sources are valid sources and certainly cannot be cited as reason to revert my article.EyesWhyde (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@EyesWhyde: Unfortunately you keep referring to "my article". Please see the policy WP:OWN. All articles are expected to be mercilessly edited, reverted and modified on Wikipedia. This is normal procedure, though it might seem hostile to new editors. It is fine to make WP:BOLD changes, but they should be defended. While discussion is going on, the edit should not be reinstated again wholesale. I already suggested what to do: start with the original article, add one paragraph/section in at a time, build consensus, make compromises. There are no shortcuts. Kingsindian (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to use the phrase "my article" in my 11 Sept. comment above. I mistakenly used this once in my comment instead of "my edit" as a shorthand way of referring to the 12 August edit I did of the edit as it existed prior to that. I have gone back and corrected that error on this page. As with the term "my edit" this was just a shorthand way of referring to the edit I posted on 12 August and was not meant as an assertion of ownership of the article. In no way do I believe that this article is or should be owned by anyone. Quite the opposite.
In the discussion above I have been defending the edits I have made to this article, though clearly there are still disagreements about it. Kingsindian suggests that rather than the edit I have done, which was a reorganization and emphasizing of the political and philosophical views and basis of the RCP, I instead try adding one paragraph/section in at a time. The problem is that, as I said above, I already considered such an approach when I started to write the edit that I eventually made. At that time I tried such a piecemeal approach to editing the article. However, I soon found that in order for the article to be accurate and have clarity as to the views and basis of the RCP, the structure of the article itself needed to be changed. The existing edit did not at all lend itself to simple insertion of sections or paragraphs. It would have become even more disjointed and confusing to readers for me to do this. Instead it was necessary, among other things, to condense and encapsulate some of the material in the beginning of the article and "Origins" section while adding the "Political Overview" section in the place of the "Views on the United States" section (consisting of just 3 sentences) and haphazard political commentary scattered throughout the article. I believe that the resulting edit I did has resulted in a good, cogent and coherent article that can be helpful to Wikipedia readers. It is a good basis for further contributions. If there are inaccuracies that need to be corrected, that should be done and sources provided. If there are additional sources that can be provided, they should be added as well.EyesWhyde (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@EyesWhyde: While it is good that you appreciate the ownership issue, unfortunately the underlying issues don't change. Since your edit has basically rewritten the entire article, it doesn't matter much if one terms it an "edit" or an "article". Whatever you might feel about the disjointedness of adding in stuff, it is unavoidable in a collaborative project. It can be cleaned up later. As I said, there are no shortcuts to this process. Kingsindian (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This massive edit is based largely on WP:SPS self published sources. There is as far as I can see no consensus to include it. There was a consensus at the NPOV noticeboard to make improvements to this article based on a starting point of the previous (pre-major edit) version. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Capitalismojo (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider Wikipedia's Charter Don't forget that Wikipedia's guidelines are just that -- guidelines. One of the "rules" of Wikipedia is that there are no hard-fast, stone-carved rules. There are many tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles which are not WP:NPOV and which use information retrieved from the sole legitimate source found on the network. This is not a fatal flaw which should negate inclusion of such information. You can not expect to create and edit pages consisting of information retrieved from multiple sources for every subject, that is not reasonable.
Some things have one source -- that does not mean Wikipedia -- which seeks to be encyclopedic -- should not contain information retrieved from the sole source, should not disallow references and citations from that single source.
Consider. If there were a volunteer organization that builds watering holes and sun shelters for desert turtles in the Mojave Desert and there was a single web site which discussed the volunteer organization, and the web site contained extensive documentation about the hundreds of watering holes they established and the funding campaigns they held to create them and the governmental agency recognition and recommendation for their charity work was provided on that sole source, would it be resonable to exclude that site's information, be reasonable to eclude that site as a reference and citation?
What I'm concerned about here is that editors are using guidelines to exclude references because it is a Communist web site while honestly feeling that the reference should be avoided because it violates "the rules." Fact is, Wikipedia is not a religion. We are allowed to provide factual, useful, accurate information even if guidelines are bent.
I don't have a dog in this race, I was called by the 'bot and then was asked to return to re-state my suggestion that the information be included. All I can do is ask that editors evaluate their reasons for not wanting to include the information and if they honestly think the "rules" negate including accurate information, and if that's a general feeling of the majority of editors, that's what we should go with.
Another thing. :) I see a number of editors are passionate about the volunteer work everyone is doing, and everyone has remained civil -- which ain't always the case on Wikipedia. :) I doubt that well see concensus on this, and .EyesWhyde I believe you will have to accept the majority of editors' opinion that the information not be included if that's truly what most editors suggest -- for legitimate reasons. Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)