Template talk:Maoism sidebar
|WikiProject Socialism||(Rated Template-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject China||(Rated Template-class)|
We should figure out some means of who to include in the "notables" field, as well as listing some of the explicitly Maoist international associations. I removed Huey Newton because he was not a "Maoist", and never self-identified as such. The vast range of Maoist influences should not be included in the template because it would become incoherent.
There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing two names from "notable" field
Huey Newton was removed before and added back without much comment either way. Newton was influenced by Mao, no doubt, but there's a very big difference. I'm also removing Bob Avakian. Avakian may be the most notable Maoist figure in the United States, but that's hardly saying anything. I'm willing to discuss this if people disagree. --MQDuck 05:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added both back up.
1) Huey Newton was more than "influenced" by Mao. He was influenced so entirely that the structure of BPP was based on the Communist Party of China, they adopted the Maoist method of Mass Line, and ideologically upheld Marxism-Leninism (Maoism as a term was not coined until the 80s'). Huey Newton, as founder of BPP, a Maoist.
2) While Bob Avakian's RCP is incredibly small and nearly irrelevant to American politics, his Party has had a significant role in international Maoist movement and its thought - it was itself a cofounding member of the RIM, had fraternal ties to Sendero, etc.--Riot Fred (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like an anonymous vandal deleted the link to Bob Avakian again from this list, with no explanation or even asking on this talk page. It is hard to deny that someone like Avakian would belong on this list - I could picture someone arguing perhaps a few of the other figures (like Yao Wenyuan, Pierre Mulele, or even Huey P. Newton in terms of his significant divergences from Maoism although he was very much undeniably influenced by Mao) but definitely not Avakian. Of the most prominent leaders known as Maoists in the world today, Avakian is, if not the biggest, at least in the top 3 around the world (one could perhaps make the argument that Prachanda or Jose Maria Sison are more well known in some parts of the world, like in South Asia or the Philippines -- but ask someone on the street in Buenos Aires, Moscow, or Johannesburg and chances are they'd have no idea of either, and in the United States or some other parts of the world I'd posit that Avakian's name would come up before either one). This deletion business smacks of vandalism to me and I think admins should deal with it accordingly, but if someone wants to make an argument, bring it to this talk page. YaniaTierra (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, research such as "asking people on the street in x location" is not appropriate reportable material. If he is notable contributor to Maoism, then there should be plenty of secondary and tertiary sources that report on his notability. However, there are not, so he is not to be included. It is not vandalism that his name is not included. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
-- There is no reason to include Bob Avakian. He heads a tiny political sect/cult in the United States. To place him alongside people Chen Boda, the Gang of Four, or Lin Biao is completely ridiculous. His works are published by his Party and are hardly read at all outside his organization. If we were to list every person who headed a small Maoist political sect, we'd be listing hundreds of names. The claim that he has had a substantial impact on anything needs to be backed up by objective evidence, not RCP self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Second this, the only sources that mention Avakian's importance to Maoism or communism come from the RCP itself if not Avakian himself. Outside of this insular organization, his notability is almost nonexistent. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This template clearly introduces NPOV issues by including only national parties affiliated with RIM and, internationally, RIM and CMLPO. However, there are many other groups in the world that label themselves Maoist, the Maoist International Movement coming to mind immediately. I'll also note that the Chinese Communist Party was historically Maoist, of course, and I believe still considers itself to be. Adhering to WP:NPOV, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to designate who the "real" Maoists in the world are. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the CPC: Where something goes from "biased" to "objective" is a very blurry place, but almost nobody would call today's CPC Maoist. That doesn't just go for people who support Maoism or who oppose or support the Chinese government. --MQDuck 11:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, this template has huge problems, and was clearly put together by somebody who's idea of Maoism largely means the New Communist Movement and its offshoots. It is particularly slanted toward groups affiliated with RIM. As I've said, this template needs a substantial rewrite, or it needs to be dropped. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The "Parties By Country" section has exactly one party each linked to directly by the name of the country! I'm for removing it and starting over. Perhaps we should make a list here of known Maoist parties before recreating it. In the US, I know of the RCP, the two parties calling themselves the Freedom Road Socialist Organization and the (defunct?) Maoist Internationalist Movement. I'm sure there are others. --MQDuck (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Went ahead and removed the party section. The issue has been around for four years and hasn't been changed. It could be redone, however, it would seem excessive. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe the inclusion of a few key parties internationally would be fine. However, the arbitrary listing of one party per country, especially when the party selected to "represent" the Maoist party in a specific country is itself not even a micro party with no significance does not help the wiki user and seems to serve to promote the interests of those micro parties. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I added a few new pages that I found here while browsing Wikipedia. One other page I found was of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan, which seemed longer, more detailed, and more (I don't know) "Maoist" than the other organization listed (which has a page that is obviously Mao influenced as well but doesn't seem to put that out there as much in what I saw they wrote). I didn't go ahead and change it, but wanted to get feedback from people to see what other editors think about it.
Also might it be a good idea, perhaps once this gets a little bit bigger, to have a drop-down, hierarchical type menu listed by continent?
MLPD of Germany?
I've been reading up on the MLPD (Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany) and I don't think they really belong in this list. I was trying to find on their website (albeit in the English section as I do not know German) information on their ideological positions, and found this quote in an article: "The MLPD describes itself neither as "Stalinist" nor as "Maoist"" (source: http://www.mlpd.de/statements-declarations/2004/september-4-2004-where-is-the-movement-of-monday).
I'll go ahead and remove their link from here, but if others want to throw in other perspectives (this was from a 2004 position statement, maybe they have changed since then), please do so. YaniaTierra (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to include Bob Avakian. He heads a tiny political sect/cult in the United States. To place him alongside people Chen Boda, the Gang of Four, or Lin Biao is completely ridiculous. His works are published by his Party and are hardly read at all outside his organization. If we were to list every person who headed a small Maoist political sect, we'd be listing hundreds of names. The claim that he has had a substantial impact on anything needs to be backed up by objective evidence, not RCP self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)