Talk:International Communist Party

Untitled
Isn't it a bit odd that the subject of the article isn't even mentioned in the history until the last third of the text? the bulk of the text in ought to be pov-checked and moved to other parts, like articles on psi, bordiga, etc.. --Soman 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Or rather ctreat a new page Italian Left Communism?Harrypotter 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, this page needs a lot of work. It's written from a memember or participant's perspective ("there began a phase of our history best described as heroic"). I also think it was copied and pasted, more or less, from some party page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.94.184 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely this page is not written from a neutral point of view and has no citations whatsoever, the article needs a change of focus an citation from different sources.

--emilio juanatey(talk) 09:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A mess
This page, the page on Bordiga, and the page on the Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista)' are all a mess. There is material on this page that more rightly belongs in the histories of the Italian Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Italy and the Internationalist Communist Party. I propose to start working on cleaning all of them up. Markaeologist (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said, Markaeologist. This whole article looks like it was an attempt to appropriate most of the history of the International ist Communist Party by the International Communist Party. The vast majority of this article's content looks like it would belong better in the Battaglia Comunista page. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely POV and stupid article that has seemingly been up for a decade
"soon took a leading position in labor struggles. "

"With a background tragically highlighted by the failure to oppose the war when most Socialist parties voted war credits and solidified with their respective national bourgeoisie"

"The ICP remains resolutely against the participation in the parliamentary elections, rejecting the idealist and utopian outlook which makes social transformation dependent on a circle of ”elected“ apostles and heroes."

" The International Communist Party denounces and defends combating the Stalinists as revisionists and opportunists just as it has always condemned all forms of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. Oral and written propaganda are seen as an important party action. The cult of the individual is rejected as a very dangerous aspect of opportunism which should be fought, while the Party retains complete autonomy from all other political groups, parties, formations and fronts."

You get the point, this is literally just propaganda, you cannot even make the case that this is non-biased, wikipedia is not in the business of accusing people of revisionism and opportunism and "condemning bourgeois influence". This is not a wikipedia article so much as a mirror of this party's personal website. PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A problem of this article is that some passages are ispis verbis copies of the book "The Bordigist Current", by Philippe Bourrinet--MiguelMadeira (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. Bordigist here
Yeah, this page is an embarrasment to someone who agrees with the party. I agree with most of the critiques. I do have access to 3rd party histories. How do I/we go about re-inventing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.27.247 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Sorry thought I was signed on. I'm Organic Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organic Party (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I proposed a merge with bordigism; perhaps you could take a look?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)