Talk:Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)

Imperialism
There has been the claim made by "Bigdaddy" that the CPGB ML oppose a Leninist definition of Imperialism. This could not be further from the truth. Read the parties statements and publications and you will find that it is Lenin's definition of Imperialism that is the fundamental basis for practically all of their current analysis and policies. Particular note should be taken of Harpal Barar's book: Imperialism- The Eve of the Social Revolution of the Proletariat. Which quoes extensively from Lenin. (In particular 'Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism, and Imperialism and the split in socialism). The notion that the CPGB ML has "it's own definition of imperialism" is nonsense. The party's position on Imperialism, national liberation etc. is firmly based on

sorry I made a bit of a mess here, can someone fix it, I don't know how to get the old version back. Sorry about this, I didn't mean to do it. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that I said that. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy
Deleted redundant "This party should not be confused with the older, Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)." from end of article as this is covered at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispectre (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

COI
Troublemaker1949 appears to be either a party member or supporter and consistently adds unverifiable claims or deletes material that he feels is unfavourable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Give me some examples of this. I'm only making it more accurate.Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, is the CPGB-ML notable enough for an article? I haven't found any significant mention in secondary reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What's your problem?Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a response to User:Fences and windows then I'd say 'be civil', if it to me then I woulds say 'be aware of WP:COI.' Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is notable in the very small world of British far left politics. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was a response to me; water off a duck's back!
 * I can't find any independent secondary reliable sources that give significant coverage of this organisation, so the article appears to fail our general notability guideline. Articles should be written based on outside sources that cover a topic, not by self-published sources and websites run by the organisation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you prod it or take it AfD then the article on its leader Harpal Brar should logically go too. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd vote keep it.Darrelljon (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I might too; but I'd wait to see the nom's reasoning first. F&W is right that almost all the sources one can find re the outfit are self published. Brar and the party are known within the far left world -- but that might be insuff. for wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not gunning for deletion that hard as I've seen the article around for several months. However, if some better sourcing can't be found then unless we can find a good merge target I'll take it to Articles for deletion. I like rescuing articles on obscure political parties, but this one is tough. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's references at Weekly Worker but due to a technical fault, the archive of the Weekly Worker can only be found at the Internet Archive.Darrelljon (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WW has been out of action for months, hacked or forgot to pay the bill? Some articles are also on the Google Cache, e.g. . Of course the WW can only report what the writers of the WW think of the CPGB-ML. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to "Jack Conrad" it was hacked -- who knows though the "CPGB-PCC" is reckoned to have less then a dozen members (probably similar then to Brar's crew) so maybe someone forgot to put in his share to the kitty. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we're all Harpal's kids and old pals, blah, blah, blah.Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) What's the problem, it's not doing anyone any harm. I thought the point about Wikipedia was that it could serve as a resource for difficult-to-find information. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOHARM for reasons why "it's not doing any harm" isn't a good reason to keep an article. Wikipedia serves to summarise information on notable subjects that is available in reliable sources, not to record all human knowledge, despite grand statements from Jimmy Wales to the contrary. There are two issues if an article lacks secondary sources: 1. Is the subject really noteworthy enough to feature in an encyclopedia if nobody but those involved with the topic have written about it? 2. How can we verify the information in the article if the only source of info is the people involved? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PHOTO
Hello anonymous IP in Lichfield, Staffordshire, England! Why don't you like the photo of CPGB-ML comrades on the march? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you feel if you saw fascists marching under a banner of Adolf Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.227.100 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture takes over the text and anyway there are better pictures than that comrade :) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/2462955596_aa528d3856.jpg ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.196 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a better photo, so will you put it on the page and arrange the way you see fit rather than just delete the other one? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its better -- but I'm not sure that flickr is an acceptable sources for photos. Seems it would be very hard to verify it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The photos including the current one are from Flickr, from the CPGB-ML photostream, and are marked "All Rights Reserved". Unless we get evidence via WP:OTRS that the CPGB-ML is happy for this picture to be released as public domain, it will have to be deleted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

comrade, i think the following may be helpful: (Avtar Jouhl mbe) I'd say those sources are 'sound'. peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molotov832002 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/ConnectingHistoriesNewsletter7.pdf?MEDIA_ID=227497&FILENAME=ConnectingHistoriesNewsletter7.pdf
 * 2) http://www.connectinghistories.org.uk/Learning%20Packages/social_justice_resources.asp
 * 3) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d5O0bZmta-QC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=birmingham+histroy+lalkar&source=bl&ots=7BGssY-CAJ&sig=MTmdyKhoJbCdLdcdiN864YqN0p0&hl=en&ei=wQafStbEHI_H-QbttsTrDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 * 4) http://iwagb.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/madan-lal-dhingra-martyrdom-centenary-commemoration-meeting-in-birmingham-on-15th-august-2009/
 * 1) http://www.e-voice.org.uk/shaheedudhamsingh/

My take on these sources: Fences &amp;  Windows  01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) p4 & 5 talk about the Indian Workers Association, no mention of CPGB-ML. There's a mention of Lalkar.
 * 2) Bunch of links, not a source. There's a mention of Lalkar.
 * 3) Nice source for Brar standing for the SLP, no mention of CPGB-ML.
 * 4) Blog about a meeting at a school for a memorial to an Indian communist that Harpal Brar spoke at. No significant coverage, not a reliable source.
 * 5) Makes no mention of CPGB-ML.

Lalkar
What's going on? Why this vendetta? What on earth in wrong with a page about Lalkar? You really do seem to have a problem. Spend more time creating pages than destroying them! Troublemaker1949 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias
I've just read through this article - it has to be one of the most blatantly biased (and poorly written) articles on a political organization I have seen. Even the first line ("The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) is a British Marxist-Leninist political party that is guided by scientific socialist and communist understanding and principles") is biased in favor of the party, suggesting as it does that "scientific socialism" is indeed "scientific", rather than simply an ideology claiming to be such. The same kind of bias is present in other parts of the article ("After careful analysis, the party accepted a position at its 2012 congress, that there are no separate English and Scottish nations, but rather, when those nations were at the point of developing as modern capitalist economies, their ruling classes joined together to form a "British" nation After careful analysis, the party accepted a position at its 2012 congress, that there are no separate English and Scottish nations, but rather, when those nations were at the point of developing as modern capitalist economies, their ruling classes joined together to form a "British" nation"). Why should this party's claims that it's analysis was "careful" be being presented as fact here? 203.118.187.178 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An even worse example: "The CPGB-ML is opposed to Trotsky's petty bourgeois and anti-communist teachings, and to his modern-day Trotskyite disciples, who it maintains are the agents of imperialism in the working class movement." This isn't remotely in accord with NPOV. 203.118.187.178 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and even worse, they support Gerry Adams-!!! lol Basket Feudalist 09:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To the extent the article simply reflects the party's position it is just fine. For that purpose it is well referenced by its own materials. As to notability, the appearance of the North Korean ambassador to the UK at one of its presentations established that for awhile. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is obviously not "just fine". It is biased, and its bias is that of the political organization it is about. The article is written in such a way that it endorses the political views of that organization, instead of simply reporting them. Any fair person should see that that is the effect of sentences reading, "The CPGB-ML is opposed to Trotsky's petty bourgeois and anti-communist teachings..." 203.118.187.157 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is clearly their position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is that pronouncement supposed to mean? The article is biased in favor of the views of the CPGB-ML, presenting its position that Trotsky's views are "petty bourgeois" and "anti-communist" as though it were truth. This is certainly not a case where the article can be understood to be simply presenting their views, rather than endorsing them (a neutral statement of the party's views would be something like, "The CPGB-ML is opposed to what it considers Trotsky's petty bourgeois and anti-communist teachings...). Your comment is not a relevant response. 203.118.187.157 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

History section to Brar's article
There's a whole lot of stuff in the History section about things Harpal Brar has done.

"Harpal Brar has spoken in debates at the Oxford Union in 2008 (Against the motion 'capitalism can save the planet '), and the Durham union on three occasions (in 2010, against the motion 'the West has a duty to impose democracy ', in 2011 against the motion 'this house would fight for queen and country '; and in 2012 in favour of the motion 'capitalism has failed' ). He was interviewed by Durham Students Union Radio after the last named debate on the record of Soviet Communism.

His books include Perestroika, the complete collapse of revisionism, Trotskyism or Leninism, Social democracy – the enemy within, Bourgeois nationalism or proletarian internationalism, Imperialism – decadent, parasitic, moribund capitalism, Chimurenga!: The liberation struggle in Zimbabwe, 60th Anniversary of the victory over fascism, Imperialism – the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat, Imperialism and War, Nato’s predatory war against Yugoslavia, The British General Strike, Capitalism and Immigration, and Revisionism and the demise of the USSR,"

I suggest moving it to Brar's own article. Particularly the publications section. Extua (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CPGM-ML or CPGB-ML??
The article unaccountably uses the acronym GPGM-ML in several places. Is this correct? What does the first M stand for?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.131.246 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed by reverting RolandR's edits Extua (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

POV and Anti-imperialism
Having had an edit subject to an unexplained reverted by an unregistered user, I wanted to find some opinions before undoing the revert. My edit was small and amounted to little more than this: I would have thought that these were uncontroversial. "Wise" is an unreferenced value-judgement and reads like imported copy. And while there has been discussion of the party's definition of Imperialism, I have seen no suggestion that it is not Anti-imperialist. Does anyone think my edit should not stand? Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * removing the description "wise" from the description of Harpal Brar's leadership so as to reduce the advert-style POV as requested.
 * adding Anti-Imperialism to the Ideology in the Infobox.

UPDATE: An unregistered user has successfully removed the word "wise" without being reverted, so I've attempted to add "anti-imperialism" again to see if I can do that without it being reverted. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Shadowy Cabal
"The CPGB-ML believes the UK is secretly governed by a shadowy cabal of Capitalists and other financial barons." Whoever wrote this was taking the piss, surely? "shadowy cabal"?

The CPGB-ML doesn't believe in any secret-society/Illuminati/stonecutters/no-Homers conspiracies. Certainly if the rich and powerful actually did all join up into COBRA COMMAND or SPECTRE whatever they'd be a much easier target.

Until a citation can be provided then there's no place in the article for crap like that. 82.40.12.117 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Chairman of Communist Party of Great Britain
I propose removing the section "List of Chairman of Communist Party of Great Britain" as this section contains a table with only one entry. According to WP:WHENTABLE: "if a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table". And a list with only one entry effectively reduces to a single sentence, such as "Harpal Brar has been the chairman of the party since 2004".

This would fit best in the lead section. We could replace: "Currently their chairman is retired law professor, writer and businessman Harpal Brar" with "Harpal Brar, a retired law professor, writer and businessman, has been the chairman of the party since 2004". This also removes the MOS:REALTIME problems associated with the word "currently".

Any objections? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

✅ as no objections received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Template colors colors

 * Please join a discussion at Portal talk:Communism on template coloring. Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential update
It seems that the party supports Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As I have little time for WP these days and am not very familiar with this, I'm leaving this note in case someone would like to look for independent sources reporting this and update the article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 08:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)