Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

August 2014 Rewrite Neutrality Contested [formerly "Major 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 The pre-existing article was extremely outdated and had become a hodge-podge over the years.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 Rather than contest any specifics of this material, other than to say that it is outdated, my fellow editor says that the material is a "hodgepodge" and removes almost all of it.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)

Discussion

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 revcom.us, 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 revcom.us 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 gop.org 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 revcom.us 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 revcom.us 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)

Statements issued

Why are statements issued by Avakian or others in the party included in the article? For example at the beginning of the "RCP Today" section, it opens up by saying after Bush's reelction, the RCP apparently released a statement calling Bush a Christian Fascist. This does not seem to be part of any policy or uniquely specific moment that the RCP is involved in. It seems to violate WP:Soapbox and seems to attempt to editorialize the RCP into a larger political event (the election) where they are not even minor players. xcuref1endx (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Article tags and clean up

This article is fluffy. It give undue weight to primary sources and has other clean up issues as well dating back to 2010. Its due for some clean up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are the critical opinions in this article POV? Should they be removed or should the notable criticisms be placed into the body of the article? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

POV and Avakian

I removed the following update by anonymous one-time user 68.83.161.128:

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)

Extended content
Many believe the truth expounded by Avakian and RCP will live on after the former dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The collapsed text adds nothing to the discussion. The talk section is not to be used as a soapbox for personal opinions. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Revised Introduction

I have replaced the introduction to this article with a more current,shorter and more concise one and one that removes old and innaccurate information as well as material that does not belong in an introductory section.EyesWhyde (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You lost consensus are apparently attempting to engage in edit warring. Stop. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I had mentioned that the excessive use of external links do not conform with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL or WP:EL. Without explanation, you reversed the changes to return it to the state it was in when it was in violation of the policy. You do not own this article. Please see WP:OWN and WP:EW. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Views on the United States

I feel like this entire section should probably be removed. It is just one large Quotation block, it is an unnotable and unoriginal position, and it reads simply like a press statement released by the political party; in its presentation it seems to be more directed towards agitprop than informational. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

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)

The article needs to list the number of members. I'd say three; Bob Avakian, his Dad, and his Dad's boyfriend.75.79.137.241 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Page should be deleted..

This party has done nothing notable, and all sources are from the parties website. Also, the party holds no seats anywhere in the United States, and it is not relevant to American politics at all. ShimonChai (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not a parliamentary party, it is a revolutionary sect. Don't mistake accomplishment for WP:NOTABILITY... A really terrible deletion nomination, by the way... Carrite (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent Major Edits By IP Are All WP:PROMOTION And Sourced From The Party's Original Website

In the recent days IP 2600:1012:b01e:2f2b:2e29:146f:29b9:1351 made major changes to the article. Almost all these changes are sourced from Party's website and all put party in positive light. Also it is peculiar that IP only edits this article as well as two others, that are connected to the party: Bob Avakian (founder), Refuse Fascism (offshoot). As far as I know when it comes to political organisations secondary sources are more important than primary websites and people affiliated with the organisations are forbidden to edit. I am a newbie, so I might get this wrong, but if you look at recent edits by IP, it's all clearly WIKI:PROMOTION. I would revert this edits myself, but unfortunatelly as I attempted to do so, I got a warning for edit warring (although so has the IP in question, which is fair). I ask more qualified and experienced editors to please take a look at this situation and fix it. Thank you. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotion issues aside, the connection between RCP and Refuse should be clearly documented by reliable, independent sources. This press release issued by RCP doesn't explicitly say anything about Refuse Fascism as a group. This one, which is irritatingly vague and verbose, just says they have "taken up the fight". It implies that they issued the call to arms, and that they "took responsibility to propose" a group, but it also says that they work "within" the organization. If this is really worth mentioning in the lede, it should be unambigious, and should be supported by something better than original research about overlapping board members or similar. I added a couple of reliable sources which do not seem to strongly support that the connection is a defining one. Put simply, the lede should summarize defining traits which are explained in the body of the article with sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I admit it's hard for me to be objective with this one, since I have friends who have been to the Refuse Fascism event and know what was said and how things were presented. I realize it's anecdotal, but the fact that initiators listed on the website of Refuse Fascism strongly overlap with core RevCom founders and activists should at least be mentioned somewhere and also def. not fringe ala Alex Jones, even he has used this for his own fear mongering purposes. The whole goal of the movements is to promote fringe radical left ideas under they veil of simply protesting Trump/Pence and Fascism. The speeches were mostly about Maoism and New Synthesis. And it will be good to people to know, what the movement stands for. Unfortunately, every press release is deliberately vague, so it is in fact very hard to pinpoint. But I will keep digging and will first write here to get consensus before next edit on both Refuse Fascism and RevCom pages. FreedomGonzo (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed the source by accident, thank you for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomGonzo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Refuse and Resist

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?

• Refuse & Resist! - Official Site
• Veiw from the Left: Peace Kooks by Michelle Goldberg

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)

Refuse Fascism is the group you're thinking of and it is not a "front group" for the RCP, as they've been open about the connection. There is a statement on the RCP website about their involvement with Refuse Fascism.

Refuse Fascism is a coalition group that was co-initiated by RCP members uniting with others (from different political views) to remove Trump/Pence from office via street protests. RF wants to oust fascism whereas the RCP wants a total revolution.

The reason they're separate organizations is that not everyone in Refuse Fascism shares the same political views on communism. RojoGlobal (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

LGBT issues

This anon edit on RCP views on homosexuality was reverted as "NPOV; citations were from non-neutral sources meant and are no longer applicable". I don't know anything about this so have no opinion, but the sources looked OK to me. Any other views? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, I was the one that made the edit regarding the party's position on LGBT Issues. The RCP-USA has a well known and documented history of homophobia and opposition to LGBT rights that can be found in primary documents (party literature), secondary documents (news reports), and is noted by several different printed sources including such as Continuity and Rupture

22:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)-Sid

• Here is a collection of sources that verify the parties former homophobic position:
  • Continuity and Rupture- Dr. Moufawad-Paul
  • Heavy Radicals -
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#cite_note-63
  • https://revcom.us/margorp/homosexuality.htm - RCP's official reversal of anti-lgbt policies
  • https://libcom.org/blog/rcps-current-solution-gay-question-21082016

— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. {u|RojoGlobal}, can you spell out why you think this is "no longer applicable"? If not, Sid should edit back in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The RCP today and since 2001 has strongly supported LGBTQ rights and its supporters have been very active in the struggles against homophobia and transphobia. This position is reflected in the Party's Constitution, as well as numerous articles on the official website, Chairman Bob Avakian's filmed talks and writings, and in the new communism which is the Party's ideological foundation. And this was a hard fought result of years of intense struggle within the party to denounce the anachronistic anti-gay politics of the old communist movement.

Many who bring up the RCP's past positions on homosexuality in the 1980s and 1990s have an "axe to grind" and are merely seeking to "dig up dirt" against the organization, in order to distort its current political positions and create nonexistent controversy, particularly by attempting to make this its own section in the article.

NPOV is consistently violated on this page with many anti-RCP sources and edits made over time. RojoGlobal (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• • I'd first like to say, I am sympathetic to your position on this issue, there are a great number of internet trolls who attempt to attack socialist organizations with prior mistakes. I want you to know that I am simply attempting to produce a article that is objective and concise, which I do not believe that is possible without discussing the party's history with LGBT rights. I am more than willing to expand the section to expand on the party's present position on LGBT and the Pro-Gay Activism. The RCPUSA's position on LGBT rights is historically significant to the history of the RCPUSA, and plays a major role in related subjects such as the history of LGBT rights activism, how 20th century Marxists approached Gay Liberation, and The History of Maoism in the United States.

S1d6arrett23 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Page moved

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

3

I have removed two links which are now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.144.52.101 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2004 (UTC)