This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have done a long-needed major edit and overhaul of this article. The pre-existing article was extremely outdated and had become a hodge-podge over the years. It had long been cited as in need of major work. After resisting taking up this task for a long time, I finally gave in and decided to rework it. I have devoted a lot of time and effort to read and research a lot about the Revolutionary Communist Party and their views in order that this article be fair, accurate, and accessible. I have included extensive references (and links to writings and works of the RCP and its chairman, Bob Avakian) in order to document—and in some cases further illustrate—what is in this article. I am someone who is very interested in left and radical politics and philosophy and at the same time feel that all political views need to be clearly, succinctly, and accurately presented for the benefit of all. This implies diverse views being presented objectively and represented impartially so they may be understood and evaluated on that basis. I have tried to do this in editing this article. EyesWhyde ( talk) 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:Consensus and do not revert to add this massive edit until you gain a consensus. Collect ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Does this edit [3] have consensus to be used in this article? 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Bold edits once reverted typically require an attempt at gaining consensus. I do not find one at this point, and therefore would like to know yea or nay for the edit. The two involved editors do not appear likely to reach an agreement sans outside opinions. Collect ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word "ideological" in the header above. (I removed it & fixed the corresponding link at the NPOV notice board.) I gave in to my sense of urgency. Although in its colloquial meaning the word captures part of what I think, using it was questionable in a deeper sense, and needlessly inflammatory. (We may actually agree about this: people who insist they have no ideology are likely simply fairly comfortable with ideology that supports the status quo, though this can sometimes be a difficult thing for them to see.)
You are clearly deeply knowledgeable about the RCPUS, and appear to have sourced your text from many of its publications. As an inclusionist, I am disinclined to hammer people about "original research" in cases where some common-sense filling in of gaps is clearly useful. However, this goes beyond that, as noted by others above. Also, please consider (setting the question of original research aside for a moment): even if your text is scrupulously congruent with events significant to, and published theories of, the RCP, it may violate WP:NPOV by not including sufficient attention to perspectives of those outside the RCP, and to controversies that the RCP would rather not draw attention to.
On the other extreme would be an article that was essentially or in significant part a "hit piece", focused on outside perspectives, criticisms and controversies to an undue degree in order to discredit, and thus also a violation of WP:NPOV. The "weak tea" consensus (my term, not yours) which you criticize represented the considered opinion of some number of people interested in politics and activism, over a period of several years, that the existing article, whatever its flaws, is (among other things) not this kind of attack. If you feel that it is, you may wish to tackle that point directly and with specifics. Praghmatic ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have previously given my reasons why the pre-existing edit of this article was clearly not up to Wikipedia standards and what Wikipedia readers are entitled to expect. For example, in the pre-existing article there was scant presentation of what the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA espouses and what its political and philosophical basis is. When it comes to political parties and organizations it is these aspects that are primary and people most need to know, whether they agree, disagree, or are somewhere in-between. Over half of the pre-existing entry consisted of a rather jumbled listing of selected people, events and disconnected facts from the 1960's and 70's most of which lacks significant present relevance. And, like the rest of the article, this was cobbled together over a number of years at the expense of more vital and substantive information. The RCP, USA has existed for almost 40 years--and this history is touched on in broad strokes in the entry I have edited--but I quickly realized that to accurately delve into this history in detail would result in a tome and not be what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be.
Further, the discussion in the talk pages above (going back to 2004) demonstrates a history of attempts to interject unverifiable information and/or information of little relevance about the RCP into the article and turn it into a locus of debate and even political sniping. This resulted in numerous reversions and counter reversions and multiplying smaller edits which also contributed to a substantial lack of cohesion to the article. This is another reason why it was clear to me that the article needed a major overhaul and to be based first and foremost on a coherent presentation of what the party is and what its views are--just as should be the case for any political party or organization wherever it falls on the political spectrum. I believe that my entry is a major improvement and puts the article on a good new footing. If something in the article is inaccurate then edits can be made.
A comment here: This is the first Wikipedia article that I have edited and I am frankly surprised at some of the reaction. My entire edit has been repeatedly reverted; I have been accused of engaging in edit warring; warnings and admonishments have been placed on my user talk page etc. with no basis. This is entirely uncalled for and goes against the ethics of Wikipedia in my view.
As to the main issues that other editors are raising, I very strongly feel that various violations of Wikipedia standards and practices are being wrongly cited:
As to NPOV issues: I continue to stand by the neutrality of my edit and cite the article itself as evidence of this. I paid a lot attention to this issue in writing the article and based it on a lot of research. Further, it is wrong and a violation of NPOV for Praghmatic (who first raised this issue) to seek the removal (even urgent removal) of my edit because she/he politically disagrees with the RCP, citing on the NPOV noticeboard his/her dislike of the activity of the RCP against the police murder of Michael Brown, a young unarmed Black man in Ferguson, MO. There is a whiff of an attempt at censoring speech here based on what he/she may consider unpopular political movements. And in making her/his case on the NPOV noticeboard, Praghmatic used as a source and links to a piece on the Gawker blog which is based upon and uses as its sole source a virulent white-supremacist website which has published blatantly manufactured lies, not only about the activities of the RCP in Ferguson, but many other political groups, as well as the people of Ferguson who have been protesting the police murder there. This is hardly a reliable source by any standard.
As to WP:CONSENSUS: Through looking at the edit history of this article I don’t think that there is any demonstrable consensus about it. Also, I looked quickly, and it seems that few to none of the editors raising this issue have themselves previously made edits to this article. The article has remained fallow for quite some time, but this does not demonstrate any consensus about it. Now that I have undertaken and done the work to improve the article, all of sudden the issue of consensus is being raised. The sudden attempts to apply this rule seem to be flawed and ironically seem to constitute some form of assertion of ownership of the article by some editors who have not even been editing the article and now claim to represent some form of collective consensus where no consensus actually exists.
Finally as to issue of sources. I think that the above comment by Damotclese is to the point and I would extend the same reasoning to all the sources cited in my edit. When I researched the article I did a lot of searching for sources that had reliable information about the RCP and used the most helpful. Again, if there are more sources that are accurate and reliable, they can certainly be added. But the existing sources are valid sources and certainly cannot be cited as reason to revert my article. EyesWhyde ( talk) 01:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are statements issued by Avakian or others in the party included in the article? For example at the beginning of the "RCP Today" section, it opens up by saying after Bush's reelction, the RCP apparently released a statement calling Bush a Christian Fascist. This does not seem to be part of any policy or uniquely specific moment that the RCP is involved in. It seems to violate WP:Soapbox and seems to attempt to editorialize the RCP into a larger political event (the election) where they are not even minor players. xcuref1endx ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed the following update by anonymous one-time user 68.83.161.128:
Although the RCP puts forth a Socialist agnda they are isolated from many Socialists and Communists in the United States and abroad due to the Authoritarian way the RCP is run by Avakian. Many expect the RCP to die off with the death of Avakian and his cult of personality.
I removed it for POV and foretelling the future, but I'm placing it here because it raises the issue of the centrality of Avakian to the RCP. DJ Silverfish 14:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Many believe the truth expounded by Avakian and RCP will live on after the former dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
I have replaced the introduction to this article with a more current,shorter and more concise one and one that removes old and innaccurate information as well as material that does not belong in an introductory section. EyesWhyde ( talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like this entire section should probably be removed. It is just one large Quotation block, it is an unnotable and unoriginal position, and it reads simply like a press statement released by the political party; in its presentation it seems to be more directed towards agitprop than informational. -- Xcuref1endx ( talk) 18:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone can find membership numbers on the RCP? It would certainly be good information to have in the article. Topkai22 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This party has done nothing notable, and all sources are from the parties website. Also, the party holds no seats anywhere in the United States, and it is not relevant to American politics at all. ShimonChai ( talk) 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In the recent days IP 2600:1012:b01e:2f2b:2e29:146f:29b9:1351 made major changes to the article. Almost all these changes are sourced from Party's website and all put party in positive light. Also it is peculiar that IP only edits this article as well as two others, that are connected to the party: Bob Avakian (founder), Refuse Fascism (offshoot). As far as I know when it comes to political organisations secondary sources are more important than primary websites and people affiliated with the organisations are forbidden to edit. I am a newbie, so I might get this wrong, but if you look at recent edits by IP, it's all clearly WIKI:PROMOTION. I would revert this edits myself, but unfortunatelly as I attempted to do so, I got a warning for edit warring (although so has the IP in question, which is fair). I ask more qualified and experienced editors to please take a look at this situation and fix it. Thank you. FreedomGonzo ( talk) 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the new paragraph and links on Refuse and Resist to this page for discussion. I tried to remove the POV from the text in the article itself. Claiming unanimity of opinion is overstating the case. Horowitz is pretty out there. RCP members or supporters may be leaders in some chapters and not in others. I will cite this if possible and add it to the article.
POV: RCP is thought to maintain a front group called Refuse & Resist! (RnR). RnR does not articulate clearly Maoist viewpoints. RnR acts on behalf of many anarchist and left-wing causes like the anti-war movement and the case for Mumia Abu-Jamal. RnR has been known to covertly fundraise through its Youth Network on behalf of the RCP. Both the radical right and the radical left seem united in this theory of RnR being a front group for the RCP. Below are links to an anarchist infoshop website, and an article by Michelle Goldberg from a conservative magazine that both that acknowledge the connection. The conservative ex-Marxist, David Horowitz, edits FrontPage Magazine that published Michelle Goldberg’s article.
Refuse & Resist! an RCP Front?
DJ Silverfish 15:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, i am newly registered and am really digging the whole process, anyway, I really appreciated your changes, they were deft.
in peace
Fluid~axiom 08:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Refuse Fascism is the group you're thinking of and it is not a "front group" for the RCP, as they've been open about the connection. There is a statement on the RCP website about their involvement with Refuse Fascism.
Refuse Fascism is a coalition group that was co-initiated by RCP members uniting with others (from different political views) to remove Trump/Pence from office via street protests. RF wants to oust fascism whereas the RCP wants a total revolution.
The reason they're separate organizations is that not everyone in Refuse Fascism shares the same political views on communism. RojoGlobal ( talk) 07:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This anon edit on RCP views on homosexuality was reverted as "NPOV; citations were from non-neutral sources meant and are no longer applicable". I don't know anything about this so have no opinion, but the sources looked OK to me. Any other views? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
22:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)-Sid
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks. {u|RojoGlobal}, can you spell out why you think this is "no longer applicable"? If not, Sid should edit back in. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The RCP today and since 2001 has strongly supported LGBTQ rights and its supporters have been very active in the struggles against homophobia and transphobia. This position is reflected in the Party's Constitution, as well as numerous articles on the official website, Chairman Bob Avakian's filmed talks and writings, and in the new communism which is the Party's ideological foundation. And this was a hard fought result of years of intense struggle within the party to denounce the anachronistic anti-gay politics of the old communist movement.
Many who bring up the RCP's past positions on homosexuality in the 1980s and 1990s have an "axe to grind" and are merely seeking to "dig up dirt" against the organization, in order to distort its current political positions and create nonexistent controversy, particularly by attempting to make this its own section in the article.
NPOV is consistently violated on this page with many anti-RCP sources and edits made over time. RojoGlobal ( talk) 07:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
S1d6arrett23 ( talk) 01:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The comma is used at rwor.org, so we'll use it here (instead of parenthesis). -- Jia ng 22:10, 15 January 2004 (UTC)
I have removed two links which are now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.144.52.101 ( talk) 19:19, 15 November 2004 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have done a long-needed major edit and overhaul of this article. The pre-existing article was extremely outdated and had become a hodge-podge over the years. It had long been cited as in need of major work. After resisting taking up this task for a long time, I finally gave in and decided to rework it. I have devoted a lot of time and effort to read and research a lot about the Revolutionary Communist Party and their views in order that this article be fair, accurate, and accessible. I have included extensive references (and links to writings and works of the RCP and its chairman, Bob Avakian) in order to document—and in some cases further illustrate—what is in this article. I am someone who is very interested in left and radical politics and philosophy and at the same time feel that all political views need to be clearly, succinctly, and accurately presented for the benefit of all. This implies diverse views being presented objectively and represented impartially so they may be understood and evaluated on that basis. I have tried to do this in editing this article. EyesWhyde ( talk) 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:Consensus and do not revert to add this massive edit until you gain a consensus. Collect ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Does this edit [3] have consensus to be used in this article? 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Bold edits once reverted typically require an attempt at gaining consensus. I do not find one at this point, and therefore would like to know yea or nay for the edit. The two involved editors do not appear likely to reach an agreement sans outside opinions. Collect ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word "ideological" in the header above. (I removed it & fixed the corresponding link at the NPOV notice board.) I gave in to my sense of urgency. Although in its colloquial meaning the word captures part of what I think, using it was questionable in a deeper sense, and needlessly inflammatory. (We may actually agree about this: people who insist they have no ideology are likely simply fairly comfortable with ideology that supports the status quo, though this can sometimes be a difficult thing for them to see.)
You are clearly deeply knowledgeable about the RCPUS, and appear to have sourced your text from many of its publications. As an inclusionist, I am disinclined to hammer people about "original research" in cases where some common-sense filling in of gaps is clearly useful. However, this goes beyond that, as noted by others above. Also, please consider (setting the question of original research aside for a moment): even if your text is scrupulously congruent with events significant to, and published theories of, the RCP, it may violate WP:NPOV by not including sufficient attention to perspectives of those outside the RCP, and to controversies that the RCP would rather not draw attention to.
On the other extreme would be an article that was essentially or in significant part a "hit piece", focused on outside perspectives, criticisms and controversies to an undue degree in order to discredit, and thus also a violation of WP:NPOV. The "weak tea" consensus (my term, not yours) which you criticize represented the considered opinion of some number of people interested in politics and activism, over a period of several years, that the existing article, whatever its flaws, is (among other things) not this kind of attack. If you feel that it is, you may wish to tackle that point directly and with specifics. Praghmatic ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have previously given my reasons why the pre-existing edit of this article was clearly not up to Wikipedia standards and what Wikipedia readers are entitled to expect. For example, in the pre-existing article there was scant presentation of what the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA espouses and what its political and philosophical basis is. When it comes to political parties and organizations it is these aspects that are primary and people most need to know, whether they agree, disagree, or are somewhere in-between. Over half of the pre-existing entry consisted of a rather jumbled listing of selected people, events and disconnected facts from the 1960's and 70's most of which lacks significant present relevance. And, like the rest of the article, this was cobbled together over a number of years at the expense of more vital and substantive information. The RCP, USA has existed for almost 40 years--and this history is touched on in broad strokes in the entry I have edited--but I quickly realized that to accurately delve into this history in detail would result in a tome and not be what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be.
Further, the discussion in the talk pages above (going back to 2004) demonstrates a history of attempts to interject unverifiable information and/or information of little relevance about the RCP into the article and turn it into a locus of debate and even political sniping. This resulted in numerous reversions and counter reversions and multiplying smaller edits which also contributed to a substantial lack of cohesion to the article. This is another reason why it was clear to me that the article needed a major overhaul and to be based first and foremost on a coherent presentation of what the party is and what its views are--just as should be the case for any political party or organization wherever it falls on the political spectrum. I believe that my entry is a major improvement and puts the article on a good new footing. If something in the article is inaccurate then edits can be made.
A comment here: This is the first Wikipedia article that I have edited and I am frankly surprised at some of the reaction. My entire edit has been repeatedly reverted; I have been accused of engaging in edit warring; warnings and admonishments have been placed on my user talk page etc. with no basis. This is entirely uncalled for and goes against the ethics of Wikipedia in my view.
As to the main issues that other editors are raising, I very strongly feel that various violations of Wikipedia standards and practices are being wrongly cited:
As to NPOV issues: I continue to stand by the neutrality of my edit and cite the article itself as evidence of this. I paid a lot attention to this issue in writing the article and based it on a lot of research. Further, it is wrong and a violation of NPOV for Praghmatic (who first raised this issue) to seek the removal (even urgent removal) of my edit because she/he politically disagrees with the RCP, citing on the NPOV noticeboard his/her dislike of the activity of the RCP against the police murder of Michael Brown, a young unarmed Black man in Ferguson, MO. There is a whiff of an attempt at censoring speech here based on what he/she may consider unpopular political movements. And in making her/his case on the NPOV noticeboard, Praghmatic used as a source and links to a piece on the Gawker blog which is based upon and uses as its sole source a virulent white-supremacist website which has published blatantly manufactured lies, not only about the activities of the RCP in Ferguson, but many other political groups, as well as the people of Ferguson who have been protesting the police murder there. This is hardly a reliable source by any standard.
As to WP:CONSENSUS: Through looking at the edit history of this article I don’t think that there is any demonstrable consensus about it. Also, I looked quickly, and it seems that few to none of the editors raising this issue have themselves previously made edits to this article. The article has remained fallow for quite some time, but this does not demonstrate any consensus about it. Now that I have undertaken and done the work to improve the article, all of sudden the issue of consensus is being raised. The sudden attempts to apply this rule seem to be flawed and ironically seem to constitute some form of assertion of ownership of the article by some editors who have not even been editing the article and now claim to represent some form of collective consensus where no consensus actually exists.
Finally as to issue of sources. I think that the above comment by Damotclese is to the point and I would extend the same reasoning to all the sources cited in my edit. When I researched the article I did a lot of searching for sources that had reliable information about the RCP and used the most helpful. Again, if there are more sources that are accurate and reliable, they can certainly be added. But the existing sources are valid sources and certainly cannot be cited as reason to revert my article. EyesWhyde ( talk) 01:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are statements issued by Avakian or others in the party included in the article? For example at the beginning of the "RCP Today" section, it opens up by saying after Bush's reelction, the RCP apparently released a statement calling Bush a Christian Fascist. This does not seem to be part of any policy or uniquely specific moment that the RCP is involved in. It seems to violate WP:Soapbox and seems to attempt to editorialize the RCP into a larger political event (the election) where they are not even minor players. xcuref1endx ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed the following update by anonymous one-time user 68.83.161.128:
Although the RCP puts forth a Socialist agnda they are isolated from many Socialists and Communists in the United States and abroad due to the Authoritarian way the RCP is run by Avakian. Many expect the RCP to die off with the death of Avakian and his cult of personality.
I removed it for POV and foretelling the future, but I'm placing it here because it raises the issue of the centrality of Avakian to the RCP. DJ Silverfish 14:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Many believe the truth expounded by Avakian and RCP will live on after the former dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
I have replaced the introduction to this article with a more current,shorter and more concise one and one that removes old and innaccurate information as well as material that does not belong in an introductory section. EyesWhyde ( talk) 16:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like this entire section should probably be removed. It is just one large Quotation block, it is an unnotable and unoriginal position, and it reads simply like a press statement released by the political party; in its presentation it seems to be more directed towards agitprop than informational. -- Xcuref1endx ( talk) 18:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone can find membership numbers on the RCP? It would certainly be good information to have in the article. Topkai22 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This party has done nothing notable, and all sources are from the parties website. Also, the party holds no seats anywhere in the United States, and it is not relevant to American politics at all. ShimonChai ( talk) 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In the recent days IP 2600:1012:b01e:2f2b:2e29:146f:29b9:1351 made major changes to the article. Almost all these changes are sourced from Party's website and all put party in positive light. Also it is peculiar that IP only edits this article as well as two others, that are connected to the party: Bob Avakian (founder), Refuse Fascism (offshoot). As far as I know when it comes to political organisations secondary sources are more important than primary websites and people affiliated with the organisations are forbidden to edit. I am a newbie, so I might get this wrong, but if you look at recent edits by IP, it's all clearly WIKI:PROMOTION. I would revert this edits myself, but unfortunatelly as I attempted to do so, I got a warning for edit warring (although so has the IP in question, which is fair). I ask more qualified and experienced editors to please take a look at this situation and fix it. Thank you. FreedomGonzo ( talk) 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the new paragraph and links on Refuse and Resist to this page for discussion. I tried to remove the POV from the text in the article itself. Claiming unanimity of opinion is overstating the case. Horowitz is pretty out there. RCP members or supporters may be leaders in some chapters and not in others. I will cite this if possible and add it to the article.
POV: RCP is thought to maintain a front group called Refuse & Resist! (RnR). RnR does not articulate clearly Maoist viewpoints. RnR acts on behalf of many anarchist and left-wing causes like the anti-war movement and the case for Mumia Abu-Jamal. RnR has been known to covertly fundraise through its Youth Network on behalf of the RCP. Both the radical right and the radical left seem united in this theory of RnR being a front group for the RCP. Below are links to an anarchist infoshop website, and an article by Michelle Goldberg from a conservative magazine that both that acknowledge the connection. The conservative ex-Marxist, David Horowitz, edits FrontPage Magazine that published Michelle Goldberg’s article.
Refuse & Resist! an RCP Front?
DJ Silverfish 15:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, i am newly registered and am really digging the whole process, anyway, I really appreciated your changes, they were deft.
in peace
Fluid~axiom 08:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Refuse Fascism is the group you're thinking of and it is not a "front group" for the RCP, as they've been open about the connection. There is a statement on the RCP website about their involvement with Refuse Fascism.
Refuse Fascism is a coalition group that was co-initiated by RCP members uniting with others (from different political views) to remove Trump/Pence from office via street protests. RF wants to oust fascism whereas the RCP wants a total revolution.
The reason they're separate organizations is that not everyone in Refuse Fascism shares the same political views on communism. RojoGlobal ( talk) 07:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This anon edit on RCP views on homosexuality was reverted as "NPOV; citations were from non-neutral sources meant and are no longer applicable". I don't know anything about this so have no opinion, but the sources looked OK to me. Any other views? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
22:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)-Sid
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks. {u|RojoGlobal}, can you spell out why you think this is "no longer applicable"? If not, Sid should edit back in. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The RCP today and since 2001 has strongly supported LGBTQ rights and its supporters have been very active in the struggles against homophobia and transphobia. This position is reflected in the Party's Constitution, as well as numerous articles on the official website, Chairman Bob Avakian's filmed talks and writings, and in the new communism which is the Party's ideological foundation. And this was a hard fought result of years of intense struggle within the party to denounce the anachronistic anti-gay politics of the old communist movement.
Many who bring up the RCP's past positions on homosexuality in the 1980s and 1990s have an "axe to grind" and are merely seeking to "dig up dirt" against the organization, in order to distort its current political positions and create nonexistent controversy, particularly by attempting to make this its own section in the article.
NPOV is consistently violated on this page with many anti-RCP sources and edits made over time. RojoGlobal ( talk) 07:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
S1d6arrett23 ( talk) 01:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The comma is used at rwor.org, so we'll use it here (instead of parenthesis). -- Jia ng 22:10, 15 January 2004 (UTC)
I have removed two links which are now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.144.52.101 ( talk) 19:19, 15 November 2004 (UTC)