Talk:Communist Party of Portugal (Marxist–Leninist)

Merge
These two articles are so wrong that only with a merge they can be made in something valid.

From the Communist Party of Portugal (Marxist-Leninist) article:

"The Communist Party of Portugal (Marxist-Leninist) (in Portuguese: 'Partido Comunista de Portugal (Marxista-Leninista)') was a political party in Portugal. Also known as the 'Mendes faction of PCP(M-L)'."

Both the 'Mendes' and the 'Vilar' factions claimed to be the true "PCP(M-L)"; and that was the 'Vilar' faction that was legally registred as "PCP(M-L)".

"In 1974 a splinter-group broke away from the party, forming the Popular Unity Party."

The PUP was not a splinter-group from the 'Mendes faction of PCP(M-L)'; it was the name that these faction adopted when it was legally registred.

"At the time of the 1976 elections PCP(M-L) launched the slogan "For Independence, For Democracy, For Social Progress! - Vote for the lists presented by PCP(m-l)!" (Pela independência pela democracia, pelo progresso social! - vota nas listas apresentadas pelo PCP (m-l)!)"

"That" PCP(M-L) was the 'Vilar faction', not the 'Mendes faction'.

From the Communist Party of Portugal (Marxist–Leninist) (1974) article:

"On November 17, 1974, Vilar's party launched the Worker-Peasant Alliance (AOC). The party took part in elections through AOC, since the name PCP(M-L) was taken by their adversaries."

No. Both the names AOC and PCP(M-L) where taken by 'Vilar faction' (the 'Mendes faction' used the names PUP and "Comité Marxista-Leninista Português"); the reason why it was two different names was because the PCP(M-L) was supposed to be the "vanguard party" and AOC the "mass front".

Because the history of 'Mendes faction' and of 'Vilar faction' is so confused in these two articles, I think that, for now, the better is a merge between the two (and, eventually, a new splint in different lines).--194.38.144.2 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If there are errors, then they should be corrected. This article was started in 2005, when online material was more scarse. But you also confirm that these were two separate parties, albeit with identical names. Thus they need to have separate articles in order to be able to display the difference between the two. --Soman (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge, on the grounds that even if they are distinct, they are so closely tied that their separate histories are best presented on the same page.Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)