Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)/Archive 2

Controversies
The 'Controversies' chapter keeps on dragging down the quality of the article, and I suggest it be scrapped: --Soman 14:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Influence of neoliberalism' is just an individual commentary. The fact that not everyone likes a party is notable as such.
 * The nandigram chapter suffers from Recentism. There is a separate article on Nandigram issue, and what needs to be weeded out are which aspects relate to CPI(M) and introduced into the history chapter.
 * The CIA chapter is just bananas. First of all, its not a controversy but relates to history. Second the source fails in reliability, the claims made are highly controversial and a source whose claims cannot be checked up by others (as large sections are censored, and no info on how info was collected) should not be used in these cases.


 * If you take the entire article, 'Influence of neoliberalism' section is supported with most reliable sources some of them written by Senior CPI(M) leaders pointing out its own negative. There is public criticism by Budhadeb against Prabhat which appeared in national Television.  There is absolutely no logic in removing them. In a recent interview between Shekar Gupta and Nirupam Sen, (www.ndtv.com, 8th Dec. 2007), both discuss "criticism about the influence of Neo-liberalism. Nirupam Sen agrees that this is the main criticism of Left intellectuals against Budhadeb's and his policy.  Attempt to obliterate the fact may not help improve the quality of article, hence may not be encouraged. While there are approx. 41 references for the entire article, 'Influence of neo-liberalism' section alone has 16 references. The whole article has got approx. 31500 words. The 'Influence of Neo-liberalism' section has got only 1/10 of the total text, i,e, approx. 3200 words. This means just 1/10 of the size of the total text is supported by 1/3 rd of the total references. Obviously no other section is as reliable as 'Influence of Neo-liberalism' section. I strongly argue to remove the rest of the article  if necessary, if they can not be supported by more references. But this section should continue, as this is very relevant (as shown by NDTV interview) and important and supported by facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.195.146 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem lies mainly in tone. This is not a CPI(M) debate forum, but an encyclopediatic article. See WP:SOAP. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May edit to modify the tone. But removing facts is not the solution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * CIA section doesnt have any reliability. CIA is an agency which is dedicated to do anti-communist propaganda. The document itself testify it is related to espionage by CIA.   There is no corroborative  evidence (forget there is no secondary evidence either) to support CIA's claims. And this is leaked in the background of -  Ino- USA strategic  alliance and Indo-Nuclear agreement. The CIA is an official secret agency of a particular country. Spreading their campaign is not the responsibility of an independent media, but that of its paid agents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.195.146 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Banning 72.179.51.5
This person is consistently removing text and doing political propaganda. Please consider banning this IP Address. Remarks like caste etc is not aimed to enrich the content of wikipedia. This is not a page about CIA propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.28.66 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a content dispute between these two editors. You two should work out the issue on this talk page. However, removing referenced info should not be done by either side unless the consensus on this talk page is to do so.--Alabamaboy (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 122.167.28.66 appears to be a WP:SPA.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note this edit. The source added to the caste claim is dated 1961, i.e. three years before the foundation of CPI(M)! --Soman (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added extra references. There is no doubt that the CPM leadership is ethnically skewed in favor of upper caste Brahmins, and numerous sociologists and historians have commented on this bizarre demographic bias. This is the reason why lower caste political parties like the Bahujan Samaj and the (ironically named) Samaajwadi (means socialist he-he) party are hostile to the CPI(M).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps its the other way around, that BSP and SP represent the interests of the ruling class, and thus come into conflict with CPI(M). Class and caste are two structures which interrelate in sometimes paradoxal ways. I'm not opposed to mentioning a section on the support base of CPI(M), with proper references, but including this in the leading is pov-pushing beyond all limits. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the CPM is Brahmin-dominated, and they are the ruling class. It is true that class and caste interrelate in bizarre ways in India, however,not in the way that the Communist-controlled media portrays it. Including this very important fact in the lead is hardly POV-pushing, given that the Brahmanist-domination of the CPM is a key point in it's criticism, and attests to the fact that Indian socialism is really just a cover for touting Brahmin ethnocentrism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * '...attests to the fact that Indian socialism is really just a cover for touting Brahmin ethnocentrism.' see WP:FRINGE. As per the 'references', these are dated 1964, 1967 and 1972 respectively. In real life the image is far more complex. There are many Brahmins in the higher echelons of Indian politics, this spans across left and right, and is testament to inequality in access to higher education, etc., in India. But to say that 'lower caste hindus and muslims have no say' is completly false. What about the Ezhavas of Kerala? And compare politics in WB and Kerala with say UP and Bihar, and the concrete results of progressive land and educational reforms. Where's the caste politics in WB, compared to the Hindi states? --Soman (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SeeWP:NOR. Our job is not to comment on or judge he value of peer-reviewed sources, merely to mention them. Do you have any peer-reviewed sources of your own, or just politburo propaganda?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, read it youself. Your 'peer-reviewed sources' to prove your point all have passed the expiry date with a wide margin. Also, I supposed it was your 'peer-reviewed sources' that simply forced you to fill the article lead with your own pov? --Soman (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Ye of little faithGhanadar galpa (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The opposition in West Bengal is also upper-caste dominated (eg Mamata Bannerjee). The fact is that politics in West Bengal is upper-caste dominated - it is not a feature exclusive to the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indian society as a whole is dominated by upper castes. My point of comparison was that WB lacks caste politics in the sense that dominates political life in UP and Bihar. Notably, neither SP, BSP nor RJD has been able to make inroads into WB. --Soman (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WB lacks caste politics? Tell that to the people in morichjhanpi, or, for that matter, to the numerous lower-caste farmers near the Bengal-Bihar boirder on the WB side who have been steadily marginalized by the upper-caste dominated CP(M) Bengal. Perhaps the CPI(M) Kerala maybe doesn't have a lot of caste politics, but the same thing is not the case for the Bengali Brahmins who control the CPM and use their power to tout their crude ethnocentric ideologies.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. Caste votebank politics, UP/Bihar style, does not exist in WB. This doesn't mean that social inequalities don't exist there, but party politics do not have clear caste dividing lines, which is by no means coincidental. --Soman (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to see a source other than a partisan CPM-backed "Rabochy-put"-esque rag that attests to this claim.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To begin with, its not me who's rewriting the lead at this point. The burden of proof lies on you, in a double sense, both to back up the claim that CPI(M) is a vehicle for brahman supremacy (post 1972, preferably) as well as stressing why this is so crucial that it has to be included in the lead. I have stated before, that I'm not oppose to having a section which would deal with, properly referenced of course, the character of the support base of CPI(M), on caste and community basis. It is true, which I have already stated, that the communist movement leadership was dominated by the bhandralok communists (Somnath Chatterjee is sometimes refered to as the last bhandralok communist), but to say that Brahman supremacy would be significant characteristic of CPI(M), today or in 1964, is completly bogus. To say that Prakash Karat, Surjeet, VS, Dasarath Deb, etc. are 'token leaders' is just detached from reality. --Soman (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that to say that the high Brahmin membership of the CPM is proof of the CPM's Brahmin supremacist agenda is Original Research (although completely true). This is the reason why that claim is not made in the article. The only thing in the lead is that the CPM is heavily Brahmin-dominated, and I can find dozens, if not hundreds, of sources to verify this (virtually any' peer-reviewed article on the history of the poison that is Indsoc ie Indian socialism mentions this). The reader is left to draw the obvious conclusion himself.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the presence of upper castes in the CPM's politbureau and/or the West Bengal government necessarily proof that it is a "vehicle for Brahmin supremacy" or caste-based politics? I don't accept there is a causal link and such a conclusion would be original research and unverifiable. There are many upper-caste communists who have fought against casteism. Take, for an example, Ila and Ramendra Mitra.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Is the presence of upper castes in the CPM's politbureau and/or the West Bengal government necessarily proof that it is a "vehicle for Brahmin supremacy""? No. not necessarily in the legal sense of the term "proof". However, anybody with eyes and ears notes the obvious. The fact that some Brahmins have "fought against Casteism" is hardly the point.Most Brahmins who do so do so for votebank reasons. Like I said below. Brahmin Communists often use arguments and propaganda that appeal to non-Brahmins without actually meaning them. Nonetheless, I agree that such claims, within the context of this article, are original research and I won't support saying these things in the article page. However, the fact that Communism in India is hopelessly Brahmin-skewed, both past and present, is very well-sourced and very important. The inferences that we may draw from that ethnic skewness are not, unless I can find a peer-reviewed analysis attesting to that fact.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing is fact, it is just opinion. There may be many people with the opinion that Communists are inherently casteist. There are also many who disagree. Both sides should be represented, with the origin of opinion clearly stated. This is the basis of "Neutral Point of View". My personal opinion is that Indian politics has been dominated by upper castes, but not necessarily always determined by caste interests. I also don't believe that someone who happens to be a Brahmin will always work for Brahmin interests. In my experience, caste is far less a determinant of electoral politics in West Bengal than most other parts of India, so I think it would be wrong and simplistic to claim that Communist freedom-fighters and trade unionists are only interested in the vote bank politics of their own caste.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the article doesn't say any of that now, does it? It merely states a fact noted by many outside observers, that the Communist Party is heavily Brahmin dominated. Let the reader reach his own conclusions. Do you have any sources (not Communist ones please) that say that the Brahmin skewness of Indian socialism is untrue? I'd like to see 'em.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as noted below, the CPM's leadership is not overwhelmingly Brahmin Hindu. There are other castes and religions represented at all levels of the party. So your assertion that the CPM is "heavily Brahmin dominated" is not based entirely on fact. Secondly, all notable opinions should be represented. If there is a source saying that upper castes dominate the party, then a counter-balancing source must be found to show the CPM's official line on caste politics. The CPM has issued a number of resolutions condemning caste oppression . It has condemned Brahmin caste-based political influence at a state level, eg Tamil Nadu
 * I recommend the following as an NPOV paragraph, to be inserted into the article: "The CPM has been criticised for alleged Brahmin-domination at the top echelons of the party hierarchy, with West Bengal's Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya singled out for criticism. However, some of the parties leading figures come from lower castes as well as the Muslim and Sikh communities. The CPM has also made public declarations against what it sees as Brahmin domination of politics at a state level and has stated that fighting caste oppression is an integral part of socialism."--Conjoiner (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any more recent allegations of caste domination in the CPM? The references in this article are from the 1960s and 1970s. Something more recent would be helpful.--Conjoiner (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with adding it in a separte para. However, a peculiarly blatant example of Original research done by politburo members was demonstrated in the assertion that the presence of non-brahmin members and some poorly written and obvious apologia from a politburo rag is adequate "rebuttal" to peer-reviewed academic journals. None of the apologist refernces you cited to rather desperately whitewash the cpm's casteistcore address the specific allegations of Brahmin domination. What is required are proper, authoritative peer-reviewed sources that address any claims that oppose the ones alleging casteism in CPM. WP:NPOV is hardly an excuse here, since WP:ATT and WP:NOR supercede NPOV.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The CPM's rebuttal is essential to creating an NPOV article. There is nothing in Wikipedia rules that states that only "authoritative peer-reviewed sources" (you've cited some sources that date back 30 or 40 years) are required.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On caste an politics in West Bengal, here are some notes from Samaddar Ranabir, Caste and Power in West Bengal, published in Sharma, K. L. (ed.), New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2001 --Soman (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ;

"The subdivisions like Bangaon, Basirhat and particularily blocks like Bangaon, Gaighata, Habra, Baduria, etc., had witnessesed in the past mighty peasant struggles during the Tebhaga and post-Tebhaga phases – all under the Red Flag leadership of the Kisan Sabha. The dominant groups that joined the struggle were Muslims and the peasant castes like the the Namasudras – a low caste,…" (Samaddar, Ranabir, Caste and Power in West Bengal, p. 53)

"The Scheduled Castes in Bengal do not have a separate political identity, nor are there indications that they desire it. Yet, there is caste hierarchy, caste inequality, and the low castes are identified with poverty, exploitation and destitution." (Samaddar, p. 55)

"Thus, the paradox of Bengal can be clearly positioned now: There is an apparent basis for a ‘caste question’ here. Yet there is no ‘caste question’ in a politically significant way. It is not a serious issue, a populist agenda even for power-grabbing politicians." (Samaddar, p. 57)

"Further, as Ashok Mitra argues, caste associations have been noticeably absent in West Bengal." (Samaddar, p. 58)

The Left Front government policy is to stabilise the sharecroppers and its overall impact has been the stability of the middle peasantry in the countryside. Though it has not checked the impoverishment of the poor peasantry and the swelling of the ranks of agricultural labourers, it has meant a relative absence of a sharp class struggle between the landed gentry and of the rural poor. In Bihar, as we have seen, this implies the struggle of the dalits. … When the Left Front government first came to power, rural struggles flared up in Midnapore and Burdwan for higher wages. But the lid was quickly put on after the term was over. The middle class is again the crucial political factor here. In fact, the whole social reform movement and the ‘Renaissance’ of the nineteenth century, which laid the ground for twentieth century liberalism, had all the imprints of the middle class.

Politically, our analysis must go deeper. If the middle class has helped in blunting caste antagonism, the struggles for land and civil rights have been equally important” [section on dalit participation in Tebhaga and trade unions, in various locations] “These movements too have helped in creating a general democratic awareness and muting the caste factor. (Samaddar, p. 59-60)
 * Well yes. Certainly Communist sympathizers will try to whitewash nefarious Communist plots to undermine the interests of the people of India for their own agendas. There is nothing new here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

'Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states'
At this point, the chapter 'Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states' starts with 'The CPI(M)'s policies in West Bengal have been criticised' followed by a ref. Is there any governing party in the world that has never been criticized? The fact that one anonymous writer disagrees with party policies is hardly notable. My suggestion is to lift this subsection out of the dismal 'controversies' slushbucket, and have a separate section on 'CPI(M) state governments', which could go through the history and development of CPI(M)-led state governments. This is a very notable feature of the party, and is not discussed enough as the article as it is. Such a section could of course also include critical viewpoints. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CPI(M) following New-Economic policies is a major policy shift. It is not a "CPI(M) state governments" issue.


 * 70 odd Central Committe members from different castes and religions. Last General Secretary Surjeet Sikh, not Hindu Brahmin. Present general secretary not Brahmin. national leaders of freedom struggle of India, were upper caste leaders. Communist party was founded in India by then National leaders of freedom movement, naturally many Brahmins. But unlike Congress and RSS, many early communist leaders  from other religions and caste groups. Musaffer Ahmed of Bengal, Muslim, Krishna Pillai non-brahmin Hindu, Surjeet- Sikk are early leaders.Present day Kerala chief minister Other Backward caste Hindu, former Tripura chief minister a Tribal leader. There are only a handful number of Brahmin leaders among new generation CPM leaders.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.4.71 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so the CPI has a few token non-Brahmin leaders. The Brahmin communists are a smart bunch (you forget that the Brahmins have spent generation breeding both hyper-intelligence and hyper-ethnocentrism into their ranks), an structure the party in such a way as to create a showpeice shell of non-Brahmins surrounding a still-very Brahmanized core. Like political movements typical to Bengali Brahmins, they use arguments and propaganda that appeal to non-Brahmins, but preserve a central value system that's still rooted in Brahmanist ethnic activism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'spent generation breeding hyper-intelligence...'.... Alien invasion, anyone? --Soman (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, Communists do believe in teh discredited "Aryan Invasion Theory" don't they? Alien invasion, indeed :) .Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic
Looking through the rest of the "controversies" section, I can see that it completely fails to reach the standards expected of an encyclopaedia and in parts is badly written propaganda. Nandigram is already covered in a separate article and the section currently looks like an out-dated news story and the rest looks simply confused.--Conjoiner (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To a politburo member, anything other than what the politburo says is anti-Communist/Zionist/Hindu/Sikh/martian propaganda. Most of the facts therein are quite well sourced, and One would thank the politburo members not to convert wikipedia into an edition of Anandabazaar Patrika. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing unencyclopedic. There is nothing unencyclopedic in the controversy section. The facts are completely true that:
 * CPM is Brahmin-dominated
 * Disputes on CPM's economic policies
 * and the other facts mentioned there. These facts should be mentioned. These are completely encyclopedic and relevant information.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover CPI(M) is forged an alliance with hardcore Islamic Terrorists outfits in Kerala - a separete section is needed on this issue.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This point is, of course, quite well known, and is basically the Indian version of the Red-green-brown alliance that is a global problem, with communist revisionists and propagandists being open apologists for militant Islamists and militant Islam. The most recent case of this is the CPM,'s support of Islamic fatwas and death threats passed against human rights activist Taslima Nasreen, as well as them banning her re-entry into west bengal because fanatic Muslims disliked her writings. There was even a program aired on Communist-controlled television in Calcutta that 9/11 was a secret Jewish Conspiracy (an allegation that is a favourite among extremist Muslims). I would love to see more sources attesting to this nefarious alliance and it's penetration into Indian politics. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also other issues, such as the Indian Communists touting pseudoscience in Bengali schools such as Stalinist Eugenics, Lysenkoism and zionology (all of which I have witnessed in Calcutta myself). i will have to do deeper research to get references. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding more reference on CPM-Islamists nexus.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover CPM banned book of Taslima Nasrin in fear of loosing votes from hardcore Muslims. Recently CPM chairman Biman Basu told that Taslima Nasrin should leave West Bengal due to the same motivation. These facts should also be mentioned.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In November 2003, the West Bengal government banned the sale, distribution and collection of Taslima's Dwikhandito, the third part of her autobiography. This fact need to be mentioned.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In September 2007 a movement was initiated in West Bengal by Islamic extremists and communist sympathizers demanding expulsion of Taslima from India. As a consequence, she has been forced to leave Calcutta and seek refuge in New Delhi. She is being used by the West Bengal government as a way of diverting attention from the dispute between the state and Muslim farmers in the rural district of Nandigram. Fourteen people were killed and reports of further violence have continued to shock India. Taslima said: "I'm writing a lot, but not about Islam, It's not my subject now. This is about politics. In the last three months I have been put under severe pressure to leave Bengal by the police. This point is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is evident that the two editors above cannot distinguish opinion from fact and the requirements of an encyclopaedia. This is not a blog, nor a discussion forum for Bengali politics. Feel free to create one elsewhere. But all notable opinions, from both sides, must be given equal weight. And all of what is written above is opinion - yes, notable opinion even, but cannot be regarded as fact by Wikipedia since this opinion is disputed. We can get on and concentrate on creating an article people will want to read, or it can deteriorate further into the kind of diatribe you can download from anywhere on the internet.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I think you need to read up on wikipedia policies as listed on wikipedia, not as listed on a pamphlet launched by the Propagandaministerium of the CPM. Nothing in teh article that is an opinion is presented as fact. The tone has been adjusted to reflect the views. Equal weight, as a matter of principle, if fine. However, we clearly have a conflict between WP:UNDUE and WP:ATT/WP:NOR when the sources cited to try to "refute" allegations of casteism have no connection to the specific claims made by the academics.Given such a conflict, WP:ATT carried precedence. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply giving the CPM's defence from its own party documents is not giving undue weight when this is an article about the CPM! The (very old) sources you give don't actually accuse the CPM of casteism, they note that the CPM was led by upper castes. To bring balance, the CPM's own policies on caste must be referenced in order to ensure NPOV. It seems that you are determined to revert anything that puts forward the CPM's own viewpoint. Consequently, I cannot see this argument progressing. As such, I think we need to seek outside advice, particularly on Wikipedia policy, which I think that neither of us is qualified to interpret.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That might not be such a bad idea. perhaps "Third opinion"? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we seek a third opinion in Wikipedia?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Third opinion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Temp
I'm restarting a temp page, at User:Soman/CPI(M)-temp, for build-up of material to fill the 1971-2007 void in the history chapter. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Galpa's school of falsification
Still unanswered, amongst the various issues making this article just more and more bizarre, is the question how Harrison could have called the CPI(M) a 'Brahman boys club' three years before the foundation of the party. Did he have a crystal ball? --Soman (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The movement that inspired the CPM existed long before the CPM itself was formed, and it was, indeed, a Brahmin boys club. Simple, isn't it?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you wrote '(the CPM is)', you actually meant something completely different? For your argument to have at least a grain of sense, what does Harrison actually refer to? Please complete the original sentence here at the talk page. --Soman (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Wikilawyering please. The line is taken from the section of the paper that taks about CPI politics in Madras and how the marxist split was already in the works.The section is in p 292

In Madras the party has been "tainted" by Brahman leadership, being what Selig Harrison has called "a bunch of Brahman boys." Because the party's leadership has acquired something of a Brahman image, it has not been able to amalgamate the party with one or more of the politically conscious caste associations which have come to play so vital a role in the political life of Madras and many other Indian states

This is a concise sumary of Harrison, India, p. 180, where he entitles a section of a chapter with the phrase which he took from an interview he had with the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How does CPI politics in Chennai over 40 years ago have anything to do with the present-day CPM, whose main power base is in West Bengal? I feel that you are synthesising an argument, extrapolating points from out-dated sources that do not actually proove your point that the CPM is casteist (ie divides and persecutes according to caste). Harrison is saying, rather, that the CPI leadership in Madras in the early 1960s was elitist, not casteist. A quite different thing, although if his only source of information is Ambedkar, then it is not surprising he was confused. Ambedkar reduced everything to caste and, in my experience, Ambedkarites like to see casteism where none exist (one even told me that Netaji was a Dalit and Gandhi was a Brahmin in an effort to proove that Congress was a source of Brahminical dominance and therefore the cause of Dalit suffering - in fact, Netaji was a Brahmin and Gandhi was a Vaishya!).
 * As for lawyering, you repeated reference to Wikipedia rules that have little relevance to the argument is a good example of what you accuse Soman of doing.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of this is germane to the issue at hand. Please invite a third opinion if you must. Furthermore, CPI(M)'s main power base is not just West Bengal, but Kerala, parts of Tamil Nadu, and most of the English language media that they control, either directly or through the use of dummy corporations. Their pernicious power base is vaster than is let on.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O, the irony. If this had been about the party in Bengal, or at least its nationwide leadership, it could have been marginally relevant. Now 1) Tamil Nadu was not one of the places were CPI organization went over to CPI(M) en bloc, on the contrary it is one of the states were CPI has able to retain some equilibrity with CPI(M), 2) Caste politics in Tamil Nadu are notably different from the rest of India. Tamil Nadu has a party system almost entirely of its own (national parties are not dominant in TN politics), and caste came into competitive party politics at a very early stage with the growth of Dravidian movement. This might be interesting when talking about TN politics of the early 1960s, or on why Kerala and TN developed differently politically, but it says nothing about caste and CPI(M) today, neither in TN or in India as a whole. In fact, TN is one of the states were CPI(M) has been running anti-caste campaigns. I recall a Frontline article of 2003, on a rural party cadre were killed for the campaign for dalit rights. --Soman (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... in other words there are idiots in India who have their heads as far up their asses as the Communists do. What's your point exactly?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Caste, proposal for moving forwards
My proposal on how to take this debate forward would be to create a separate 'Caste' section or subsection ('CPI(M) and caste', or something similar), which would NOT be a subsection to 'Controversies'. Such a section could deal with the subject from various angles, such as; --Soman (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretical analysis of CPI(M) on caste system
 * Caste compositions or leadership, parliamentarians, support base, voters
 * Anti-caste activities of the party (without insinuatory remarks)
 * Policy of the party towards reservations, quotas, mandal commission, etc.

Consider statement: "Guruji Golwalker, RSS philosopher head had eaten and defecated a lot during his lifetime and his shit contained a lot of germs." Thiis is factually correct, but should be added to biography? Almost all national Indian political parties, except caste or religion based ones, had leaders predominantly from elite families, most of them upper caste and Brahmins. CPI(M) or left parties are the only National parties, had ensured the leadership transformation from Brahmin and uppercaste to the lower rungs of caste hierarchy.
 * Allegations, misconceptions, nonsense, facts

Case of miserable failure to understad terms "Brahminical", "caste", "corporate", "Communism", "leadership", "Tamil Nadu" etc.

" Brahminical" is not equivalent to Brahmin always. Most often, "Brahminical" is used to question the uppercaste dominated social system, where the lower-caste rights are denied. In the context ot Dravidian Movement the word "anti-brahminical" is widely used. Dravida Kazhagam was not simpy opposing Brahmins, it is against untouchability and other caste based oppressions. Dravida Kazhagam was against North Indian (Aryan) groups and culture (Hindi) and not all of them are Brahmins. DeccanHerald the Karnataka News paper was criticised of following Brahminical view till Hari Kumar's time, but it is not run by Brahmins but by OBC caste family.

What is caste? Inherited by birth? Then how Vishwa Hindu Parishad converting some lower caste into Brahmins relevant? If a person follows secular political view and never practise religious and caste rituals and remain an athiest, is he still Brahmin? Landlordism is the economical base of Caste superiority in social life. How can a party be blamed Brahminical, if IT IS THE ONLY PARTY SUCCESSFULLY CAMPAIGNED FOR LAND REFORMS AND IMPLEMENTED IT WHERE EVER IT HAD COME TO POWER?

Corporate: If some Parsis are controlling TATA, that doesnt mean TATA Yellow Page is a Parsi literature. Even TATA group can not be called Parsi Corporate. There is nothing like CPM controlled corporate media.

if Communism can be considered foreign concept, so is Democracy. so is Hinduism. Vedic Hindus were not living in the present day India is well established. Even Guruji Golwalker says Gandhara (Afghanistan) is the Birth Place of Gandhari. There is no philosophy which is purely Indian or western. The language typed here is not Indian. Should that be mentioned after each paragraph, while typing?. The Wikipedia is not Indian, should each page of wikipedia contain that. The name India is not Indian. So after giving a title India, should it be mentioned within bracket-- "the foreign name of the country". There should be a limit for talking utter...

Who are the leaders of CPI(M)? Definitely not General Secretary, as General Secretary was over ruled many times. Is Central committee the leadership? But Central committe can work only within the framework of Party congress. Hence are the delegates of Party congress the leaders of CPI(M). Take either central committee, or the delegates of Party congress, both have only a handful number of Brahmins in them. Though, cant verify, I will be surprised if they are more than 10%. CPI(M) leadership is at present dominated by OBC and Non-Brahmin Uppercaste (if birth is the criteria to decide caste)

When was CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu dominated by Brahmins? From where is this ---sense researched? There seems to be no idea which party has dominance in which state. There are elemetary knowledge one can acquire by talking in the local tea shops before speaking on top of the mountain.

The attempts to malign and glorify CPI(M) should not be encouraged. There should be a balanced view. When criticism is made by top CPI(M) leaders themselves, and if they are about the very fundamentals, then they are serious and should have a place here. But rabble rousers' rhetorics even if they are facts, should not be given place here. What is the relevance of CIA statements about communism.CIA is an anti-communist wing. Spreading false propoganda is its activity. If Bush said Iraq had Weapons of Mass destruction, or Iran had Nuclear program, what relvance it has, other they are uttered by Bush? The allegations by CIA should be mentioned in an article with the heading "Allegations and Follies of CIA" and not under CPI(M) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.8.204 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fraud
The latest addition of the anti-cpi(m)-pov-pushers is the accusations of electoral fraud. Such allegations have been directed against all major parties in India. It must be understood that political parties compete with other parties, all parties have enemies, and including every accusation ever directed against a party in the article drags down the encyclopediatic quality. This has already happened to BJP, INC and Shiv Sena articles. I think we should work to improve the quality of these articles, to lift them to FA status, rather than using the wiki articles as notice-boards of our own personal grievances and biases against them. --Soman (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida should not be used as a playground for spreading communist propaganda or CPI(M) party's own propaganda. Electoral fraud is a genuine and imporatant fact, no matter if it is done by other parties or not, the matter is that it is done by CPM. In Iraq War, there are accusations against both parties- US and Saddam. Allegations against Saddam are the allegations of human rights violation. On the other hand allegation are also present against US force. Now if anyone accuse US force of human rights violation on Iraqi prisoners, such as in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, then that will not become anti-US or pro-Saddam. The matter is simply tell the truth, no matter who is doing the bad jobs, simply tell the truth whoever is doing it. Our job will be cultivate truth and mention them, not to conceal truth. Electoral fraud is a completely true and genuine fact- then why this will be whitewashed? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the 'communist propaganda' in the article? Please identify the passages you say is 'propaganda'. As per the accusations of fraud, there is a semantical twist here. There are allegations of fraud in wb elections, as in many other Indian states. Now you say this is 'completly true and genuine fact'. Please source that. --Soman (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whitewashing the allegations against "subject X" is regarded as propaganda campaign by "subject X".
 * Regarding source of fraud, you can see from the sources that these are allegations against CPM of fraud. Now you say 'it is false and non-genuine fact'. On which basis? Please provide source by which it can be proved that CPM don't involve in rigging. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Equally, Wikipedia is not a place for portraying opinion as objective fact. What is required in the "controversy" section is allegation followed by refutation, using verifiable and relevant sources. I've no personal interest in defending the CPM. I would like to see a well-written article that can inform readers of the history, organisation and political ideology of this party, including the debates surrounding it. On the issue of electoral fraud, I agree that it is a problem across the political system and is endemic, not specific to the CPM. If allegations of electoral fraud are to be included, then they should be set in the context of the endemic problem of electoral fraud throughout India, including those many states where the CPM has no presence.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This article is needed to be a well-written article with cultivating all the scopes including allegations against the party. And if a party is engaged in electoral fraud, then it is needed to be mentioned. Drug trafficking is global problem, then why wikipedia has article Illegal drug trade in China or Illegal drug trade in Colombia? Is there any objection that if drug trafficking be a global problem, then why these two countries are specifically mentioned with the issue of drug trafficking? Similarly if CPM involve in rigging, then it a fact with CPM and simply need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is apples and oranges. By your own logic, the All India Trinamool Congress article would be pure pro-Trinamool propaganda, since it includes none of the accusations of violence, thuggery, gansterism, murders, etc., that CPI(M) repeatedly accuse the party of. Political parties trade accusations all the time, and in Indian politics these accusations are often very sharp. This is nothing unusual, and if you ask me these accusations say more about the political character of Trinamool Congress than of the CPI(M). --Soman (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies concisely to this argument.Ghanadar galpa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ~
 * Learn to read the guidelines before lecturing about them. Othercrap refers to a non-argument in deletion discussions. It does not prohibit to make comparisons between articles on talk pages. The point of the argument is what consequences Otolemur's argument would have if, and I point out the term if, applied to other articles. Read the passage again and respond the question, if you'd like. Or, rebuff it with an acronym or the name of a random soviet publication in Russian. --Soman (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If electoral fraud is done by nearly all parties, it is not become an argument that CPM also can do electoral fraud. It is not an argument that if A-party and B-party doing some bad job, then C-party's bad job is not bad. The matter is simply telling the truth. CPM engage in rigging, it is a fact, and need to mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, if this is 'fact' (as opposed to an 'accusation'), give a source. --Soman (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It can stay as accusation, no problem with that. Sources are alredy been provided and also mention it that way. It is not saying that "CPM is engaged in rigging"., instead it says "CPM has been accused of rigging". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That means we're back to square one. Please answer the question; should there been any discrepance in including accusations from rival political parties in the articles? Concretely, which accusations of the CPI(M) should/could be included in the Trinamool article? --Soman (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

India has a multi-party system and political parties are recognised by Election Commission of India. As it is a democracy, as it is a multy-party system, there is NO PROBLEM in including accusation from other parties. Moreover the accusations are published in newpapers, not in the other parties' website. So there is no problem in putting these accusations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So there is no problem for the encyclopediatic quality if all articles on Indian political parties get flooded with listings of rants and accusations? How would the INC article look, if your standards were applied there? --Soman (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are accusations. Controversies are controversies. It need to mentioned to write an article with all angles. Simply it is the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is important to cover all sides in an article, I also agree with Soman that every accusation and allegation traded between parties need not be reproduced on Wikipedia. If you are familiar with Indian politics, you'll know that rhetoric can often be hysterical and the CPM is no exception to this. Repeating everything here could breach verifiability. If the Electoral Commission or the police have reported electoral fraud by the CPM, then it is an issue. If it is someone like Mamata Bannerjee saying it, then it is not worth publishing, otherwise, as Soman says, the articles for all Indian political parties will be filled with the most absurd allegations.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the accusations are published in reliable sources and need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you've lived in West Bengal, you'd know that the entire news media has an anti-Left bias, hence the hysterical way in which Buddhadeb is portrayed as General Dyer over the Nandigram police action by the same media that play down Modi's hand in the Gujarat carnage.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to read the actual sourced article in question. Mamta makes a general comment about 'rigging' (without going into any specifics at all), but does not demand a repoll. If there was any real notability or substance to this, the NDA Centre governments (to which Mamta belonged at the time) would have every opportunity of seeking to declare President's Rule in West Bengal. --Soman (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While Trinamool did not call for a repoll, CPM's did call for a repoll in 100 booths that it alleges were taken over by Trinamool activists. What would give more weight to this section is whether the Electoral Commission actually took action following the allegations of vote rigging, or whether this is simply the usual exchange of accusations and counter-accusations that lack any substance.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ikyaranga?
It is said in the article that Ikyaranga has been substituted by Janashakti as the party organ in Karnataka. Since when? http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/18/stories/2007031813680500.htm, from March 2007 mentions Ikyaranga. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gurushant is now editing Janashakti- From May 1st 2007 onwards. Janashakti was the mouthpiece of undivided communist party in Karnataka, Nirajana was associated with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.214.103 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking
I don't think blanking out entire sections is a positive way forward. As this blanking is being carried out by anonymous people/person, is there any way in which we can ensure that only established users can edit the article?--Conjoiner (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've currently semi-protected the page for a week; encourage all users involved to make use of the dispute resolution process, once we get to talking. – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stated my position several times on this talk page, namely that the entire 'controversies' chapter should be removed. It is an ill-written piling of random rants and conspiracy theories, and cannot be improved by copyediting. Those parts of that section, which have some sense can be lifted out and placed in the history section. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Soman, Please refrain from deleting the whole section. I do not see your logic for removing the whole controversy section. Controversy and allegations section is a must in any article to make it NPOV. This section also provides a means to refute the allegations or controvercies. Just ignoring serious controvercies amouts to presenting 'half truths' Sindhian (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is very simple. Having a separate 'controversies'/'allegations' section functions as an open invitation to pov pushing, as it is perceived that normal standards of neutrality not need to apply there. Your actions so far prove my point. Controversies sections are not a 'must' by any means. The idea that mixing positive pov+negative pov = NPOV is incorrect, the entire article should be NPOV. If you find pov formulations in other sections, please feel free to edit those. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually quite normal to have a "Controversies" and or "Criticisms" section in articles about controversial subjects. The fact that it is an "open invitation to pov pushing" is not an excuse to omit criticism; the pov-pushing will just have to be removed as it occurs.

That said, we must be careful that any controversies and/or criticisms are extremely well-sourced and presented in a neutral and non-sensationalist manner. I have agreed to take a look at this article, but may not get to it until Monday. Try not to edit war too much over the weekend ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think one thing should be remembered, with the risk of being repetitive, political parties are in constant conflict/competition with other political parties. The fact that opposing parties will have heaps of criticism against a party is a no-brainer, and isn't really notable. I would disagree with the assumption that CPI(M) would be a particularily controversial subject, and the existence of a criticism sections should not be used to give such an impression. That said, I do acknowledge that the media debate on CPI(M) has shifted during the past 18 months to the disadvantage of CPI(M). My proposal is quite simple; no separate criticism chapter, but yes to including critical perspectives in other sections of the article. --Soman (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point. While having a "Criticisms" section in general is not unusual, I checked the articles for a number of other major political parties and found that they did not have a separate Criticisms section.
 * I will have to take a closer look at the content in question to see how best to move forward, and like I say, won't have time to do that tonight I don't think... ---Jaysweet (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Soman and Jaysweet in that as other parties do no have seperate Criticism sections, neither should this one. Also, Sindhian has already tried to create articles about such criticisms at Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war. As this article was written as an attack against the Communist Party of India (Marxist), it was speedly deleted. This is a pattern well established. At this point, I think it is fair to say that to add such a section would be undue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to stress that amongst the blurry wordings of the 'controversies' section there are two notable facts which should be covered in some way; 1) Nandigram has had a notable impact on the role of CPI(M). The notable aspect is not mainly to collect a random heap of negative commentaries, but the fact that Nandigram/Singur has changed the way CPI(M) relates to other left forces in India, 2) The caste issue is notable, and should be covered. I find Sindhian's wordings as out of context, but the detail of Yadav's comment could certainly be included in a separate 'Caste issue' section. --Soman (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban users Conjoiner and Ghanadar galpa
Spreading fascist ideology like "Socialism is a foreign concept which is not acceptable to Indian culture is a fascist campaign. To prevent wikipedia from used as a tool to spread fascism, these two users should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have two options here. You can engage constructively and politely and put across your misgivings about the article on this talk page, or you can continue to disrupt the article until it is protected from anonymous users from editing it and your IP address is blocked. I am confident that I and all other established users who have been contributing here, representing all opiions, will not be banned.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Readers please go through the discussion above. None of the logic is acceptable to the above two users. Wikipedia is not an anti communist propaganda machine. nor it is a pro-cpm propaganda tool. Why these two users has only motivated anti-communist lies to spread here. I am for a balance approach. I have not attempted to remove all anti communist statements here as some other editors wanted to. But a lie is a lie. If some one say CPI(M) is brahmin dominated party they should have the ability to tell which leaders of 70 plus central committee leaders are brahmins. Socialism is a foreign ideology is a fascist propaganda. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has clearly declared that Socialism, islam and Christianity is not acceptable to India. These fascists are motivated by Hitler and Mussolini is well established. Wikipedia can not be allowed to be a fascist propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are being idiotic. If you read anything I wrote above, I was challenging the notion that the CPM is Brahmin-dominated. Moreover, I have worked towards a balanced approach, particularly on the allegations that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture - an idea I personally think is absurd, but one that is propagated by the Sangh Parivar and therefore is a notable viewpoint. I do have reservations as to whether the CPM article is the appropriate place for this, or whether it is more suitable for inclusion in a more general article about socialism in India. But don't pursue this ridiculous campaign against me, simply because I have reverted your vandalism - for blanking entire sections without any attempt at debate is vandalism.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is some sort of sick joke, right? American Academic David Frossard is a shill of "evil Hindu idolaters"? Notable western academics are all "Hitler and Mussolini lovers". Sounds like some Indian Communist version of the protocols of the learned elders of zion. Does anybody need to take this crap seriously? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Added Note. IP adress 122.167.6.1 comes from Bangalore, Karnataka, Bangalore. Some organization named APNIC and the domain "ap.nic.in". A couplea swift google searches some very interesting details about this group and whom it's a front for . Clever little buggers, these CPM types and their paid shills, ain't they? WP:COI in spades, anyone? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You do understand that ap.nic.in and apnic.net are not the same right? Also, you do understand that ap.nic.in is essentially the government of Andhra Pradesh's information service, right? You do understand that 1000s of people use the ap.nic.in internet domain, right? --Soman (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Condemn wikipedia being used for fasicst propaganda
The below statement is now part of wikipedia page, which is given a certain legel of protection now by preventing ordinary users from editing it. "Incompatibility with Indian culture

Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society.[52] They are accused of advocating an ideology that is not sensitive to India's ethnic and cultural diversity.[citation needed] Some also accuse them of failing to engender a new form of national identity, which has allegedly led to the failure of Communist parties to establish a national following.[53] [54] David Frossard criticizes the CPI(M) in Kerala for ignoring the inherently Capitalist nature of the agrarian system in the region and trying to impose collectivist and allegedly Stalinist economic policies. He alleged that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India.[55]"

It is clearly a fascist statement. It is not relevant who has written this originally. There are thousands of articles and books written by various authors. What is written in wikipedia should be judged by the message it is spreading. The above statement as part of wikipedia article is part of a pro-Hindutva fascist campaign. The very statement that European Socialism is not suitbable to India is a RACIAL COMMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with the anon user here. The notion that Socialism (or other trends of though originating in modern times) would be 'incompatible' to Indians is extremly demeaning to Indians at large. To say that Socialism is 'inapproriate for Indian society' is of course a grossly pov and unencyclopediatic statement, even though that opinion might have been expressed in text somewhere. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. Numerous academics and sociologists have commented and written that socialism is completely at odds with traditional Indian values, and the only reason why there even are any "communists" is because Indian communists don't even knoiw what Communism is, and merely join the mob of CPM thugs because of their ethnic or religious compulsions. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to ban Ghanadar galpa and Conjoiner
Either these editors should be banned from wikipedia or I should be given an explanation why I should not take legal action against wikipedia for allowing them to make insulting remarks against me using wikipedia

"Clever little buggers, these CPM types and their paid shills, ain't they? WP:COI in spades, anyone? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

":::You are being idiotic. ...-Conjoiner (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And who ever repeatedly inserted RACIAL comments should be answerable to the law of each country where Wikipedia is published. Please give an official wikipedia explanation here.

Now that these fascist propagators are twisting things. Who pushed fascist propaganda is very celar from the history of these pages. Who has done democratic discussion in these pages and who has indulged in vandalism ignoring all discussion is also clear here. I dont want to accept the new versions of twisted explanations spread by these users after I demanding their banning from this forum. It is a convenient thing to come with new explanations after their ban is asked based on their earlier works. Now that this editor himself/herself agree that what is going on here is nothing but a fascist propaganda. Hence these usrs should be banned who ever has contributed to this fascist propaganda.
 * Er, there are no explicit laws against expressing racist OR fascist beliefs where wikipedia is hosted, namely the United States. You know, land of the free and home of the brave, something a communist propaganda hatemonger and gangster thug would be unable to comprehend, of course. Not that I don't detest racism or fascism, I do (the two are completely different, one can be a racist without being a fascist, and vice versa; wonder why the communist comflated the two, Fascist (epithet) I wonder???).Ghanadar galpa (talk)

Error is regretted- Ban Otolemur crassicaudatus and NOT Conjoiner
My earlier message asking the Ban of Conjoiner is a mistake. I wanted to type the name Conjoiner but erroneously typed the other user's name. The error is regretted. But my demand to ban Ghanadar galpa stands and I also demand the ban of Otolemur crassicaudatus for spreading fascist and racial remarks directly and indirectly using this forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I spreaded racial remaarks? Fascist remarks? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. But I think threats of legal action, accusations against individual editors and calls for bans on this page are unhelpful and you will be ignored or blocked. Please sign up for an account and contribute constructively to the discussion here, or the entire discussion will degenerate into name-calling without any progress. If you have a good argument for removing or radically editing existing sections, then please put them forward without resorting to insults. Trust me, in the long-term you will be able to convince more neutral third parties by this approach than by aggressive behaviour, which is usually met with a ban and the protection of articles from editing. As for the substance of your objections, I sympathise with them, just not the way in which you are putting your case.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * my dear friend, What each user is contributing here and pushing here is obvious here. Indirect threats like "will ignore you and ban you" will convince those who doesnt have any other avenue to express himself/herself. I have stated my case very clearly. Where did I resort to name calling? Show me a single instance. I am happy to make civilized comments. I have not attempted to block others in a clandestine way. It is my RESPONSIBILITY NOT JUST A RIGHT to demand the ban of users who are spreading fascist ideology using a forum which work with the contribution of general public. I dont care if I am banned or not. There are many other great people who failed temporarily against fasicst campaign. But my remarks here are clear, unambiguous and emphatic. If I am banned by wikipedia for demanding the ban of those who spread fascism, so be it. I will consider it a great honour in exposing any media which support RACIAL COMMENTS in the name of technicality and BANNING THOSE WHO EXPOSE such fascist campaign. Tell me which civilization can tolerate a comment : "Sociualism is not acceptable to Indian culture". The fact that this text is allowed in the wikipedia for many days even after that was pointed out. And it is still allowed here shamelessly by a forum which goes to people for contribution. I think people are better judges and not myself and yoruself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the allegation is made in a verifiable source, then it should be included in Wikipedia, preferably with the opposing argument also included.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Mr...Mr...Mr Anonymous editor. I spreaded fascist propaganda? I spreaded racial remarks? If I were a fascist, I would have never created an article titled Anarchism in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or I, who edited Human rights in India with a para fairly critical of anti-Gay laws passed in India (most real fascists absolutely hate homosexuals).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also edited the paragrapgh, brought the fact, the violence homosexuals face in India in the Human rights in India page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Asking to ban editors based on pov-pushing is not constructive. Pov-pushing is not vandalism, and is not ground for getting banned from wikipedia. Also, I find the anon user's tone to be disturbing, but his accusations are not very different from the accusations that have been directed at myself at this talk page in the recent period. --14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a usual "pov-pushing". This is pushing a theory of "cultural purity". The people can judge what is meant by "Incompatible to Indian culture". Imagine if some one say "Protestant Christianity if incompatible to USA" or "Islam is incompatible to Austalia". This is more serious because of the context in which it is pushed. The whole arguments by the above two editors are related to race, community or religious matters. And the word "European" is added as adjective to "socialism". I once again request the ban of all the users who directly or indirectly support these fascsit statements in  a forum which functions using people's contributions. I am not asking a private group spreading fascist slogan siting inside their office room. I am asking the ban of fascist propagators in a public forum which is fucntioning using the fund of public. I have every right to go to any public forum against wikipedia if it fails to ban these propogators of fascist ideology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.16.147 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, numerous peer-reviewed academics like Daniel Pipes have written that Islam is incompatible with western culture. While I do not agree with such views I also agree that they are notable enough to bear adequate representation. The same maxim applies here, even though I do agree with academics that most Indians, once they learn what Communism actually is, find it disgusting, repellent and obscene. This is true for people in India of all faiths, especially Muslims, who view Marx's comments about "religion being the opiate of the masses" as absolute haraam and fundamentally incompatible with and a blatant insult to the Shahadah:"la Ilaaha Ila Ilah, Muhammadan risulu Allah".Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
The entire controversy section (criticsm against economic policy) should not be removed. There is no reason why these sections are removed. Both CPI(M) admirers and Fascist admirers are busy removing text what ever they dont like. the controversial section most of the critical notes are stated by noted CPIM) leaders themselbves. They are widely discussed in the national media. They are not racial comments, supported by references. They were active in this forum for many months and there was only one who wanted to them to be removed that is Soman. Hence, hundreds of readers never felt they were devaluing the entire article is not correct. Only because some fasicst propagators are devaluing this page doesnt give right to remove the entire controversy section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there needs to be an outline of the debates surrounding economic policy in the controversy section, since economic liberalisation is a source of controversy, particularly in West Bengal. However, this could be better addressed in an article on Socialism in India, since the debate is not limited to the CPM. It is better to cover the Nandigram Dispute in the article on the subject, rather than go into depth in this article. Likewise with Taslima Nasrin, which isn't an important issue in CPM history. Perhaps there could be a brief section about controversies in West Bengal, linking to a larger article on the Politics of West Bengal.
 * One of the main problems I have with this article is that it fails to distinguish between CPM as a party, the Left Front in West Bengal and socialism in general. Criticisms of West Bengal state government policy belong in an article on West Bengal politics and likewise with socialism. This article should be concerned only with the history, organisation and ideology of the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It was CPM chairman Biman Bose who called if Taslima's presence creating problem, then she should leave Bengal. It was not Govt. of WB, it was the party chairman. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bose isn't the 'CPM chairman'. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. "Convenor of the West Bengal Left Front committee". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Left Front Chairman. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IP 122.167.6.1 's allegation of spreading fascist propaganda against me
IP 122.167.6.1 is accusing me of spreading fascist propaganda. If I were a fascist, I would have never created an article titled Anarchism in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The editing by Otolemur crassicaudatus

"===Incompatibility with Indian culture= ....advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society"

These remarks are once again added by Otolemur crassicaudatus to this forum. Ths is a blatant fascist statement, who ever said this originally and under what ever cicumstances. That a particular culture or science or ideology is incompatible to a certain other culture is nothing but a naked fascist statement advocating racial purity. When some one is accused of theft, arguing I have given charity else where is not the answer to that accusation. I am not interested to see what this user has said elsewhere. The fact is that he/she is pushing a fascist ideology here, in a forum which is working using people's contribution.

Rashtrihya Swayamsevak Sangh is standing for a cultural purity and has consistantly taken a stand against socialism, Islam and Christianity arguing they are not compatible with Indian culture. This organisation is directly motivated by Italian Fascist and Hitler is well established. The recent incident that the genocide in Gujarath assassination thousands of Muslims is a direct result of this cultural purity theory. It was not even a few weeks before Christians were attacked by fascists in one of the Indian states. The question here is HOW LONG WIKIPEDIA ALLOW THE CAMPAIGN OF FASCIST IDEOLOGY HERE.. And Wikipedia is answerable to the people whose contribution it takes, why it is not banning such fascist propagators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Anonymous editor. Also note that if I was biased towards Rashtrihya Swayamsevak Sangh, then I would have never created the article Religious violence in India. That article is really hair-triggering for Hindu extremists. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And also note that I have brought the fact, the violence Christians face by Hindu extrimists in that article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A reminder
The user who made legal threats against another here has been blocked for a day or two. However, I'm going to clarify here as I have done at WP:ANI that this does not mean that (s)he is the only party guilty of going against policy in this dispute. This page is obviously going to be a hotbed for dispute, so I shouldn't need to remind you all to avoid personal attacks and observe utmost civility, even if you're replying to an attack on yourself. The best thing to do is just ignore it. I'm going to suggest that you disengage from eachother for 48 hours or so, and see if that helps to resolve the situation (the block should help with this). Thereafter, the dispute resolution process is a sensible course to follow. Thanks, Martinp23 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incompatilibity chapter
Let's have a look at the 'incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter: Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society.[52]
 * This is an extremly controversial statement, and cannot just be added like this without further explanation. Which Asian Affairs is this? New York or London?

They are accused of advocating an ideology that is not sensitive to India's ethnic and cultural diversity.[citation needed]
 * How can it be said that communism isn't sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity? Who led the Samyukta Maharashtra movement? Who struggled for Aikya Kerala? Who has been the most consistent force for linguistic states in India?
 * it isn't. Because Communists try to create an internationalist force based on ideas and concepts badly imported from ones in East Europe. Most Indians are only concerned with their own local customs, traditions, lifestyles and faiths. Communism plans to subvert and destroy all that.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you don't respond to questions, but answer with platitudes and prejudices. The communists have a policy of defending cultural diversity in India, in opposition to earlier Congress policies of imposing Hindi in non-Hindi speakers. Please source the claim 'communism plans to subvert and destroy all that'. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some also accuse them of failing to engender a new form of national identity, which has allegedly led to the failure of Communist parties to establish a national following.[53] [54]
 * We could have a chapter on 'CPI(M) and the national question' (not part of a 'controversies' chapter). The party definately has a line in the national question, there have been some differences over time, and a lot could be said about this.

David Frossard criticizes the CPI(M) in Kerala for ignoring the inherently Capitalist nature of the agrarian system in the region and trying to impose collectivist and allegedly Stalinist economic policies. He alleged that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India.[55]
 * Hi, David Frossard here. How odd to find my name in these pages. Many years ago, I had a Kerala page on my Colorado School of Mines website, primarily for introducing my students to the unusual social experiment that has been seen in Kerala for the past several decades. However, my research has taken different directions over the years and the web page is no more (it was mostly just outdated). I would suggest that any reference to my opinions on Kerala can be safely removed from this Wikipedia entry. I have no informed critique to make of the CPI(M) or the "Capitalist nature of the agrarian system" or anything else of substance related to Kerala. Since my research tends to focus on various forms of small-scale development in Asia, my interest in Kerala was a bit simpler: Kerala has managed, over the years, with alternating socialist/communist/non-socialist/non-communist (or whatever you'd like to call them) governments, to focus its modest resources in excellent places -- women's education, basic safety nets, literacy, gender equality, and so on -- thus giving Kerala some of the best social indicators for a country or state of its economic position in the world. This is a remarkable feat and one that other governments in other places might emulate (at least in part -- Kerala is, of course, quite an unusual place). The credit for this accomplishment is due to different and varied actors, and I certainly don't understand local politics well enough to assign credit or blame to any particular group. If I was in fact cited by someone in praise, or critique, of a particular political party or ideology, I would suggest that I was cited erroneously. Best wishes to all here, who care about Kerala and would like to see its model of relative egalitarianism spread. --DF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.81.100 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this about 'Indian culture'? A chapter on 'CPI(M) and agrarian question', with both critical and positive analysis on CPI(M)'s agrarian policies, would be definately helpfull for the quality of the article.

--Soman (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agriculture is at the heart of Indian culture. No matter what anybody says, we are a country of farmers (proud and hard working farmers I hope and pray to God). Most of India's traditions and cultures and religions revolve around agriculture and the seasons. Obviously, CPM's bogus and failed policies of Stalinist collectivisation of agriculture (evodenced by the negligible role that government farms have in India's agro-output) is a cultural as well as economic issue. What hard-working and God-fearing farmer would support communism once he realizes that the Communists plan to rob his land?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is factually incorrect. Give examples of 'stalinist collectivisation'. On the contrary, CPI(M) agricultural policy has been one of land reform for distributing land areas to poorer peasants, this is the legacy of land reform in west bengal & kerala, and the line in campaigns like bhooporatam in andhra pradesh. 'Stalinist collectivisation' would imply the creation of largescale collective farming, absent in cpi(m) policies. Notably, this is were CPI(M) and RSP differ, RSP wants to seek collectivisation of agriculture in India. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Communist party did try to implement Stalinist farming techniques in West Bengal. It's even mentioned in the (Communist) NCERT civics course in India, so Frossard has his facts right. It was a disastrous failure, and their role was negligible, but there was land forcibly acquired by the west bengal CPM from farmers by intimidation from CPM gangsters a couple of decades ago. Article is "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries,by Ram Swarup

Author(s) of Review: G. L. Arnold,The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1955), pp. 384-385". It's a review of Swarup's book written by Arnold, where he writes how Communists have been deliberately introducing Stalinist farming techniques as part of a ploy to bring about an Indian holodomor. Although this was before marxist split occurred, also read Matthew and Balakrishnan, "Cooperative farming in India, it's progress and problems." This book details Communist attempts to Stalinize India even after Marxist split.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lie! Arnold doesn't write a single line neither on the CPI or any other part of the Indian communist movement. He mentions that Swarup argues against stalinist models in agriculture, but in no way directs accusations against CPI. --Soman (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Arnold is the summarizer and reviewer of the book, not the author of the book itself. The book is by Swarup, and he discusses Holodomor in detail wrt Communism (pre marxist) and post-marxist split continuation of same policy is cited in Matthew and Balakrishnan. Don't obfuscate, please.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you give Arnold as the source for the claims on CPI or CPI(M):s policies, then it would be resonable to demand that any of the things you write would have a base in Arnold's text. Arnold's review give no base for the arguments you make, are you simply assuming the contents of Swarup's book? Arnold doesn't mention either Holodomor nor the CPI. It should be remembered that at the time of writing, the Congress government developed good relations with Soviet Union and had begun moves towards planned economy. Swarup's appeal might just as well have been directed towards Congress government. In any case Arnold doesn't work as a source in either case. As per Matthew, Balakrishnan, it was written in 1966, i.e. before victory of UF govt. in West Bengal, and well before victory of LF in 1977, i.e. well ahead of making any statements on CPI(M) agricultural policies in Bengal. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Swarup is the source. Arnold is the reviewer. I put it in because Communists will insist that Swarup is a "Filthy Hindoo Indian idolaer" or something and will try to remove him pn the basis of that argument. The review shows that the book in question is not some random publication but has been subjected to western peer-review. What is this nonsense about Congress? We're not talking about those lunatics, we're talking about CPM lunatics. CPM already started to mobilize and lobby for collectivist agriculture immediately after they crawled out of the mud. Mathew and Balakrishnan documents their designs to implement such a horror onto India.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's you and noone else that demeans Indian writers. Have I not used Indian authors as references? Surely you do understand that one could not have talked about any people of CPM in 1955. As per Matthews, Balakrishnan, please provide some examples of their points. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I demean Indian communist writers (propagandists and apologists), and rightly so. I have called communist thugs communist thugs. That's all. I need to goto sleep now and am not your proletariat slave jumping through hoops at the beck and call of some communist murderer. I will return and elaborate.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and believe it would be easy to include refutations of the argument that "socialism is incompatible with Indian culture" in the article, although I think it would be better to include it in an article on Socialism in India, since the claim is about socialism in general and not the CPM in particular. There is a need for this article in Wikipedia anyway, in order to show the history and diversity of socialist and communist movements in India.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the claim is specific to CPM. Frossard et al exclusively discuss the CPM and their ethnic politics (for which perceived "Communism" is but a facade). I am not adverse to try to, er, "refute" such obviously true claims. Of course, such refutataions will be blatant Communist revisionism and propaganda, and I will scrupulously monitor for such systemic biases.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that an article on Socialism in India is needed, there are many details that doesn't really fit into any of the existing articles on political parties. As per the statement itself, today communism is far more present in South Asian politics than in European politics, which clarifies the flaw of the argument. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indian Constitution states that India is a socialist state, so certainly socialism has a strong tradition in India both in the freedom struggle and today in Left-run states and in insurgent groups. The socialist tradition goes well beyond the CPM. The trouble is that I don't know where to start with this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We could start a temp page (User:Soman/temp-Socialism in India) and when it is mature, move it to the mainspace. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already started the Socialism in India article, which will hopefully evolve into a good article.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I made an error and entitled the article Socialism in india, forgetting to capitalise the I in India. How do I correct this mistake?--Conjoiner (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the pernicious influence of the communist virus as a buzzword isn't widespread in Indian society and politics. That is a regrettable fact. What the academics do assert is that such a widespread influence is largely fake, and only uses words like "socialism" and "communism" to describe them. In reality, it is not socialism and communism at all but a mish-mash of caste, religion, and ethnic votebank politics, with only a core of Brahmin leaders even aware of what Communism and Socialism really mean. The entire socialist ideological infrastructure of India is a colossal fraud and sham, just like it was in Stalinist Russia (nominally socialist, really a rightwing dictatorship) or maoist China (nominally socialist, really fascist)Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "that the pernicious influence of the communist virus isn't widespread in Indian society and politics. That is a regrettable fact.", well you don't hide your own pov very well, one can say. It also explains why you are so keen on constructing OR chapters based on a mish-mash of disparate quotations, as done in this case. For a change, please feel free to answer the question I listed above earlier today.--Soman (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "well you don't hide your own pov very well, one can say", well neither do you, apparently, comrade. I must admit, Communism is a lucrative business if they can spend their money doing to people in Nandigram what their compatriots in East Europe did to the Kulaks and still have cash left over to pay wikipedian propagandists and apologists for their filth.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the majority of citizens in any democratic country are well educated in any political theory? Anyway, who cares about our opinions? The objective here is to write a well-balanced article, not to discuss ideology. I suggest we limit discussion to achieving this objective, rather than engage in an emotive debate that is only likely to inflame editorial conflicts.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Our opinions are irrelevant. That includes Soman's little OR rant above, which does not address specific charges made by notable (western academics, not "filthy Indian Kaffirs" as the ip propagandist implies) critics but tries to apologise for them. Tsk Tsk.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take on board what an admin stated here, think about it and act on it.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments
I'd like to bring to notice that user otolemur has removed one of my comments, see, which is far from good wiki manners. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I did not removed your comment, my also. I withdrew statement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am now supporting the addition of compatibility section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was a bit confused on the Compatibility section earlier. But I am now completely supporting addition of this section. I am now withdrawing previous statement which is why I removed the comments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Controversy section
The ideal structure of the controversy section will be:
 * Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states
 * Mass killing in Nandigram
 * Red terror in Nandigram
 * Forced expulsion of Taslima Nasrin
 * Electoral fraud
 * Allegations of casteism
 * CIA documents and CPI(M)
 * Incompatibility with Indian culture
 * Support for Islamic extrimism (it is needed because there are accusation of alliance between CPM and Islamic extrimists)
 * Depicting 9/11 as Jewish conspiracy (a CPM dominated TV chanell is associated with it)
 * Wall writing and environment degradation Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More reference need to be introduced for the last two sections. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * general anti-Jewish racism from CPM broadcasted on television is sourced here, article by Professor Nathan Katz (specific only to CPM). This is an anti-Brahmin faction of the Communist party, as opposed to the usual brahmin-dominated factions:

"During my last stay in India I was watching television one night. I tuned in a bit late and heard a person in a discussion program saying: 'The Jews are just like the Brahmins.' I smiled until he continued, saying that: 'The Brahmins are as bad as the Jews. They are bloodsuckers like the Jews and a blight on humanity.' Then I saw that his name was framed at the bottom of the screen and that he was one of the leaders of the Communist party. It was Marx's essay on the Jewish question that he was spouting back and applying to the Brahmins.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This fails WP:RS big time. Some guy has allegedly watch a tv show (when? which channel?), in which a for us anonymous person has said something. We also do not get any detail of the party identity more than the 'Communist party'. (CPI(M)? CPI? CPI(ML)?) --Soman (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the controversy section, another subsection is needed titled "Wall writing and environmental degradation" (the title may be changed) because CPM has been accused by many people of excessive wall writng. Moreover there was some government restriction on wall writing, but despite restrictions, CPM was accused of excessive wall writing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a reference on the wall writing issue . Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This just getting more and more bizarre. You seriously have as your intention to include a passage on every criticism every raised against CPI(M)? --Soman (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Every notable criticism? Why not? They do it for everybody else. Hurts to get a taste of their own medicine. doesn't it?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was apparently capable of writing an article on Trinamool, without engaging in piling rants . Not to brag, but there seems to be two disparate attitudes on how to relate to the Wikipedia project here. --Soman (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M) has also been accused of spreading communalism. A reference is given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall the 2004 elections, and how TC was uncomfortable due to the propoganda of CPI(M) on Gujarat. As per accusations, this can be piled on the 1000s of other complaints Trinamool have against CPI(M). As per the actual contents, this was not a communal propaganda but warning to voters not to vote for the NDA (which had overseen the Gujarat carnage). These mural were not accompied by any attacks against any community. --Soman (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that this is the ultimate reference on the communalism isuue. More reference need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My response to Otolemur crassicaudatus's suggested structure of the criticism section:


 * I think this is the main source of controversy, among critics both inside and outside the Indian left.

'':*Mass killing in Nandigram
 * Red terror in Nandigram''
 * These two seem to be the same issue and are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, so only a short mention is needed here. The titles you are suggesting are also POV-pushing.


 * The treatment of Taslima Nasrin should be covered in the article on her; the West Bengal government's actions are little different from other states.


 * Again, perhaps an issue to be covered in the Politics of West Bengal and Politics of Kerala articles, since allegations of electoral fraud affect all parties.


 * OK, if it references recent and verifiable sources and there is a rebuttal.


 * Is this really a controversy about the CPM or the CIA?


 * This section deals with socialism in general and should perhaps be included in the Socialism in India article.


 * If there are verifiable sources and a rebuttal.


 * I've never seen this in any CPM publication and have never heard of any CPM leader making this allegation. I seriously doubt that this has any place in Wikipedia.
 * Prakash Karat said so in an NDTV interview once. I have to look for it though.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you need to find a source for it. I hope you are not attempting to portray criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, or this editorial dispute may never be resolved.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Again, this is best covered in Politics of West Bengal since all political parties in the state are involved in this activity.

So, I am personally in favour of keeping the economic policy and casteism controversies, provided they are NPOV and meet verifiability criteria. The other criticisms are not about the CPM in particular and/or are better covered by existing articles.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanzone
Who is Megan Fanzone? A google search gives no result except wikipedia. How is this a WP:RS? --Soman (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. A tenured professor at Emory University is not a reliable source simply because googlebombers don't like her? Come on! Surely the CPM pays you better than that, comrade.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS requires that sources be published in reputable publications. This applies to all, notable or non-notable persons alike. Most of all, what does the reference refer to? an academic paper? a lecture? a personal opinion? --Soman (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It refers to the postcolonial studies group, which hosts material based on internal peer-review among colleagues. It's not some personal blog or anything.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where can this text be found? --Soman (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have searched the Emory University website and cannot find any reference to this person. Are you sure it is not some undergraduate thesis?--Conjoiner (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a hard copy from library. They have bound volumes. Here is an excerpt:

Split of the CPI and Formation of the CPI(M)

Due to its rather passive manner, in 1964 the CPI split, thereby forming a second faction known as the CPI(M)-the Communist Party of India (Marxists). The CPI(M) called for a large scale revolt of workers.The main problem for the communist movement was that no one encouraged the joining of the peasant castes, the landowners, and the middle class proletariat into one large revolutionary group. No real national spirit existed amongst them. The main concern of the communist movement was of a socio-economic nature for each individual group of people--not for the good of the working man in general. Many supporters of the movement knew nothing about Marx and Engels; they were simply using the communist movement to show their economic frustration. This failure to unite and create a new national identity is what led to the failure of the communist movement. The Sixth Congress of the Communist International said in its thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in Colonies or Semi-Colonies that "[t]he single biggest weakness...is the deplorable state of the political level of the proletariat, its class consciousness, its organization, and its unity with the other toiling masses and particularly the peasantry."Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quote. Two issues remain though; 1) The is still a problem of WP:RS, if this is a document with no clear title, that cannot be searched by other wikipedians, 2) i do not dispute the contents of the quote, on the contrary its a largely correct analysis. However, it doesn't give any, any backing for the claim 'Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society.', for which you've used Fanzone as a reference. --Soman (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is titled Split of the CPI and Formation of the CPI(M). the title of the article is "Communism in India". There is a blurb about Arundhati Roys the God of small things in the beginning and Salman Rushdies "The Moors last sigh". Cited as sources for postcolonial stuff going on in India. Followed by a lengthy discussion on CPM. The title itself is about the CPM. The title of a section describes the subject of the section. Ergo, this is about the CPI(M), the subject of this wikipedia article itself.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't dispute that this text deals with CPI(M), I dispute how it can be used to back up the sentence advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society. --Soman (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An adequate summary of both paragraphs from Fanzone, as well as Frossard I should think. You wanna be more specific?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fanzone's text says nothing about Indian culture. It relates to the problems faced by CPI(M) in mobilizing a proletarian revolution, in a country were industrial working class is in clear minority. A task not completly unlike the one faced by Bolshevik Party in pre-revolutionary Russia. This is not a criticism of the CPI(M) as such, but rather a description of reality. In fact, it is not very different from the analysis CPI(M) themselves would make. The response of CPI(M) here is the People's Democratic Revolution, i.e. CPI(M) does not struggle for socialist revolution in India but to develop a capitalist society. It does not propagate immediate collectivization of land, on the contrary it works for land reforms for distribution of lands to small and medium peasants. The PDR concept was developed in contradiction to NDR (of CPI), New Democratic Revolution (of maoists) and socialist revolution (as envisioned by SUCI and RSP in India). These are all notable details, but do not belong in a 'controversies' nor 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter. --Soman (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice peice of orwellian Duckspeaking, Doubleplusgood. But the criticism made by Fanzone (criticism in the biblical sense of the word, as it is meant to be on wikipedia) clealy pertains to numerous Indian cultural motifs, such as caste and tradition-based economic practices, and describes the incompatibilities that Communists face when confronting them.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one with the wild interpretations is you. ‘Caste’ is mentioned once, but read the actual passage ‘The main problem for the communist movement was that no one encouraged the joining of the peasant castes, the landowners, and the middle class proletariat into one large revolutionary group. No real national spirit existed amongst them. The main concern of the communist movement was of a socio-economic nature for each individual group of people--not for the good of the working man in general.’ – this clearly refers to the ‘peasant castes’ as one of several socio-economic classes, not necessarily caste in the cultural sense. Where are the “tradition-based economic practices”? --Soman (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A similiar question goes for David Frossard. http://magma.mines.edu/fs_home/dfrossar/Kerala.html cannot be access, and cannot be found in archive.org. Has this been published anywhere? --Soman (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it was up when I accessed it. It was an article referenced by Fanzone herself. That's how I found it. Again, this is not a blog, but an article written by an academic that is clearly institutionally endorsed (otherwise there's be disclaimers and such). That is an effective peer-review. The peers of his department. In fact, Frossard generally praises Kerala society for it's egalitarianism, and how Communism tried to capitalize (erm, no pun intended) on that and failed rather miserably.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still a text that simply cannot be access by anyone cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that there is no way for anyone, neither you, I or anyone else, to go through the actual contents of it. --Soman (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's down now. It won;t be down forever. Wait and discuss later.Here is Fanzone's summary of Frossard's work in the interim

David Frossard describes in great detail what makes Kerala so amazing from her history, to politics, to societal living. Much of the following information was obtained from his site referenced in bibliography section. He calls Kerala, a thriving capitalist trade center as well as one of the poorest areas of India. The CPI was unsuccessful in uniting the castes in most of India, hence the failure of the movement, but it is a possibility in this situation. As mentioned above, Kerala is involved in active trade in a capitalist system. This is precisely what the communist movement was against when it can into being in India.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Well, this doesn't back up the claim on the capitalist nature of agriculture. Good wikimanners would be to withdraw the passage until it can be properly referenced. Also what kind of work is Frossard 1996-1997. A term paper? a PG thesis? --Soman (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frossard explicitly says "capitalism". Professor David Frossard would not write term papers. Neither would term papers and Thesis be extensively referenced in peer-review.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where is the source for 'capitalist nature of agriculture'? As you now have quite a record of giving faulty references on this page, I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indian agriculture is traditionally feudal, not capitalist. Socialism and capitalism challenge these feudal structures. Can progress be said to be un-Indian? Is what is regarded as "Indian culture", untainted by "European" modernity, merely a nostalgia for a class/caste hierarchy? I think this is what is happening here.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found the article Ghanadar galpa refers to here here. Her name is Megan Franzone (not Fanzone) and the only reference I can find to her is this article. I am not convinced it reaches the notability criteria. Yet, I also think that the points she raises in her are interesting, although they don't appear to back the notion that socialism is "un-Indian". She states that the lack of caste stigma stemmed from both the presence of non-Hindu religions in Kerala, along with the presence of the CPI/CPI(M), but the more rigid caste hierarchy and identification elsewhere in India made it difficult for Communists to unite people along class lines. At no point does her article support the claim that CPI(M) is "incompatible" with Indian culture. As such, I think she is misquoted and I am removing the reference to her article. This also calls into question the rest of the section, particularly the ideas that are being associated with Frossard.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is un-Indian by definition because it did not originate in India. It originated in Russia. If you object to the language "incompatible with Indian culture" then fine. I reworded it to gel better with the references. The present title should be an acceptable compromise. yet you and your comrade continue to drive-by revert. Why is that I wonder. Could it be the Bengali imperative of "ganging up" on their enemies and browbeating them until they give up? Won;t work with me, since I am a Bengali as well, and know the tricks of the trade.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point stands: neither Franzone nor Frossard argue that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture. You have misunderstood what they have said, or you are creating your own piece of original research. I also object to your new title as it is POV-pushing. Try again.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On Frossard, Indian culture and moving forward
In the 'incompatibility' (a word I never learn to spell correctly) chapter, the is a finishing sentence 'Frossard also alleges that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India'. If dispute the existance of an 'incompatitibility' chapter, but there is a grain here that could be lifted out and developed into another subsection. If you go through the membership figures by % of population, one meets some stark contrasts. Generally in India, political parties are generally either national (INC, BJP) or regional/regionally based. CPI(M) and CPI are case of their own, they have nationwide presence, but extreme differences in level of influence. Notably the communist movement is extremly weak in the Hindi belt. 'Why so?' could be a good starting point for a chapter discussion differences in regional strength of the party. There ought to be academic material on this. This can of course not be part of an 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter, unless one would make a point that Bengalis would be less Indian than people of the Hindi belt. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "Indian". Most ethnic Bengalis are not Indian but Bangladeshi. It can also be argued that Bengali intellectuals are essentially just cheap Xerox copies of early 20th century (Communism-leaning) British labor Party members as far as their political views are concerned, so their POV is not shared by non-Bengali Indians.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * well, so much for trying to engage in construtive debates. --12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. You are wrong because most of the population in West Bengal is indigenous (there are Bangladeshis, but also lots of Mawaris, Nepalis, Biharis, Assamese, Punjabis, etc). Have you ever been to North Bengal? Most are Hindi and Nepali speakers. You are also wrong because Bangladesh had been East Bengal until partition and therefore as Indian as any Hindi-speaker, in terms of their cultural heritage.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh would behead you for saying that... Most Bangladeshis are militantly Indophobic, and would vehemently disagree that they have any similarity with "Dirty Indian kaffirs". As for Marwaris and Niharis in WB, most of the regard the CPM as pure satanic evil. I have spent considerable time in Calcutta and Vishwa Bharati. There isn;t a Marwari in Bengal who doesn;t spit on the ground whenever the name CPM is mentioned. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jamaat do not represent the whole of Bangladesh and, anyway, they fought on Pakistan's side in the war of independence. I've lived in Kolkata for quite some time and your representation of Bengali politics is quite different from my experience. But we can trade anecdotes all day long and you can get more and more upset about the CPM. But shall we get to the task of compiling an article that meets Wikipedia standards, perhaps with a view to getting "featured article" status? I've no wish to censor the controversies and criticism section, but it should, at the very least, reference verifiable and relevant sources, be balanced and be relevant to the article, which is about the CPM not socialism in general or how policemen deal with crime in West Bengal.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policemen are in the pay of the CPM. Most police in India are crap, and work as paid agents of local thugrats like Communists in Bengal and the thugrats from the other side of the Gaussian, such as the Ranvir Sena in Bihar or the thugrat Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. samte thing, different ideological motivations.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we've been enlightened by Ghanadar galpa's opinion, could we please move forward? Soman raises an interesting issue: why does a national party have only regional concentrations in support? Are there any reliable and informed articles on this?--Conjoiner (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed mention of Frossard. Although Ghanadar galpa claims his article was available on the internet, his subwebsite at the Colorado School of Mines has not been operational since 1999, acording to archive.org, so it is highly unlikely it is available. Frossard was cited in the Franzone article, but it appears that nothing Frossard or Fanzone said supports in any way the contentious and possibly original argument that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture. If this is a notable opinion, then I am sure Ghanadar galpa will find it easy to give another verifiable and notable source supporting this argument. I have also removed the claim, made in 1955, that Communist land reform programmes are Stalinist; the claims were made two years before the programme was carried out in Kerala and several years before land reform in West Bengal. With hindsight, we can safely say that there was no Stalinist pogrom in either state.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is stalinism simply a synonym for state violence? That incident, no matter how tragic, cannot be classified as 'stalinist collectivisation' of agriculture. --Soman (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is considered somewhat bad form to reference a Wikipedia article to back up your claims, particularly one without any references. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest this particular event is "anti-Indian", "anti-national" or, in fact, is related to the collevisation of agriculture. It is also farcical to portray the CPI(M)-led land reform programme as collectivisation. Quite the opposite, in fact.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ..so the Communists are not really "Communists" then? Collectivisation is at the heart of Bolshevist/socialist ideology.Kinda backs up the assertion that Indian Communists are fake Communists, doesn't it? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not here to debate with you. The fact is that collectivisation of farming was never a CPM policy. So your new title for this section makes little sense. The "criticism" you refer to in reference to Communism in India was written before Communists in either Kerala or West Bengal carried out the land reform and either before or immediately after the CPM was founded. They are not specific criticisms of the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Collectivisation not a CPM policy? Cited sources disagree. It definitely was cpm policy. When it failed and met with widespread criticism, they backpedalled and rewrote their history to remove any mention of this. Of course, peer-reviewed sources are seldom controlled by these gangsters so the truth remains.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, provide such a source, then. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Red terror
The red terror section is needed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A fresh round of violence came up in Nandigram in November 2007. The media called Nandigram was captured by the CPI(M)[44]. Evidence pointed that the operation was conducted entirely by the party keeping the state administration inactive. The party eulogized the operation with its state chairman describing it as "a new dawn" and the chief minister as `paying them back in their own coin'[45]. The situation was described as one of "Red Terror".[46] A 62-year-old retired schoolteacher who assaulted by CPM supporters told:[46]

“ A group of people stormed into my house at 8 am and asked for my son. They started beating me up, saying 'why haven't I taken part in our rallies', and threatened to burn my house. ”

A villager who was dragged to a CPM office and beaten by CPM cadres told:[46]

“ Where have you hidden guns and pistols, they kept asking me. They beat me mercilessly. ”

Nationwide protests have resulted from the new offensive[47]. On November 12, 2007, the National Human Rights Commission of India has issued a notice to the West Bengal Government directing it to submit a factual report on the conditions prevailing in Nandigram.[48] The Parliament of India decided to discuss Nandigram with urgency, suspending the regular question hour sessions, on 21st November 2007 after two days of complete suspension of the proceedings owing to the heated debates between CPI(M) and opposition party members in both the houses. CPI(M) was alienated in the issue by all the other ruling UPA allies considering the fierce nation wide sentiments against the massacre [49]

What is the problem with it? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This section, it is a new violence on Nandigram other than the March incidents.
 * This violence is very much related to CPM, rather than WB gov. Because the violence was carried out by CPM cadres.
 * This new incident caused huge upheaval in national level. Many intellectuals vehemently protested CPM party for that.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is news-led and already covered in Nandigram violence. I removed this section and instead wrote a paragraph on it in the economic policy controversies. This is an encyclopaedic project, not a news website. Nor can we have three or four articles on the same subject. A brief mention and a "see also ..." is all that is needed. If you want to add more details on Nandigram, take it to Nandigram violence--Conjoiner (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are also reverting my edits to other sections, so it appears that you are blindly reverting me rather than considering my edits seriously.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia collects facts. True facts. The root of dispute on CPM's economic policy and Nandigram violence may be similar, but the fact is that the subjects are different. The rootcause of the Nandigram violence may be economic, but we should look at the incident. The fact is that the November violence is carried out by CPM cadres, the cadre attack is quite different from which economists explain on CPM's economic policy. Whole Nandigram was captured by CPM cadres. How CPM is involved in it ..... this paragraph explin that. It is a controversy, a controversy directly associated with CPM. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so perhaps rather than making it specifically a Nandigram issue, perhaps a section on the nature of CPM activism and controversies arising from it, including reference to Nandigram. What villager said what is what newspaper is irrelevant. The nub of the issue is whether the CPM cadres operate in collusion with the police, acting as a de facto police force, etc. The actual chronology of events and their details are not so relevant. Is this acceptable?--Conjoiner (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents, would be to include Nandigram in the history chapter of the party. Please feel free to contribute at User:Soman/CPI(M)-temp. There should definately be a Nandigram section in the history, this is the single most notable event in the development of CPI(M) in last few year. Both it must be weighted towards the rest of the 40+ years of party history (WP:UNDUE), void of recentism (WP:RECENTISM) and take both CPI(M)- and Trinamool versions into account. --Soman (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points about recentism and undue weight. But am unsure whether it would be best in controversies or the history section. It is certainly controversial, in the context of CPM's activism, but I don't think it has the same historical importance as some of the major historical events listed here. If the Nandigram issue is put into the national context, it was more of a media event. More Adivasis have been killed in Orissa as a result of police violence to clear the way for large industrial projects and unlike the alleged Nandigram proposal (there is doubt the state government had definite plans) these have succeeded in being built. No mention in Wikipedia though. The Left Front government also had a far more formidable challenge in the form of the Gorkhaland Movement, which is not even mentioned here. I do think that, if one were to look at Nandigram in a national and historical context, it is a localised short-term issue and does not deserve more than a couple of sentences in the controversy section. Otherwise, every land dispute can be exagerrated here and the entire article becomes a pointless exercise.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposal for a section on Nandigram in the history chapter (I retain my opposition to the existence of a 'Controversies' chapter) would be structured like this "In early 2007 the West Bengal Left Front government came into conflict with local peasants in Nandigram, over the construction of a Special Economic Zone and a chemical plant on the peasants’ lands. Violence broke out between CPI(M) and opposition cadres in the area. On February 17-18 the CPI(M) politburo intervened in the issue and halted the founding of SEZs until the SEZ Act would have been revised.


 * On March 14, 2007, 14 villagers were killed by police fire, after which CPI(M) came under heavy criticism from opposition parties and NGOs. In the ensuing violence CPI(M) cadres and sympathisers were driven away from the area, CPI(M) sources claimed that 2000 of their followers had to live in nearby refugee camps. CPI(M) and opposition parties traded mutual allegations of killings and other violent crimes.


 * Violence flared up again in November 2007, as thousands of CPI(M) followers re-entered the barricaded areas in Nandigram." --Soman (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think this is too news-led for an encyclopaedic article. Since there is already an article about the Nandigram dispute, there is little point in going into great depth. A brief description of the dispute along with a link to the Nandigram dispute article would be more appropriate. At present, the Nandigram sections are together over 530 words long, which gives undue weight to the issue. The Naxalite uprising has 364 words but is far more historically important. I think Nandigram needs no more than half a dozen lines, followed by a link to the main article. It is better to be concise when there is already an article. The lengthy quotes about what various people have to say about it, the CPM's justifications of police actions, how many were injured or killed, etc, are completely unnecesary as they are already covered in the article on the dispute. My suggestion is below, but has been continually removed from the article.
 * The controversies over the West Bengal government's economic policies were brought to the fore in the Nandigram dispute in which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to compulsory purchase their farmland to make way for a petrochemical complex proposed by Indonesia's Salim Group. The controversy over the plans was compounded by violent clashes between protestors and the police. The dispute led to nation-wide discussions over the efficacy of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which are being set up to attract foreign investment, and allegations that the Left Front government's policies were contrary to its professed support for the rural poor.
 * I can't see what is so wrong with this. Perhaps the reaction of other Left Front parties and from within the CPM could also be summed up in a sentence or two. This is a review of the main political controversies, not a blog.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we fuse your text with my proposal; The controversies over the West Bengal government's economic policies were brought to the fore in the Nandigram dispute in which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to compulsory purchase their farmland to make way for a petrochemical complex proposed by the Salim Group from Indonesia. The controversy over the plans was compounded by violent clashes between protestors and the police. The dispute led to nation-wide discussions over the efficacy of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which are being set up to attract foreign investment, and allegations that the Left Front government's policies were contrary to its professed support for the rural poor.
 * Violence also broke out between CPI(M) and opposition cadres in the area. On February 17-18 the CPI(M) politburo intervened in the issue and halted the founding of SEZs until the SEZ Act would have been revised. On March 14, 2007, 14 villagers were killed by police fire, after which CPI(M) came under heavy criticism from opposition parties and NGOs. In the ensuing violence CPI(M) cadres and sympathisers were driven away from the area, CPI(M) sources claimed that 2000 of their followers had to live in nearby refugee camps. CPI(M) and opposition parties traded mutual allegations of killings and other violent crimes. Violence flared up again in November 2007, as hundreds of CPI(M) followers re-entered the barricaded areas in Nandigram. ? --Soman (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair enough suggestion. I would restructure it to read:
 * The controversies over the West Bengal government's economic policies were brought to the fore in the Nandigram dispute in which farmers in the Nandigram area protested against an alleged government plan to compulsory purchase their farmland to make way for a petrochemical complex proposed by the Salim Group from Indonesia. The controversy over the plans was compounded by violent clashes between protestors, CPI(M) activists and the police.
 * Unrest broke out in the area, which became cut off after protestors destroyed bridges and roads. On February 17-18 the CPI(M) politburo intervened in the issue and halted the founding of SEZs until the SEZ Act would have been revised. On March 14, 2007, 14 villagers were killed as the police attempted to reimpose order. The killings led to heavy criticism of the CPI(M) from opposition parties, other sections of the left and NGOs. In the ensuing violence, CPI(M) cadres and sympathisers were driven away from the area, CPI(M) sources claimed that 2000 of their followers had to live in nearby refugee camps. CPI(M) and opposition parties traded mutual allegations of killings and other violent crimes. Violence flared up again in November 2007, as hundreds of CPI(M) followers re-entered the barricaded areas in Nandigram.
 * The dispute led to nation-wide discussions over the efficacy of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which are being set up to attract foreign investment, and allegations that the Left Front government's policies were contrary to its professed support for the rural poor.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur has introduced the following sentence; 'CPI(M) was alienated in the issue by all parties in Lok Sabha' (my emphasis) with this link as its source The Lok Sabha has 40+ political parties, the link doesn't specify the positions of any parties except BJP and Congress. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

first as a tragedy, then as a farce...
G. Galpa has now, in some sort of retreat after his/her flawed use of sources was exposed, renamed the 'Incompatility with Indian culture' chapter to 'Collectivization and anti-National ideology' with the motivation: 'renaming to conform more precisely with references' Of course, he still have to find a reference for the collectivization campaign, plus the fact that none of the sources give any indications of accusations that CPI(M) would have an 'anti-National ideology'. This is becoming more and more of a farce, with Galpa trying to attribute his own pov to random western academics. --Soman (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Moreover, the fact that CPI(M) has failed to establish a strong following in say UP, cannot by any means be classified as a 'controversy'. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Swarup expressly uses the term "'Stalinist Collectivisation" to denote Communist plans in their consituencies, including their plans to use paid gangsters to muscle out farmers and steal their land for collectivist farming."Random western acadmics"? As opposed to "random Indian Communist shills" (that too Bengalis, not even true Indians really) cited liberally in the article now?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you haven't cited Swarup, right? You cited Arnold's review, which gives no backing for such claims. As per the sources i've used, do you have any actual complaint on the content or are just trolling? --Soman (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my above post. I cite BOTH Swarup and review. The review is cited to back up the relability of Swarup.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way your ref is written, it reads like you only quote Arnold. As per reliablility, no, reviews do not necessarily mean that something is more reliable. If you want to use Swarup's argument, then use those, preferably with page numbers. Interestingly, you haven't put a wikilink to Ram Swarup, which would have presented the fact that he was running the anti-communist thinktank DRS. Also, see --Soman (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please! I checked quite thoroughly. This Ram Swarup is not that Ram Swarup. Ram Swarup is a fairly common name, although I have nothing at all against anti-Communist think tanks. they're the best kind of think tanks there are really ;). Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the wikiarticle and bharatvani.org, he is the same. --Soman (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No no. The guy cited here is not the pro-neopagan guy. In any case, a peer-reviewed text (as I have demonstrated) stands independent of who the author is. Is this another Communist obfuscation campaign?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a campaign, you make a highly controversial claim, based on a source for which no other info than name of author and name of the publication. It is moreover a publication that is not online (not that there's anything wrong with that) and is not so easy perhaps for many editors to access in hardcopy. A google-search on clearly gives the impression that he is one and same as the person mentioned in wikipedia article and bharatvani.org. If you have any other info, please share them with us. Since at least I cannot access the book myself at this point, I have to try to make an opinion about what type of work this is, for example is a academic work or is it a political pamphlet? This is not a unusual in any way, it is very normal to enquire about sources. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read what you are quoting? The Arnold article is a review of Ram Swarup's book "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries". This website states that the neopagan supporter Ram Swarup wrote the book "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries". Unless there are two Ram Swarups who are both anti-communist and have both published books with an identical title, there is only one Ram Swarup. Soman has merely asked you to quote from the original text, rather than a book review.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * is the answer here? The it would seem that the Ram Swarup mentioned in this article is the one and same as the one mentioned in Ram Swarup and bharatvani.org. --Soman (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the book quoted here 'Ram Swarup had written his book, Communism And Peasantry Implications of Collectivist Agriculture For Asia, in 1950 to serve as the plank of a peasants' conference to be called for launching a peasant movement of our conception. But paucity of resources and other opportunities prevented us from going much farther than the publication of this "path breaking study" as the socialist leader and thinker, Ashoka Mehta, described it in 1954. The book received very good reviews.' (from voiceofdharma.org). Other works by same author: Let Us Fight The Communist Menace, Russian Imperialism: How to Stop It, --Soman (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also positively reviewed in the British journal of sociology by Arnold. other works by CPM leaders ->" the Brahmin is as parasitic as the Jew". Other works by cpm leader Prakash karat ->"Jews caused 9/11". What's your point exactlyGhanadar galpa (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, you know as well as I that Karat never wrote a work with that title. Stop being disruptive. The authroship of the writer in question is of course relevant, the fact that he worked for decades combatting communism is of course relevant for how his works are to be used as sources. It does not, however, disqualify him as a source, but it puts him in a context. I've gone through 'History of the Communist Party of India' by Masani (which bharatvani.org and other websites claim was penned by Swarup). My understanding was that is was a very, very blunt propaganda work with only one point, namely that communists were foreign agents. If there is any more substance to the 1950 work, please enlighten us. Still, we should recall that 1950 was in the middle of what I would see as the most revolutionary phase of CPI, when armed peasants struggles were organized in various parts of India and the CPI was more or less underground. This work was written 14 years before the foundation of CPI(M), and I seriously question in what aspect it could say anything meaningful about the party. --Soman (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious that you are being confrontational and antagonistic and this editorial issue is unlikely to be resolved through a discussion here. As such, I think we need to seek other remedies.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Confrontational? It's hardly "confrontational" to expose a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia and then complain when detractors show up to balance out the article. most of this pathetic article is lifted off of some Communist propaganda site, "references" include hard left mouthpeices like cpm.org and Frontline. Communists are so frightened of criticism that I wonder how long they will survive. Yes. By all means, seek alternate viewpoints, third party mediation or whatever. It's all acceptable to me.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Slander and incivility are the best ways to lose an argument and the fastest ways to get a block. It is evident that you are trolling, not helping to create an encyclopaedic article. I am prepared to engage in sensible discussions with anyone of any viewpoint, but from seeing your behaviour I don't think you are capable of this. As such, we have reached an impasse here. I have asked Soman for advice on a referral for comment, in which I hope that others from outside this talk page can give their suggestions.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Slander? that's a legal term. Making legal threats again, are we? That's another way to get a block you know. You have asked Soman? That's funny, that is. Soman is hardly a neutral third party observer. Just another chap who obfuscates talk pages with syntactically correct but semantically meaningless arguments and engages in drive-by reverts.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are slandering me with your ad hominem attacks, but I have not threatened legal action. I just don't think you are being constructive at all. I have asked Soman because I think he is a more experienced Wikipedian than I am so probably knows these procedures better.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another review of Swarup is availible in American Journal of Sociology, written by Jiri Kojala (jstor link). And ending comment of the review reads, "Thus the book tells more about Indian economic philosophy than about Communist agricultural policies." --Soman (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it does talk about CPM agricultural policies, and that is the whole point.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Swarup's work is written in 1950. CPI(M) is formed in 1964. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Taslima section
Whilst I retain my stance that the controversy chapter should be scrapped altogether, some notes can be made regarding the Taslima section; --Soman (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conjoiner has already pointed out that this is an issue that has weak relevance for CPI(M) as a party.
 * The title 'Forced expulsion' is flawed. says that she has been under pressure from police to leave Kolkata, its somehow implied (although not clear enough to function as an encyclopediatic reference) that the state government somehow had something to do with this, but there is no basis in the article for the wording 'forced explusion'.
 * Dr Mansoor is just mentioned in article as a 'Muslim figure' (as well as '"This is a culmination of the offence her writing has caused over the years, " said Dr Alum Mansoor, general secretary of All India Milli Council, one of the groups which has been protesting against Nasrin'), not as a defender of Taslima
 * It must also be pointed out that a Congress-aligned Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, which was a component of the Bhumi Uchched Protirodh Committee in Nandigram (along with the BJP, Trinamool and Congress), was the first to call for Taslima's expulsion from India. If you understand the chronology, you will see that the Bengali opposition brought the Taslima issue into the whole Nandigram dispute, with rioters burning vehicles calling for her execution. She was then advised to leave Kolkata by the police because her presence in the city was another excuse for the opposition to incite communal tensions. It is therefore odd that police advice, taken in the context of violent unrest and opposition provocation, would be proof of a Communist attack on Taslima - particularly as the Left Front government had no prior objections to her presence in Kolkata. This entire section on Taslima is POV and should not be included in the controversy section. The main controversies should be those that concern policy issues, not policing in states controlled by the Left Front (of which the CPI(M) is just one constituent party).--Conjoiner (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies (RfC)
Disagreements on existence and delimitation of 'Controversies' chapter, as well as how to use sources. --Soman (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously several issues to which there are disagreements over the contents of the article. I don't really know how the discussion should be structured. One initial question I would like to pose, is: Can sources written prior to the foundation be used to desribe the policies of the party? CPI(M) is after all not a direct continuation of CPI, the split did not affect all sectors of the party equally. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A new (re)take
With the obvious risk of being repetitive, I'd like to summarize the disagreements I have as per this edit: --Soman (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose a separate 'Controversies' chapter. Empirically, I think we can state that the existance of the 'Controversies' chapter functions as an open invitation for povpushers to use as their own notice-board of complaints. All parties are constantly criticised, and the selection criteria used by Ghanadar galpa and Otolemur is simply digging up any dirt they can find.
 * 2) That said, I do not oppose inclusion of critical viewpoints in the article. Critical viewpoints do not need a separate ‘Controversies’ chapter to be mentioned.
 * 3) The ‘Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states’ should be revamped into an subchapter on the governance of CPI(M) in the three states. Also, question on how notable M.N. Vijayan’s criticism is.
 * 4) ”By acquitting M.N. Vijayan in a related court case, the court has endorsed Vijayan's charges against Shastra Sahitya Parishad, a science forum led by section of CPI(M) leaders, of accepting imperialist funding” is obviously not NPOV.
 * 5) Wordings like ‘These critics argue that CPI(M)’s Social Democratic deviation limits’, most be reworded so that it is cleared that ‘Social Democratic deviation’ is not fact but an opinion.
 * 6) Regarding the Taslima Nasreen chapter Conjoiner has well explained the problems of the presention in the subsection, that the issue was first raised by CPI(M)s opponents and that the WB state government’s attitude is by no means different than the BJP-led government of Rajasthan.
 * 7) Regarding ‘Electoral fraud’ this should be shifted to an article on the election in question, since the allegations are mutual.
 * 8) Regarding caste, I’m not opposed to having a section discussing the caste issue from different angles. But to say that this is a ‘controversy’ is directly misleading. ‘Allegations of casteism’ is a title not backed up by the contents of the subsection, unless being Brahman-dominated per se means casteist. The sources used date 1961 (three years prior to the formation of the party), 1967 and 1972. The first doesn’t refer to CPI(M) at all, but CPI in Madras in the early 1960s. The second refers to both communist parties. This is hardly satisfactory.
 * 9) Regarding the 1982 massacre the accusation that ‘CPI(M) cadres’ were behind it is backed up only by the Ananda Marga website. Indian Express do not mention this detail.
 * 10) CIA documents subsection fails WP:RS/WP:NOR completely. These are documents that have been secret for 40 years, we get no info on how this material was collected, large parts still classified, making a real peer review impossible. A document, whose facts cannot be checked up by other, cannot be used for making highly controversial claims.
 * 11) Regarding the ‘Collectivization and anti-National ideology’, the title is obviously POV. Moreover, there is no backing at all in the text that the ideology of CPI(M) would be ‘anti-National’.
 * 12) Compare with the current version. The wording 'Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M)…' was first used for the notion that Socialism was un-Indian in general. Now the exact same is used for the vague notion of 'failing to engender a national…'. A 'one size fits all' statement, perhaps?
 * 13) What does 'failing to engender a national a new form of national identity' mean, really? Yes, the communists in India haven't been able to become the dominant force in Indian politics, but is that a controversy? How many national identities have you engendered lately?
 * 14) The collectivisation/Holdmor part has two refences, one dated 1950 (it cannot be applied to describe the policies of CPI(M), which was founded in 1964) and one dated 1966 (prior to achieving governance in WB, and before land reform programmes started).

Alliance with Neo-Nazis
User Conjoiner is deleting texts from talk page with the pretext that these are violation of biographies of living person. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the texts above violate LIVING. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a standard Indian Communist propaganda tactic that is being employed by these people. In order for people to read the content that the Communist whitewashers keep removing. The diffs are included in case the Communists call their gangsters to revert-war here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the policy carefully. Libelling someone is against Wikipedia policy. Calling a living person an anti-semite, a Nazi or anything else breaches this policy. Therefore, the remarks can be deleted. Ask an administrator if you need confirmation.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I plan to add more to this talk page about CPI(M)'s hatred for Jews and desire to engage in genocide of Jews with the extermination of Israel. This is for the benefit of people who will arrive here from RfC. We will see what consensus says about CPI(M)'s antisemitism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User Conjoiner is deleting the section "Alliance with Neo-Nazi" with the mallice thet this paragraph violate WP:LIVING. This paragraph has nothing to do with biography with living person. I will add this section back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User Conjoiner is misinterpreting wikipedia policy by saying that this paragraph violate WP:LIVING. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the paragraph is saying that Communists are in alliance with "American neo-Nazis" and in the following sentence names a living person, who is also described as a Holocaust Denier - she herself has previously objected to these descriptions as libellous. As a conscientious Wikipedian, I am merely enforcing policy. A discussion can be had here without putting Wikipedia at risk of litigation by those named here.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The locus of this dispute is anti-Semitic Indian Communists trying to hide the fact that their hate propaganda website "countercurrents.org", a website that advocates discrimination, violence against and genocide of Hindus and Jews, features articles by Wendy Campbell that state that 9/11 was a "[Jewish Conspiracy]" (which is a false propaganda touted by haters). According to many academics like Sue Blackwell. Wendy Campbell is associated with Neo-nazis in the United States (see the article Wendy Campbell for details) and is allegedly financially linked to the Holocaust denying Institute for Historical Review. Thus, there seems to be a concerted effort by Indian Communists to build alliances with Nazis because they share a common hatred for Jews.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the cheapest and one of most commonly occuring pseudoarguments. To label all critics of Israel or Israeli state policy as antisemites is hardly original, and personally it just provokes a 'yawn' on my behalf; --Soman (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to provide some concrete evidence that 'CPI(M)'s ... desire to engage in genocide of Jews'.
 * Countercurrents.org is not a party organ. Don't try guilt by association.
 * Countercurrents.org is a communist party mouthpeice. Numerous pro-Communist propaganda in this article itself is courced from the hate site. They have actively endorsed terrorist groups like the Naxalites (whom the Marxists say they don't like but in reality actively support and fund so that they can kill farmers and take away their land). A simple set of google searches will clearly demonstrate who this hateful website propagandizes for and who subsidizes it. Reknown Civil rights champion martin luther King jr makes a "pseudoargument" that demanding a genocide of Jews is antisemitic? You can yawn all you want. Most wikipedians clearly see antisemitism where it shows itself. This is not some backward third world country where Communist mass murderers and thugs can tout their propaganda without being exposed.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, see, and judge whether countercurrents.org is a CPI(M) organ or not. As per your analysis on the relation between criticism of israel and antisemitism, don't try to claim that you represent a majority of anything. You represent yourself, just as I represent myself. I do of course see the quote of Dr. King as utter non-sense, which doesn't deny that Dr. King played an important role in the Civil Rights Movement. My feeling is that this is a delibrate attempt to divert attention from the topics relating to this article and making into a copy of all other 100s if not 1000s of wiki article talk pages were pro-israelis and pro-palestinians conduct proxy warfare. --Soman (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another antisemitic conspiracy theory. Third World socilalists can't get enough of this stuff. Now they drag wikipedia into their quagmire.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment from the person that claimed that the anon user worked for the election commission of ap, accused conjoiner & myself of being paid agents for cpi(m), etc. Try commenting on the actual issues, for a change, For example, it would be interesting if you could comment on my last post regarding the relation between CPI(M) and countercurrents.org. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More antisemitism from CPI(M)
Last Thursday, Indian left-wing and communist party representatives led an anti-Israel demonstration in New Delhi. The event, which included an abortive march on the Israeli Embassy, was organized by the Indian Committee Against Israeli Aggression. Scores of leftist activists, intellectuals, artists and prominent personalities took part. Speaking at the rally, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM), Prakash Karat, called for an Indian boycott of Israel. "India is the largest consumer of Israeli arms today. So it is the responsibility of our government to stop buying arms from a nation which is devastating both Lebanon and Palestine." he said. Boycott of Israel is similar to Nazi boycotts of Jews US commitment to the Indo US Nuke deal and zionist hindu white strategic regrouping worldwide is well conveyed by the Butcher of Vietnam.. Osama bin laden also says "crusader Zionist-Hindu conspiracy"
 * The CPI(M) hate propaganda site "countercurrents.org" mentions the term "Jewish lobby" in a total of 81 articles . The term Jewish lobby is a hate propaganda term used by Communists and other anti-Semites.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More antisemitism:
 * Bengali Communist Party Shill says:

None of this supports your contention that the CPI(M) is anti-semitic. Opposing Israeli policy or the existence of Israel is not anti-semitic. Talking of a Jewish lobby is not anti-semitic (it certainly exists in the US, just as there is an Arab lobby). Boycotting Israeli goods to protest against the Israeli government's policies is not anti-semitic. As such, this biased and unverifiable claim has no place in this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * jewish Lobby is a myth by Communist Vijay Prashad

The idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. The "Jew," without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is a good illustration of this idea. The Nazis stigmatized the "Jew" as the reason for poverty and exploitation, and obscured the role played by capitalism in the reproduction of grief. The six million Jews in the U.S. do not determine U.S. foreign policy; nor are they united. Jews in America, like other communities, are rent with division, not united behind one agenda
 * Jewish Lobby is an antisemitic canard.

The expression is commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks right-wing extremists, writes that it combines the classic elements of anti-Semitic stereotyping and scapegoating, and is part of the discourse of conspiracism.
 * Nazis boycotted Jewish goods. Indian Communists want to boycott Jewish goods. it doesn't take a genius to see that this is antisemitism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nazis boycotted Jewish goods. Indian Communists want to boycott Israeli goods. It's not the same thing.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anti-Zionism IS antisemitism" - says world famous civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Boycotting Israeli goods over Israeli policy does not equate to either anti-semitism or anti-Zionism. Boycotting South African goods during the apartheid era was neither anti-white nor a call to destroy South Africa. While you may have your opinion, this should not be the basis of this article. You cannot portray the CPI(M) or its leaders as anti-semitic on the basis of their opinions on Israel and its policies in a Wikipedia article. If you would like to make such an argument, you can do so freely in a weblog, not in an encyclopaedia.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my opinion. My opinion is completely beside the point. Numerous award-winning and internationally respected academics (western, not third world backward Indian Communist haters and bigots) state that all these views are antisemitism. Academics such as Alan Dershowitz (top ranked Harvard professor, not some Countercurrents.org Indian Communist trollrat from Calcutta politburo, whose articles are liberally cited as "reliable sources" in this pathetic Communist hate propaganda article that violates every core wikipedia policy), for instance.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Has Dershowitz expressed an opinion about the CPI(M)? Anyway, whatever opinion he holds is his own. It is opinion, not fact.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And the antisemitic opinions of the Indian Communists can be cited as opinions too.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Wistrich, Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of its International Center for the Study of Antisemitism — who also testified in February 2006 to the British parliamentary inquiry — responds that his own litmus test of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when the critic wishes to dismantle the Jewish state without calling for the dismantling of other states; demonizes Israel; brands it "Nazi" or "racist"; or relies on classic antisemitic stereotypes: for example, the "Jewish Lobby." . Now, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) uses the anti-semitic hate term "Jewish lobby" quite liberally in their own website "cpim.org"Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be odd if organisations such as the American Jewish Congress were not allowed to be called Jewish lobbying organisations. It lobbies on behalf of what it sees as Jewish interests. Is it anti-semitic to state that? Some defenders of Israel's policies may wish to cast critics of Israel as anti-semitic, because that is the nature of the debate. To assert in a Wikipedia article that, on the basis of a pro-Israeli academic's understanding of anti-semitism, one can deduce that the CPI(M) is anti-semitic is certainly pushing a point of view and is original research and as such has no place in a Wikipedia article.

Perhaps we can explore the problems with the existing content, rather than divert into this irrelevant discussion on the definition of anti-semitism--Conjoiner (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * gives 7 hits. One, an article of Vijay Prasad, refers to the idea about the 'jewish lobby' as an antisemitic perception. As per the other hits, there is an important clarification that should be made. The is a great deal of difference between talking about 'the Jewish Lobby' (as a conspiracy running the US government, etc.) and talk about 'a Jewish lobby group' in US politics. There are many Jewish lobby groups in US politics, just as there are Christian, Muslim and Hindu pressure groups. There are also Jewish lobby groups which oppose Israeli policies. Getting a google hit on 'jewish lobby' doesn't make anyone an antisemite per default. --Soman (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (comment written prior to seeing Conjoiner's comment above)

Has someone run a RFCU on this guy and user:Hkelkar? Relata refero (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ananda Marga
The new subsection in the 'Controversies', on the 1982 incident, has some problems. First of all, chosing to describe Ananda Marga as a purely religious movement, and not a political one, takes things out of context. There is probably a better name to describe the incident that 'burning of monks and nuns'. The only rs link given, http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990501/ige01007.html, does for example not use that wording. http://www.amps-net.org/30th_april.htm is an article on the Ananda Marga website, this does not disqualify it as a source, but it must be clarified that these are allegations and where these allegations originate. http://news.indiainfo.com/publicopinion/anandamarga-justice.html is a letter from the public at a newssite, and fails RS.

To have mention of this incident, without the wider picture of conflict between CPI(M) and Ananda Marga takes things out of context. For example, Ananda Marga at this point ran an ethnic communal terrorist outfit in Tripura, which at least politically clashed with the CPI(M). --Soman (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A google search like these and  doesn't give any more details than the links already provided. Also, the 1999 Indian Express article doesn't mention include a single mention of CPI(M). If the Ananda Marga website is used as a fact in this case, we could fill the BJP/RSS article with all sorts of 'facts' posted at leftist websites. --Soman (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies revisited
At present, the "State Governments" and "Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states" contain much the same information. I think the latter should be deleted in favour of expanding the former.

On the Taslima issue, no-one has answered the problems outlined above. In one of the sources, she says she was "put under severe pressure to leave Bengal by the police." The other two sources used appear to be dead links. The agitations against her were carried out by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, which opposes the CPI(M). As such, this is not a controversy about CPI(M) policies, but the agitation by an Islamic group, which threatened to become violent and which led to Taslima's move out of the state, under police pressure. The inclusion of this issue as a CPI(M) controversy is therefore misleading and POV.

Electoral fraud: this is an issue that affects all political parties in India and is therefore better in an article of its own, eg Electoral fraud in India.

The 1982 monk incident is certainly POV, in view of what Soman has said above.

If the CIA issue is to be included at all, it belongs in the history section and perhaps shortened to ensure there is no undue weight.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken part of the 'Electoral fraud' passage, in Indian general election, 1999, were it belongs since the allegations were mutual. --Soman (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
At this point, the images are heavily Bengal+Kerala dominated. Is there anyway we can improve this? Do we have any source for free images with a more historical perspective? --Soman (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Caste and the left
by Christophe Jaffrelot, has some interesting comments on left and caste in the lead. He wont say I agree with his overall analysis completly, but the reference is valuable for including a section on the lack of progress of the party in the Hindi belt. Also gives a comment on analysis of EMS on caste issue. --Soman (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From The Hindu; "On the issue of establishing a Dalit identity to counter the violence against the underprivileged sections, Mr. Karat said the party was contemplating replicating in the North some of the initiatives taken by it to organise the oppressed sections of society in the South. Reiterating the importance of class and caste struggles, the Communist leader opposed politics based on caste fissures."

Brinda Karat, quoted in :"On the Leftist rethink on caste to reach voters

Caste as a method of mobilisation, not necessarily on democratic lines, has become a phenomenon that has really overcome (the issue of) the unity of oppressed people. Look at the Dalits or look at other oppressed backward classes -- economically they form the basic classes for any revolutionary movement.

If you want to organise the basic classes in India, you just have to look at the way the caste system is still operating. I will not say that caste will be our focus, but I will say it is an important focus. Look at Kerala. The birth of the Communist movement in Kerala was closely linked to the anti-caste system. Like the movement we fought against the discrimination on entering temples. In Hyderabad (the late CPI-M general secretary P) Sundarayya led the movement against untouchability.

What Leftists have now to grapple with is the way bourgeois politics has coopted caste mobilisation to strengthen the unequal and inequitable status quo." --Soman (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M) on the 2006 reservations issue,. --Soman (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a good idea, which could overcome some of the problems here. There should be a separate section on ideology of the CPI(M), which can give an overview of the ideological debates within the party and the party's policies where it is in power, with references to some of the controversies. Rather than having a list of every accusation against the party, there can be a more focus on the context of debate within and surrounding the CPI(M). Is this a way of providing some structure that we can all work in?--Conjoiner (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we don't need to record every accusation against this party. This will make the article unbalanced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of MPs
says CPI(M) won 43 seats in Lok Sabha in 2004. Presently the infobox says 44. Was there a bye-election through which the CPI(M) expanded its Lok Sabha presence, or is this wrong? --Soman (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the Electoral Commission website and I can't see any evidence of a Lok Sabha by-election since 2004, although I am sure there must have been one.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sebastian Paul has won as CPI(M) independent from Kerala. Some times, that is included as CPI(M) some times not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.223.29 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indian Federal Democratic Party leader P.C. Thomas joined Kerala Congress a LDF partner at state level —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.179.7 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was by election in Asansol,WB but earlier also CPM won there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.179.7 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Interesting links
Recently, a CPI-M minister from tripura had to resign because of his alleged HUJI links. The news stories can be found here and here. Also, saw the allegations against Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. I believe that Wikipedia should have a re-think on whether to include tehelka.com scoops(!) as reliable sources. They are best known examples of yellow journalism in India. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
''Ratan Tata expressed happiness saying "Budhadeb has showed loyalty to TATA even at the risk of sacrificing his political career." and Ravi Kant MD Tata Motors expressed happiness the way Budhadeb served TATA.[37]. But the critics argue that there was secret understanding to take over public property, between Chief Minister and TATA which was not revealed even after several petitions were filed under the Right to Information Act. [38][39][40] The allegation is that TATA helps Budhadeb's political career in return of gifting thousands of acres of land free of cost to TATA.[41]''

I have studied the citations given and found this whole paragraph to be of dubious integrity. The IP editor, who introduced this part, definitely pushed his POV.
 * 1) Ratan Tata's happiness on Buddhadeb showing loyalty to Tata's is not referenced.
 * 2) Ravi Kant, in the whole article, has not said anything about Buddhadeb serving Tatas. But cite note 37 will mislead you in to believing that he does say something to that extent.
 * 3) The critics argument about the secret understanding, in its present form, is nothing but POV pushing.
 * 4) And what is the basis for the allegation that Tata helps Buddhadeb's political career? If it is accepted, then probably we can have a section on the parties which opposed this factory, that their political movements were financed by a rival motor company.

I believe that the above cited paragraph can be deleted. Can somebody, may be one of the regular editors on this page, take the lead? Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sindhian's edits and 'Accusations and Controversies' chapter
Experience tells us that 'Accusations and Controversies' are generally a bad idea at articles on political parties. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'''I do not agree almost all wikipedia articles on groups and persons have a section which mentions openions which are critical o the person or group. This provides a balanced vieww or NPOV'''Sindhian (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides that is your openion and that does not give you the right to delete any one hard worked and well referenced article. Please refrain from ruthless delete which is vandalism of worst kindSindhian (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen the passage "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." when editing a page at wikipedia? --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole ariticle has been written by CPIM supporters and does not mention the general perception of CPIM in India. I have tried to potrey the other side of the story to make the Wikipedia article balanced and restore NPOV. Besides CPIM has been involved into a number of controversies with almost every Human rights organization including amnesty international condemning CPIM, it is important to present their point of view. Otherwise you are recomending that accusations and controversies should be removed from all wikepedia articles, which is absurd IMHO.Sindhian (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you again Are you suggesting that we should remove all contraversie and allegations from all articles.? I am sure that is not Wikipedia policy.(talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that 'controversies'/'criticism' sections is generally a bad idea in articles on political parties. --Soman (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be your openion but it certainly is not a Wikipedia policy Sindhian (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Any sources? So far you haven't really produced anything to back up your claims, rather you post links to newsarticles/commentaries, and make your own creative interpretations our of them. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong or you are delibrately lying, Just give me one example If you read my edits in this article I have avoided making intrpretations in order to avoid contraversySindhian (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Claiming that Aiyar had called CPI(M) 'extremist' is one such example. --Soman (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not and you are delibrately lying to obfuscate the debate"Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not and that is not true Sindhian (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

is divided in three parts;
 * The 'Accusations of Extremism' subsection is just absurd. None of the sources call CPI(M) 'extremist'.


 * "Far left" is synonimous with extremism, the referenced articles imply the extremism of CPIM. I could Change the tiltle to "Accusation of Far left and Voilence" 192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No they are not synonmious. For someone who has spent a lot of time at the far left article in the last days, you should be familiar with this. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are and you are lying again. far left article heading says "The terms far left and far right are often used to imply that someone is an extremist"Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mani Shankar Aiyar refers to CPI(M) as 'far left' (or rather, he includes CPI(M) in the 'far left') in a 1996 commentary. It is a cheap shot by a fellow politician, but not outstanding by any means. Aiyar was not minister in the UPA govt at the time, UPA did not exist in 1996. '''


 * And what you are doing is called 'verbal gymnasticsSindhian (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Called by whom? Yourself? Also, please stop editing the comments of others. Its not good wikietiquette. --Soman (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A frivolous and irrelevant arguement in my openion. How would UPA's existance matter with his openion. It even emphasises the message that CPIM have been periceved extremist for a long time. Dismissing it as a  cheap shot by a politician is too simplistic. Since CPIM supports the party of which Mani Shankar Aiyer is an important personality. You or CPIM supporters may not like it but I feel the general unbiased reader will find it interesting and informative and that is important. You may find flaws in his article but cannot delete a hard worked and well referenced piece arbitarily. 192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare the following google searches, and . There is very little evidence that 'far left' would be a common denominator for CPI(M) in Indian politics. Aiyar's comments appears to be a one time usage on his behalf. If we had a confirmation that Congress consistently would refer to CPI(M) as 'far left' it would be another matter, though. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So ??? What is your point Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * saying 'has been repeated by other journalists' based on two articles at a timespan of 11 years is a bit OR. The editorial doesn't accuse CPI(M) of anything, it does however use the term 'far left' to refer to CPI(M), as well as labelling BJP as 'far right'.


 * Those are just examples, are you saying no one else has made such claim. If yes on what basis- Google search ???:-)))13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So ??? Being called as far Left is sufficient to say that it is being percieved as extremist. Do you dispute that??192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again far left does not equal extremist. In this sense it simple means that CPI(M) holds the leftmost position in the parliament. Would you say that the journalist has dubbed BJP as extremist in the article? --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I would say he percieves BJP as extremist and any logical person would make the same conclusionSindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * does not accuse 'CPI(M) of unleasing authoritarian violance and Red terror'. It is a newsarticle on the confrontations in Nandigram at the time, it interviews local CPI(M) and BUPC leaders who give their viewpoints on what was happening. 'Authoritarian' is not mentioned in the article. The term 'red terror' is mentioned twice, in a sensationalistic headline and once in the inline text, bracketted at "Red terror" in reference to a commentary by BUPC.


 * This is called obfuscation Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a newsarticle on the confrontations in Nandigram at the time, it interviews local CPI(M) and BUPC leaders who give their viewpoints on what was happening. 'Authoritarian' is not mentioned in the article. The term 'red terror' is mentioned twice, in a sensationalistic headline and once in the inline text, bracketted at "Red terror" in reference to a commentary by BUPC.


 * Do you dispute the article potreys CPIM as extremist.192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I am saying. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say if you say that. I rest my caseSindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exact words may not be mentioned some but are obvious. In any case if you had objection to the word you could have removed the word and I can add more references of CPIM being called 'Authoritarian"192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you add a reference where Times of India accuses the party of authoritarianism? Cause thats what you've claimed in your edits. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - Satisfied ?Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have previously stated on this talk page that I favour having a section on CPI(M) and caste issues. This should not be part of a controversies chapter. For example, I have posted the link an article by Jaffrelot, the same academic that is the source of Yogendra Yadav's statement at the Sanhati website . We cannot howecer know from the Sanhati website exactly which work of Jaffrelot he refers to.


 * What you favor is your openion. Is your openion more important than others? 192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well, we are all equals here. some more than others perhaps. ironics aside, though, I'd say that it would be preferable to have a source either from Jaffrelot or referering to a concrete work of Jaffrelot, rather than a webcommentary mentioning Jaffrelot's work in general. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe wikipeia is for readers convinience. So we as contributors have a duty to provide them all the relevant information Do you still disagree ?Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * sees the confrontations in 1987 as a caste issue. I'd say that issues of centre-periphery relations, parallel to the Gorkhaland issue, were at play. The wordings introduced by Sindhian give to much emphasis on the 1987 Alipurduar incident, as if this would have been a watershed in the party's history on caste issues. Yadav certainly doesn't claim that so would be the case.


 * irrelevant arguement. I did not paste the whole article but if you had taken the trouble of reading the linlk i had provided you would have seen that yadav clearly says that CPIM attrocities on lower casts(dalits) in nandigram is not new and that in Alipur similar atrocities on lower casts were commited.192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have pasted six sentences directly into the article, and not as a quote. What is a copyright violation, the way I see it. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem. In any case I have reworked itSindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The caste section is directly a copyvio of
 * With Sindhian's edits, the Nandigram conflict subsection has been moved from the history section to a controversies section. I cannot directly see the point in doing so.


 * Do you dispute the fact that Nandigram is a major controvercy surrounding CPIM? In fact Nandigram is a controversy and not so much of a history of CPIM or which shaped CPIM. I can provide a hundred references to prove this.192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Nandigram conflict is certainly controversial. It is also a part of the history and present of the party. I think it could be placed either way, but I see no particular point in having it in a 'controversies' section. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concluding, the new material in the new section consists either of pure ranting or is a direct copyvio. I suggest that the recent edits be reverted.


 * I agree to all of your points. Indeed there ought to be a section covering CPI(M) and cast related issues. An out of context observation, its a bit queer that almost all the parties for the proletariat in India are (and historically have been) dominated by the so called upper castes. Shovon (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the stark class/caste cleaves in India make some international phenomena very visible. Friedrich Engels was by no means a factory worker, left movements in many countries have been lead by people whose family backgrounds have been in the upper echelons of society. In the colonial countries this feature was particularily strong, as 1) industrial working class was not very big and 2) the first to be recruited communists were often young members of elite classes who encountered communist teachings abroad. --Soman (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We can also say that CPIM is similar to Communists in China, Russia, Combodia. The difference is that these left movements and intellectuals may have been intrested in downtrodden. While as Communist parties all over the world have oppressed the poor and became elitist once in power. CPIM is no different. Please don't obfuscate by bringing irrelevant examples before discussing the exaple provided192.11.225.117 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have observed that you and your friends find it completely normal in deleating the whole article which does not comply to your thinking or political belief, which I believe is not reasonable. Kindly refrain from this otherwise I am going to flag vandalism and I believe I have given enough warning and shown sufficient patience
 * You really should consider refraining about making empty threats of vandalism reports. Have you read Vandalism? --Soman (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some new additions;

 * The Sonia Gandhi commentary is used solely in reference to the Nandigram conflict. It is not a general condemnation of CPI(M).
 * Ignoratio elenchi 1Did I say it is general condemnation ?Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the article Vir Sanghvi has not "referred to the CPI(M) as "Thugs and murderers"". He uses the wording "They get the thugs and murderers of the CPM and they get the hysterical, self-destructive opposition of Mamata Banerjee.", implying there are are 'thugs and murders' in CPI(M), not that the party as a whole would be classified as such.


 * It could be interpreted in both ways therefore I will agree that I need to change it. Thanks for pointing it out Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Franda's book is published in?
 * The 'Marginalizing Minorities' subsection is perhaps the most clear essence of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't" policy. Sometimes the Hindutva POV-pushers accuse the communists of being pro-minority, at other times the accuse the party of being anti-minority. The subsection, copied from somewehere else, expresses the private pov of the editor, and is not presented as a controversy.
 * ad Hominem 1 This is an allegation and if you forgot the heading is allegation and controversySindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * CPI(M) was founded in 1964.


 * ?????? what is your point ???????Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would Sindhian like us to include any statement made by the JUI leadership in articles on BJP or RSS?
 * ad Hominem 2 absolutely, in the contravercies and allegations section. I have myself included references in the Contravercies section of RSS. Please check the history. Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The FICCI comment is hilarious. It questions the right of CPI(M) to have bilateral relations with other political parties. The assumption that visiting China means subordination to the Chinese government is really out of bounds.
 * Ignoratio elenchi 2Did I say "visiting China means subordination "Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concluding for now, I'd like to repeat my main argument on this issue; that 'controversy'/'criticism' chapters are generally a bad idea in articles on political parties. Political parties are always in conflict with other political actors, any in a country with a billion plus population, one can always google up smearing quotes and accusation to fill various pages of text in an article on Congress, BJP, Shiv Sena, RJD, etc. I'm not saying that critical perspectives cannot be included in the article, but that a separate 'controversies' chapter functions like an open invitation to POV-pushers for flooding the article with heaps of rants.


 * In response to the above I would like to say that wikipedia is an encyclopedia ment for readers and not an "Election Campaign Website". Readers want to know from all angles and not just the parties POV but also the controversies and allegations the party has been subjected to. Wikipedia is for a educated intelligent reader who wants the whole story therefore as is the poliy of wikipedia of ensuring Neutral POV we need to inculde the contravesies and allegationsSindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone run a rfcu on sindhrian and hkelkar, ghanadar galpa?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. We know some IP numbers of Hkelkar and some IP numbers of Sindhian. They are located in different continents. I don't think a rfcu is necessary at this point. --Soman (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that you had some disagreement with Hkelkar and that is why you deleted or blanked my edit as a whole even though you agree some sections were relevant from your POVSindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are usually not a good idea. The article becomes unweighted. The discussion above is very difficult to be read so I didn't read it all. As far as I read, I agree with Soman. I just believe that, apart from Nandigram events, a see also to Nanoor massacre should be added, since CPI (M) plays a great role on that article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoratio elenchi 3Do I need to say more ?Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also agree with Soman's arguments.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it just because you think I am Hkelkar ??? Sindhian (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Users sindhrian and Soman, please stop answering line by line. I'll have to give a warning (Talk page is not a forum) and revert your edits in the talk page from now on. I can't help improving the article because I can't read this dialogue unless I spend my weekend. Soman, as a more experienced user please consider diving this section to subsections. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to Sindhian's latest comments below, trying to separate between our comments;
 * First of all; if you wish to change your comments afterwards, please use tags around the parts you have edited. Otherwise it will appear like the other editor has responded to a differently worded comment.
 * The point of comparing the google searches, and, is that it becomes quite clear that CPI(M) is normally refered to in India as 'Left', and that the epiphet 'far left' is quite uncommon denominator for the party. I'm not saying that the term 'far left' is never used to describe CPI(M), but that it is certainly not very common.


 * These are POV's anfd you could include your POV, I don't mind as long as the POV's of significant people are includedSindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are now two refs in Sindhian's version from Times of India editorials which use the term 'authoritarian' when talking about CPI(M). That is of course better than zero when making such a claim, but it doesn't change my overall position on whether its good to have a 'controversies' section.
 * your POV ??!!Sindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sonia Gandhi's commentary deals with the Nandigram issue. I'd prefer if it be included only in that article.


 * Can you prove that she is only refering to Nandigram and not to other contraversies where CPI(M) has been involved in violence e.g Singur. If yes Go aheadSindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As per the ad hominem claim, if Sindhian feels that I have misinterpreted his intentions. Its possible that such is the case. However, Sindhian himself was not slow of calling my edits "communist bullying".


 * I may have used "communist bullying" but that was not for justifying my logic but to make you make you aware that the way Communists in WB tried to suppress the truth by disallowing journalists to visit nandigram will not work in wikipedia. I also want to state this for the record 'my or your intentions are not important but 'truth' is important and I am here to support the truth, are you ??? Sindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The wordings in the 'Marginalized Minorities' section doesn't really present any controversy as such. It states a few statistics, and presenting it as a 'controversy' is original synthesis. Myself i think the issue of the position of Muslims in WB, Kerala and Tripura is far more complex than the wordings in this subsection.

You are free to state the complexity in the section and justify why this charge is wrong. Unlike you I will not delete it. Fight ignorance with truth. After all our country's (India) motto is "Truith always triumphs" (although I don't know if you belive in it)Sindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of pointing out that CPI(M) was founded in 1964, is that CPI(M) as a party physically cannot have taken part in the Sino-Indian war of 1962.


 * I did not make that point but 1962 war led to factionalism in CPI and I can interpret that 1962 war created a dicision in CPI and CPI(M) is the faction whic supported China. In any case I have refrained from stating my interpretation and have just referencedSindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the addition of references to 'Controversies' section in RSS article, what exactly is refered to? The addition of the 'Noted Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst' passage? Its not like the viewpoints of JUI would have been included in the article without further commentary.


 * ad Hominem 3 How is that relevant here? Sindhian (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the JUI commentary doesn't contribute anything, JUI is a political communal organisation which has bad relations overall (not only regarding Nandigram, but more importantly regarding the system of Islamic education in WB).


 * My stand is if something is bad so would be its logic and therefore its allegation wouldn't stand scrutiny. I am still in favor of adding their allegation. because by doing that I would believe it give an opportunity to clear some misunderstanding and build dialog. Remember "Truth always triumps" - "Satyamev Jayate" is the motto of our countrySindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The FICCI boss certainly seems to think that a China trip means a subordinate relationship.
 * That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that FICCI chairman thinkis CPI(M) is a Chinese stooge or agent and cares more about Chinas Intrests than India's. But then this is a very serios charge and CPI(M) should have a counter arguement to if if they are not what FICCI chairman suggests.Sindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Sindhian feel that the present article is an 'Election Campaign Website' of CPI(M). If so, he should focus his energies on addressing POV issues in the existing chapters. Introducing a separate 'Controversies' chapter doesn't automatically make the article NPOV.
 * as I can see the Nandigram episode been reduced to justification of CPI(M) on Nandigram in CPI(M) article. No space has been provided to critical arguments about the actions and position of CPI(M). Which I believe is against the Wikipedia's "Neutral Point OF View" NPOV principle.Sindhian (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some comments; --Soman (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets stop the line-by-line commentaries. Please post your comments after mine signature. Then the page will be easier to read.
 * Regarding Nandigram, the passage on Nandigram in this article should not be a resume of the main Nandigram conflict article. The passage in this article should deal with the aspects relating specifically to the CPI(M). The outcome of the February PB meeting is highly relevant in this context, the passage on the High Court isn't. A point which could be developed more is the reprecussions of Nandigram on CPI(M) relations to other movements, especially the rifts inside the Left Front.
 * To state that CPI(M) is 'marginalizing minorities', based on the passage introduced in the article, is incorrect. CPI(M) is not identical to WB state government (and less WB state institutions). There are of course other factors than CPI(M) policies affecting the socio-economic status of Muslims in WB.
 * I had asked Sindhian to give some examples of him introducing critical references to RSS and BJP articles. Not that it matters for the outcome of this article, but it would be interesting to know what he had refered to.

1970s
I'm surprised that such a large chunk of history is still in stub format. Am I right in thinking that in the 1970s the CPI(M)'s politics was mainly dominated by its opposition to Indira Gandhi's State of Emergency? There must be major texts on the Sino-Soviet dispute and world politics generally in the 1970s that touch on this aspect of Indian politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had initiated User:Soman/CPI(M)-temp in order to build the later history subsections. I agree there is a great lack in the article, especially Emergency and 1977 elections. --Soman (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please exercise some common sense while writing
Mr. Sindhian, please do not provide your responses on a line by line basis. Why don't you start your response below the earlier editor? Your style of writing makes it impossible to comprehend what actually is going on. Shovon (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I think this is a personal attack by questioning my common sense. Point by point response is easier to comprehend otherwise the issue becomes obfuscated and I suspect some people want to obfuscate the issue in order to have their waySindhian (talk)
 * These talk page edits by Sindhian are very disruptive. After being advised not to break up other peoples comments, by inserting his own in theirs, he continues to do so, making this talk page discussion practically impossible. See above for some examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to undo comments on talk page amount to vandalism. I am going to let you go with a level 2 vandalism warning.Sindhian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please desist from making phony claims of vandalism and personal attacks like this. It is not beneficial to the tone of the debate. When given advice you could react in a more constructive manner. --Soman (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Point by Point response to Soman
Soman says "Lets stop the line-by-line commentaries. Please post your comments after mine signature. Then the page will be easier to read..--Soman (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"

On the contrary Point by point response is important because otherwise the issue becomes obfuscated or obscured. From the history of this page and the size of the talk page you can see that has happened and is happening. On the other hand my request to you and your friends is that if you objections to any section bring it here point to point as it is easier to debate that way and kindly refrain from mass delete of the section (Unless you are scared of a debate Sindhian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Soman Says - "*Regarding Nandigram, the passage on Nandigram in this article should not be a resume of the main Nandigram conflict article. The passage in this article should deal with the aspects relating specifically to the CPI(M). The outcome of the February PB meeting is highly relevant in this context, the passage on the High Court isn't. A point which could be developed more is the reprecussions of Nandigram on CPI(M) relations to other movements, especially the rifts inside the Left Front.--Soman (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)"
 * Cout judgements are generally considered unbiased and well deliberated. Judgement of High court on CPI(M) governments actions Nandigram is a very good piece of unbiased information for any person trying to research or understand CPI(M). So are the findings of Court appointed commision. If anything needs to go in the Nandigram subsection it is this because that is undisputed and unbiased judgement. 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Soman Says - "*To state that CPI(M) is 'marginalizing minorities', based on the passage introduced in the article, is incorrect. CPI(M) is not identical to WB state government (and less WB state institutions). There are of course other factors than CPI(M) policies affecting the socio-economic status of Muslims in WB.--Soman (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) "
 * first of all I am not stating that. I am saying is that CPI(M) has been charged with marginalizing minorities. Being charged is different than being stated. And these charges are substantiated with facts like 'in a state where muslims form 25% of population their representation in government is 2.5% only" This statistic has been given by sachar comitee and CPI(M) has accepted the findings. Isn't that right ? Sindhian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also CPI(M) has been ruling in West bengal government contineously for the past 30 years. Do you still think they cannot be charged with responsiblity for this disproportinate representation of minorities in the state government. If they had been in government for 3 years it would be wrong to identify CPI(M) with the government. But they have been ruling WB for 30 contineous years and whatever state the government is it is because of them. Wouldn't it be fair to identify Cuban government with Cuban Comminist party. They have also ruled for a similar period of time.Sindhian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) - Therefore this is an important charge and very good piece of information on CPI(M) government which should be stated to make the article balanced and restore NPOVSindhian (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sindhian, why do I only get a level 2 warning. I am a TEN all the way!!! I will not settle for anything short of Ten, so please, when you give out warnings - remember - I am a TEN. Thanks and come again Sindhian. Ism schism (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nandigram, again
Regarding the Nandigram passage, we must set some delimitation boundaries. The Nandigram is highly notable in the history of CPI(M), it has been described as the largest crisis of the communists since the Sino-Indian war. However, since the conflict is very recent and in some ways still ongoing, we should avoid recentism. The Nandigram conflict needs to be covered in the backdrop of the entire party history, and should not be proportional to the rest of the article.

Having said that, the first delimitation that is needed is to separate between the conflict in general, the WB state government and the party. The passage in this article should not be a resume of the main article on the conflict. A chronology of the conflict is not needed in this article. Nor do we need a listing of all comments issued on the WB govt/CPI(M) on the issue. The aspects that need to developed more in this article are the impact of the conflict on the CPI(M) itself. --Soman (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding, who is actually the author of the article? The heading reads "Fact finding report of the delegation", does that imply that the report is signed collectively of entire delegation? In the spot where author's name would be found, it just says countercurrents.org. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR violations
As this article has had POV material added and readded, I have reported it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR at Sindhian's #RR report. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also see, Attention to organized disruptive gangs for Sindhian's explanation for his reverts (note that he choose the name "organized disruptive gangs." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets agree
although the controvercies section I tried to include had a lot of good information which would have been helpful to the end reader, I agree to withdraw the section. The reason for that is that I have looked into the party pages of other parties in Wikipedia and observed that generally the controversies section and allegations are not included. So if it is a un-written rule can we agree that allegations and contravesies sections will be removed from all Indian political parties or organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) - Is this agreement suppose to happen before or after you stop calling other editors organized disruptive gangs? You have a long editing history of making this specific accusation at various different forums against various editors. Dont be supprised if other editors are hesitant to work with you. You have made some very harsh allegations against other editors, even Jaysweet who tried to help you, was called the leader of a gang by your as well. I will continue to observe your edit history AND advise others to do so as well UNTIL there is a change in your pattern of editing and accusations against other editors. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let past be past. Since I am new to wiki lets forgive and forget. I propose we work constructively in future to make wiki a good information site.Sindhian (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had, in the midst of the last edit war, appealed for the writing of a guideline on Indian political parties. I have dedicated most of my time to this article, but articles like Shiv Sena and Telangana Rashtra Samithi are really messy. An agreement on this talk page would only concern the involved editors in this article, whereas there is a need for a greater collective effort to raise the quality of articles on political parties overall. --Soman (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Soman. If you look at the Wiki sites on American and European parties only constructive facts is expressed. Let us try to do the same for Indian Political parties. If it is impossible to prove allegations in a Court, how can we do it on wikipedia.Sindhian (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also if we have agreed to only putting constructive facts on Political entities pages, I would recomment removing Nandigram as well. There is no mention of "watergate scandal" on the republical party wiki page so why should we include nandigram. In any case nandigram has a page dedicated to it.Sindhian (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion I would like to make is add some material on CPI(M)'s ideology. That seems to be missing in the article.Sindhian (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An article on a political party may include material that the party does not like. Often there is no point in mentioning criticism because we know that the UK Labour Party will criticise everything the UK Conservative Party says and vice versa. We usually do not have a section headed "Criticism" but we can include critical comments wherever they are relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen a number of pages on UK and US political parties. I havn't found even one critical comment. For example we can say "watergate scandal" was an important milestone in Republican party history. There is no mention of that in the wiki page of republican party. Besides it is impossible to determine and get a consensus on 'when they are relevant'. As you can see from this article it draws people into an endless debate and a lot of time and effort is wasted which could have been used on some constructive workSindhian (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Labour Party (UK), which mentions "Thirteen Wasted Years" and the "Winter of Discontent". Watergate is mentioned in History of the United States Republican Party. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
Dear fellow editors, I am seriously thinking of reincorporating the criticism section in to the article. I solicit everyone's cooperation so as to make the section as less skewed as possible.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to avoid personal opinions
Only facts should be added to an encyclopedia. Unverified allegations without any basic proof will be removed immediately. Also if any personal allegation to a party leader it would be appreciated to add them to the article corresponding to that person.Aravind V R (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)