Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Criticism about the party

This section is to discuss the recent edits sourced from The New Indian Express and The Pioneer about use of violence by CPI(M). Both these media houses are reliable sources from Wikipedia standards and guidelines. The article lacks critical observations about the political party from various corners. Those who are opposing these edits, please discuss your concerns here. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pioneer is run by Chandan Mitra, who is an acknowledged member of the Bharatiya Janata Party, an opponent of the CPI(M). The Pioneer has run many slander campaigns against the CPI(M) and cannot certainly claim to be an objective Wikipedia source. Vrsrini (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows criticism to be added to article. Please let me know which Wikipedia policy requires criticism by opponents not be mentioned in an article. By Wikipedia standards, The Pioneer is a reliable source. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to google up the claims presented by Deshbhakta, and it appears that the term is a nick-name given by opponents in WB rather than being a self-styled paramilitary organization. Noone disputes that rural Bengali politics is violent (and CPI(M)´s media organs has a long list of accusations against Trinamool and BUPC), but the wordings presented by Deshbhakta seems unfounded and taking the wordings of the references out of context and out of proportion. --Soman (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of context, certainly not. Please let me know what 'words' in my edits are 'unfounded presentation'. I will be more than happy to incorporate such suggestions. And, these are not claims by me. No original authoring as required by Wikipedia. I have presented as reported in The New Indian Express, a reliable source. As you are accepting hat rural Bengal politics is voilent, this mentioning of Harmath is valid then. If you think other parties there also use violent means you can update their pages as well. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don´t follow your reasoning exactly, but in brief: presenting the Harmath claim in the lead of the article is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE. The notion that this accusation would be a defining characteristic of the party is an interpretation that is by no means self-evident from having read the article from expressbuzz.com. --Soman (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you had problems with intro length being lengthy, you should not be reverting the entire edit. I will reword the mentioning in lead section. Please do not revert edits like this. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to plant malicious stories selectively sourced is reprehensible. Editing such material to safeguard the objectivity of the article cannot be vandalism instead attempts like yours is clearly vandalism.Quoting from Pioneer run by a BJP leader and 'Express article citing PCPA are definitely biased. Why don't you get any other sources? Don't issue threats to get away with your agenda of maligning the party. Least worried about it. If you continue with this sort of malicious propaganda, reporting the same to wikipedia could be contemplated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithinj (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the sources quoted by me are not reliable, please check with RNS. If you feel the stories to be malicious, its your opinion. What I am using from the news report are those from the news reporters and not the people who he interviewed. I standby the validity of my edits based on the reliability of the sources used. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a request on RSN at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_New_Indian_Express_and_CPI.28M.29 Lets discuss this and arrive at a conclusion on the reliability of these articles under a neutral observer. Here is another report Four CPM men get life term which shows how CPIM men are involved in acts of violence including murder. So use of violence must find place in this article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed at RSN, I am going to re-introduce my edits as they have been identified to be reliable sources. Please do not remove any sourced material without discussing here on the discussion page. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted my reply at WP:RSN, stating that this is not a RS issue, but rather a POV-pushing and SYNTH issue. In my opinion, the WP:RSN posting has not changed the dynamics of this discussion. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to understand what exactly you are looking for.

• 1. Are you looking at complete reversal of my edits?
• 2. Or, you are looking at adding your views also with my edits?
• 3. Let me know the exact POV and Synth issues in my edits. What is it that i have written out of context of the cited sources?
• 4. Why should i find other sources? TNIE is a reliable source and we have already resolved that part on the RSN.

If we are not able to resolve POV & synth issues here, as claimed by you, we can go to NPOVN. Please let me the know precise issues you see in my edits. I also request you to go through this discussion again so that i dont have to answer to the same questions again, unless you are not satisfied with my previous replies. Thanks. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Response please.... --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reinstate my edits if no the clarifications i have sought are not responded to. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up off-wiki at the moment, will reply soon. --Soman (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The wait seems to be perpetual. I am reinstating my edits removed by you. Let me know the reasons as asked in this discussion before reverting the edits. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi All,

I have initiated a dispute resolution request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-03/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist). Please participate in the discussion and let me know your concerns. Please do not revert my well sourced edits from the article. Its nothing but vandalism. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. Vandalism and edit conflicts are not the same. Wikipedia is an open, participatory encyclopedia, in which all text can be edited at all times. I also wish that some of the reverters would engage more constructively in the debate, but that don't make them vandals per se. --Soman (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an open, participatory media means one should respect other's right to edit constructively. An editor spends time and effort to read sources and edit an article. If those edits are going to be reverted by another editor just he "feels" or "thinks" them to be "slanderous lies", it is nothing better than vandalism also considering that there were several requests made to participate in discussions. Yes, "All text can be edited at all times" but there should be a reliable source to every such edit and adhering to wiki policies is a must otherwise editors can make Wiki a personal forum. Showing disrespect to other editor's well sourced edits with unsubstantiated reverts does not help the wiki project in any way and is nothing better than vandalism. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@[User:Vrsrini:Vrsrini]], the statement in the lead section does not say that "the party follows only violence" as stated by you in the edit summary. This statement is a very concise summary of various incidents of violence reported widely in the media and listed in the controversies and other sections of this article. "All" parties having involved in criminal violence is only a claim by you. Even if that were true, that does not mean a critical comment on CPI(M) should be mentioned in an article on it. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, you know just as well that there is plenty of accusations (of far more massive character) against BJP. With a similar synth manner, one could introduce a similar passage in the lead of that article, stating "the BJP has been accused of X...". The wordings you've chosed consciously try to put the CPI(M) in a certain light, for obviously pov purposes. --Soman (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion page should not be used for general discussion on politics. Wikipedia requires the articles to be neutral. Critical observations from reliable sources are needed and presented on the article. No words chosen by me in my edits are out of context of the listed sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism

This page is under purposeful attack from RSS lunatics. Like proving how uncivilized animals they are, without following any reason, they are making a lot of changes in many articles showing deep irreverence to wikipedia rules. I especially an idiot viz Deshabhakta who have engaged in past many months in propagating hidden agenda through his numerous contributions! These kind of malicious behavior from these hooligans should be hindered, for maintaining wikipedia in a civilized way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.24.146 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP user, Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please refrain from making this kind of remarks in the future. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Current edit war

I've been off the talk page of this article for a while, having concentrated the limited time I have for wikipedia on other areas. I've been tied up in content conflicts on this article before, and I sincerely hoped that the task of countering the hindutva pov-mongering could have been taken up by someone else on the talk page. That said: The edit that Deshabhakta reverts to is problematic as it (sorry for copy-pasting some older comments that have already been on WP:RSN, but belong better here); 1. The sentence in the lead isn't really backed up by references. The latter IE article does by no means relate to the sentence (it mentions a court case, no third-party criticism). The Pioneer article mentions that Bharatiya Janata Party, whom represent the diametrical opposite position as CPI(M) in Indian politics, accuses CPI(M) of violence in northern Kerala. The "salwa judum" IE article has several problems, such as mentioning 'criticism' by anonymous commentators. All major political parties in India are accused of violence by their opponents, and by Deshabhakta's logic the same sentence could be added in the lead of the articles on all major national parties. I suggest it be removed. 2. Likewise, I googled around regarding the 'Harmath' accusation. A picture emerges that the word is a nickname given to sectors close to or being accused of being linked to CPI(M) in rural West Bengal. Even the article cited by Deshabhakta from TNIE leaves more ambiguity than the edits he's made in the CPI(M) wiki article. Another TNIE article, by the same author as the 'salwa judum' one, says "The villagers have a name for the CPM frighteners — harmath". Likewise the ADPR representative cited in the 'salwa judum' article speculates about the origin of the term. Another quote ""I don't know who did what? But what I know and what the BUPC members tell me is that this was by the 'harmat bahini' (as locals call the CPM cadres)," said a sobbing Rinku Mondol", from sify.com. None of these articles support the wordings that Deshabhakta sought to include in the CPI(M) wiki article (such as "Harmath is the armed militia of the CPI(M) in West Bengal."). The ambiguity expressed in press clips is distorted into blunt statements, as if 'Harmath' would be a structured, self-identified paramilitary organization. 3. The case of Trinamool-Maoist links is analogous to the 'Harmath' accusations by Trinamool. This is part of the polarized political reality of West Bengal. There is no shortage of accusations that the political opponents are murders, thugs, in canoots with mafia, linked to terrorists, etc.., and both sides have press outlets to redistribute their claims. The question is how we should process this? Cherry-picking out the gooiest details for the sake of pushing our own POV is not the answer, imo. --Soman (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope we all agree that TNIE is a reliable by Wikipedia standards. This has already been discussed on RSN. Before starting to answer your specific queries, let me quote the moderator's comment on RSN : "They appear to be reliable sources for the citations".

1. The sentence in the lead isn't really backed up by references. The sentence you are referring to is "The party is criticized for using violence against political opponents.". here are the quotes from the sources i have listed for this sentence.

• From The Salwa Judum of Bengal

The harmath is the armed militia of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). They loot, plunder, rape and assault villagers and villages suspected of having other political affiliations. In 2008, in Nandigram, before the gram panchayat elections, they snatched away the voter identification of people in Nandigram. At least 10 to 15 people were admitted in the local hospital, in “critically injured condition”, reported The Times of India. In Bankura district, Baksi village was emptied of 70 per cent of its residents by a joint force of police and the harmath.

A senior CPM leader accepts, on condition of anonymity, that the party maintains an armed group of “volunteers”.

• From Four CPM men get life term

Kollam Second Additional Sessions Court sentenced four CPM workers to life term rigorous imprisonment in the case of murdering RSS worker Santhosh.

Clearly this shows use of violence by CPI(M) and hence the sentence is not out of place. If you have problem with the word "criticized" because no third party criticism is listed in the mentioned sources, I can reword the sentence in the lead section as "The party uses violence to suppress opponent political movements." or "There have been many instances of the party resorting to violence against political opponents."

The last quote is a court verdict; no better proof needed.

The problem with anonymity of commentator's in IE article should be taken up with IE itself. Its a standard practice worldwide that press does not mention names of individuals when needed that too in cases like this where commentators are talking about murderers,loots etc. I dont find it incorrect for IE to have withheld names considering their safety.

2. Secondly, it is about the term Harmath. The supporting quote from the mentioned source is

• From The Salwa Judum of Bengal

The harmath is the armed militia of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). They loot, plunder, rape and assault villagers and villages suspected of having other political affiliations. In 2008, in Nandigram, before the gram panchayat elections, they snatched away the voter identification of people in Nandigram. At least 10 to 15 people were admitted in the local hospital, in “critically injured condition”, reported The Times of India. In Bankura district, Baksi village was emptied of 70 per cent of its residents by a joint force of police and the harmath.

It says in a pretty straight forward way that The harmath is the armed militia of the ruling CPI(m). No ambiguity at all. This is not some third party opinion that the report is quoting. I actually agree with your point that Harmath may not be a structured, self-identified paramilitary organization and there are stories around the 'term' 'Harmath'. You can very well place a note in the paragraph mentioning harmath, that the term is just used like a nickname to CPM's hired goons and not a formal organization. The listed sources and especially following quote give enough support for the argument that CPM maintains/hires men to carry out violent attacks on political opponents.

• From The Salwa Judum of Bengal

A senior CPM leader accepts, on condition of anonymity, that the party maintains an armed group of “volunteers”.

The following quote supports that it is not an organized body; rather runs on hire per task basis.

Harmath are hired by giving a lump sum — two to four lakh rupees — to a family and then they are promised an amount at regular intervals.

I myself will go ahead and place an edit saying Harmath is not a formally structured organization.

3. Third one is just an observation on politics in certain parts of India and not relevant to the edits and their sources being discussed. Anyway, TNIE is certainly not a press outlet of the Trinamool Congress party. So its unacceptable to say that we cannot quote from TNIE on matters related to CPIM. On this aspect, yes i agree, that The Daily Pioneer's Chief Editor is a member of BJP and might carry mere accusations. Though there is no Wiki policy banning the mentioning of views of political opponents (the other POV), I am ready to remove Pioneer as the source of my edits. Pioneer has been just as secondary and supporting reference along with other sources.

Further, The sentence in the lead section is a very short summary of the many instances of use of violence mentioned in the article. Hence, the statement must be retained in the lead section. For the Nandigram elections incident, both IE and The Times Of India are sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nandigram Conflict

Hi Viplovecomm, this is regarding your recent edits in the Nandigram Conflict section. This content is not sourced from a reliable source. It should be deleted immediately for the same reason. Plus, Its an unnecessarily lengthy commentary. Let me know if you have objection to the removal of this content diff from unreliable sources. Also, you have removed the following well sourced content from the article. This needs to be reinstated.

In 2008, before the Gram Panchayat elections, the armed militia of the party Harmath snatched away the voter identification cards of people in Nandigram. The Times Of India reported that at least 10 to 15 people were admitted in local hospital in critically injured condition.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

-SORRY!!! I dont permit to you to revert this change, it is well referneced from the websites of "Tehlka, Peoples Democracy, Kafila, India Today,' and others, I've given every refernece deemed necessary to prove the written word in that article. This Harmath thing was not fitting evident anywhere and as RaviBajpaie, had written below, these are pity incidents that cant be add to summarized versions, because they can change the flow of the content.

AGAIN, Plz. dont do any reverts on your behalf, plz. make a genereal consensus first, and proove your thing, othervise, Ravi has rightly defined it as "Revert-vandalism", which need to be countred adequately to make wikipedia a geniune encyclopedia, free from personal and political bias.

Waiting to listen from some more Editors, on this issue.

Warm Regards

Viplovecomm (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By what standard are Peoples Democracy and Kafila reliable sources? And not everything in your edit can be attributed to India Today, a reliable source and Tehelka which some may consider a reliable source.

further, several attempts at bringing in consensus have been made. Please refer to this talk page in the sections above. This was taken to RSN and agreed that quoted sources are reliable. Several requests have been made to participate in discussion. But some users prefer removing well sourced content introduced by others without even a proper reason mentioned in the edit summary. How will consensus build with such vandalistic edits? These edits are already on Dispute Resolution too. Please participate in the discussion and substantiate your claims with respect to Wikipedia policies and not personal feelings. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A reply is awaited. In the absence of explanation, I will revert this edit as the material is quoted from non-reliable sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In absence of reply for the above, i will revert the narrative on nandigram from non-reliable sources. I am going to re-introduce the material from TNIE which was removed. --Deshabhakta (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Revert Vandalism

I think, what deshabhakta is doing is supressing the general will. Earlier VLC, now me...Plz. friend dont do it, we are fellow editors. I propose that the section of intro "violence against political opponents", must be discontinued, because of the following reasons:

-What you described as salwa judum of bengal, is nothing but a misinterpretation. Because naxals are no more democartic political force, but they are brutal anarchists who are murdering people. So how can you justify "self defence", by villagers of bengal as political violence.

-if you talk about CPIM's violence against BJP activists in Kerala, then my friend plz. look at the other side also. This must be discontinued on the grounds that every party is induldge in some sort of violence, CPIM is no more different. In total this is nothing but a collection of pity issues to defame the Image of a Major Political Party of This country, for this the User who wrote these lines, can be sued in court.

Plz. remove these lines from intro, they are misleading, and highly biased. Believe me Naxals are induldge in far more brutal and violent political supression then CPIM, so how can you justify something as "Salwa Judum of West Bengal", when there is no reported incident of an "innocent killing(other then naxals)" by theee armed villagers, how can you compare this with chattisgarh.

Thanks.

-Ravivajpayee (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ravi Sir, for supporting me here on such the issues like this. I too hope that these "UNREASONABLE REVERTS", must be stopped imediately. Regards.

Viplovecomm (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ravi and Vip*, Its not me who is describing Harmath of CPIM as Salwa Judum of Bengal. It is The New Indian Express. It has already been discussed at RSN that the sources quoted (including this article from TNIW) are reliable sources for the edits made by me. You are again bringing in something related to general political voilence. This page is for discussing the edits on this article and not on Indian Politics. When you say "every party is induldge in some sort of violence, CPIM is no more different." and "Believe me Naxals are induldge in far more brutal and violent political supression then CPIM", you are actually agreeing that CPIM is involved in suppressing opponent political movements using violent means which is basically in agreement with my edit. If a party, whichever it is, uses violence for political purposes there is nothing in a Wiki article on that party mentioning the same. After all, truth shall prevail on Wiki. The reasons you have mentioned for the removal of mentioning of "use of violence" are completely untenable according to Wiki policies. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All objections raised in this section have been replied to above. Do you need any more clarification or explanation from me? Else we are in agreement that the edits made by me are correct and need to be retained. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A general advice...

...to all involved parties of the present conflict is to study the Wikipedia Manual of Style and guidelines. There is an obvious inflation in accusations of vandalism and posting of "warning tags". It should be clear that, in wikipedia terminology, this is a dispute over content, not vandalism. Vandalism and pushing a biased agenda are two different things in Wikipedia practice, and have different ways of being dealt with. The present dispute stands as a remainder of the (nearly) universal truth of "criticism" chapters being inherently bad for the quality of any political article. --Soman (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

-Thanks a lot, Finally the page is under "preventive Protection" till 31st, In the history of this page, if you remember soman sir, there were even far more regrous attempts have been done. But the fraternal community of wikipedia editors have takled well those situations also. Now every one has a better chance to talk then to revert. Thanks a lot... -Viplovecomm (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was a dispute over content, editors should show interest in discussing on talk page, decide and then do edits. What else, other than vandalism, to Unsolicited reverts of well sourced material from an article without even a proper edit summary? The anti-vandals moderator 1234r00t also referred to these edits as Vandalism and put notices on an user's talk page. He even had to escalate the level of warning as the particular continued vandalism even after being warned.

Again, please list out your objections on the edits with due reference to Wikipedia policies. Before raising questions, please go through this talk page so that already answered questions are not getting asked again and again. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but to comment on this; In what sense is User:1234r00t an "anti-vandals moderator"? "Moderator" is not any official Wikipedia term. Wikipedia:Moderator redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators, a title which 1234r00t does not possess. --Soman (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

-- DEAR Deshbhakta, As Soman has described earlier, "Cherry-picking out the gooiest details for the sake of promoting some agenda" is not a right way to do things. Making consensus simply means, to satisfy the doubts of the editors of this page only, not any where else. I think you must have to achieve consensus here only, and dont use other forums for this task. It is clear that the general consensus is against your "use of violence agaist political opponents", so plz. dump it, for the sake of Editorial Fraternity. Secondly what you described somewhere in the last(in economic policy controversy), You have quoted an article in EPW of Professor Prabhat Patnaik. BUT THIS IS ALSO A CLEAR MISINTERPRETATION. Prabhat is talking of the "NEO LIBERAL ECONOMIC REGIME", which governs the country from the centre. States have no power to amend these laws, but to follow them. SEZ has falled in NANDIGRAM and SINGUR, just because of POLITICAL UNREST. It get succesful in gujrat because MODI didnt has to face opposition from any one. You can enrich wikipedia, by adding a brief chapter in this article over elaborating the on-ground steps took by the LF government, to introduce the farmers' issues. Such as 1 job, per family, the compensation package(7-8 times larger then of normal SEZ procedures), etc. There are many things lacking in this article(YOU are just focusing on the violence portion, and the downsides of a political party, this is a biased way to do things), try to enrich it with many updated things, and you know Deshbhakta if your content is going in the right direction, then no one is going to stop you. But currently everybody here seems opposing the way you introduce certain things in the article. Plz. try to improve them. I will soon try to consentrate on the updation part of this article, and will propose a REWRITING of CERTAIN SECTIONS in this article that seems to reflecting an BIASED POINT OF VIEW. I hope that editors who will read my words shall be agree with me on this issue. As of today this article is looking nothing but just a collection of "negetive shadows", which needs a sudden roll back, and must be presented in a more "FORMAL MANNER".

-Viplovecomm (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No cherry picking; i have used multiple diverse sources.

"Dont use other forums" - Why? Please read dispute resolution page of Wikipedia. It tells you the various steps in DR. Prabhat Patnaik piece - I dont think i added it.

Why SEZ successful in one state and not in another - Not at all a topic to be discussed on this talk page.

Try to enrich it with updated things - Thats what I am doing. If CPIM uses violence, agreed by all of you on this talk page, and if the same is not mentioned in this article It does not hold good for the quality of the article.

Please discuss the edits in question; feedback back on other sections and an editor's future plans do not help much in resolving this dispute. --Deshabhakta (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What is actually going on here

What is going on here is Deshabhakta is bringing facts to the surface that are true but unfortunate. He is not violating WP:NPOV because he is citing reliable sources. He may not be speaking the truth that communist governments let out but in the United States the truth he is using is true. Please cease the edit-warring NOW! any more will be straight-out vandalism and will lead to indefinite bans. Enough edit warring Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

--SORRY TO HEAR!!!Mr. Root, Wikipedia's policy not only says that a user will have to add facts, but it also puts a bar that "in dispute, the facts must be accepted by a general consensus", WE CAN ALSO CITE 'XYZ' SOURCE TO PRODUCE PROPAGANDA ON WIKIPEDIA, AND THEN CLAIM THAT WE ARE PRODUCING TRUTH ABOUT SOMETHING. But that is not a right way to do things. SORRY TO SAY, But IN SUCH KIND OF ONGOING DISPUTES, WE SHALL INVOLVE MORE HIGHER ADMINISTRATORS OF WIKIPEDIA(POSSIBLY ARBITRATION COMMITTEE), FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
Look at the quality of ARTICLE, Full with abusive languages, MY FRIEND INDIA IS WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY(JUST GOOGLE THIS FACT), Our Constitution has Guranteed under "ARTICLE 19", THE 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' to all, but IT ALSO PUT SOME 'REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS', on that. WIKIPEDIA SHALL BE SUED FOR CERTAIN UNCLEAR FACTS IN THE COURT OF LAW(NO MATTER IT IS OPERATING FROM WHICH COUNTRY).
I AM NOT DENYING, to not to introduce these facts, but in a "MORE FORMAL MANNER."
HARMATH-HARMATH and HARMATH is there in every part of the article, AND THE HARMATH IS EVIDENTLY CITED IN "EXPRESS BUZZ" Magazine, NOT EVEN ITs Parent newspaper "INDIAN EXPRESS", carries it. Not Even OTHER NEWSPAPERS LIKE "Times of India", & "THE HINDU", Which are known for there credibilty carries such a news. THEN IT SEEMS "PLOTTED" inside wikipedia intentionally to slander a "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT" of a country.(br>

PLZ. READ A DEEP ABOUT IT, AND THEN YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO COMMENT OVER THE ISSUES!!!

Regards.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-03/Communist Party of India (Marxist) regarding 1234r00t's 'mediation' attempt. --Soman (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

--Thnx. a lot, hope it will work... -Viplovecomm (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy at the use of full-caps high tone language used above. Please refrain from discouraging fellow editors and moderators from participating in discussion.

Thanks for agreeing that these facts regarding use of violence by CPIM need to be mentioned in the article. But you have attached a rider to it saying 'in a formal manner'. Please explain what that means so that we can consider 'enhancing' these edits to comply to supposedly 'formal manner'. Not heard of such a thing on wiki till now!

TNIE is a reliable source. If ToI and The Hindu do not report about Harmath, TNIE cant help with it. This was the only point raised in the above argument and i have responded to it. I will no longer be responding to general commentaries not related to this dispute. --Deshabhakta (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

--Deshbhakta dear, just look at the quality of articles of ENCARTA or BRITANNICA. This is the "FORMAL MANNER". Editing on Wikipedia is open fot everyone, but this also brings some kind of "Responsibility" too, Resposibility towards truth. If your edits have truth, then no one is denying to put them here, but in the current situation "EDITORIAL OPPOSITION", or "CONSENSUS", is against your edits on this page, which gives a clear indication that there "CREDEBILITY IS DOUBTED". SOMAN is a very old editor(Probably the first editor), of CPIM article, he also not seems happy with your edits. Here no one is against you personally, But we want you to just strengthen your facts. BECAUSE TOGETHER ME YOU, AND OTHER EDITORS HAVE A RESPONSIBLITY to make wikipedia a trustworthy encyclopedia. THIS IS OUR ONLY CONCERN. Untill then Here is no place for either "HARMATH", and for that "Prabhat Patnaik neo liberal thing", We will try to rewrite certain sections like that Prabhat Patnaik one- in its current phase you have used words like(for prabhat patnaik), CPIM intellectual etc. which are highly biased, and seems to portray a person's identity in a "moulded manner". I've thoroughly read that article, and that is clearly focusing on "Neo Liberal polcies of Government of India, niether the west bengal, nor any other state governement". WE will REWRITE this article, and update a lot of material(about the post 1970's developments), which no body here has talked about till yet.

regards.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Deshabhakta definitely has an agenda to malign CPI(M) by planting slanderous material. Whether motivated by RSS sensibilities is anybody's guess. I suspect proxy editing as well. This has to be looked into.The entire content probably needs revision and attempts like that of Deshabhakta's requires unequivocal condemnation. Regards Nithinj (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Nithinj (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I request kind attention of moderators and administrators on this aspect. None of the other editor's involved in this 'dispute' are actually not telling which or what all Wiki policies my edits are violating. Paragraphs after paragraphs are being added by them to this talk page without telling according to what Wiki rules they are reverting my edits. Some are even writing their future plans to update this artcile. I do not know how that has got anything to do with this current discussion. In this talk page itself, i have given explanations for each and every concern raised by the fellow editors. There are no return questions to them! But, reverting of my edits continues. It is disheartening to see comments and allegations being thrown at me and also a supposed 'pattern of editing' being followed by me. How much ever I try to be objective and be open to discussion, in return I am being provided with generic commentaries on matters not related to this discussion. Again, moderators, please bring in some discipline into this discussion and fasten the dispute resolution. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, as one might expect my view differs. 1) It is not only in cases of breaches of wiki guidlines that edits may be reverted or rewritten. Every time you save a wikipedia page, you agree to the statement "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". Wikipedia is a participatory project, in which individual ownership of texts do not exist. 2) That said, I'd say that I'm mainly worried with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues here. You write a sentence like "The CPM resorts to violent techniques to gain political advantages.". The linked reference gives no backing for the claim. It is a short newspiece, that mentions that "four CPI(M) workers" had been sentenced in a court for killing a RSS cadre in northern Kerala. Nowhere is there any mention of any systematic patter or tactics on behalf of the party as such. Nor is there any wider description of the conflict in northern Kerala. I'm not saying that this Expressbuzz article is a fabrication in any way, nor am I trying to white-wash the fact that there has been for several years a bloody feud between CPI(M) and RSS in those areas (in fact, I know it first n' half hand). But pinpointing CPI(M) as the sole aggressor is definately POV and is not supported by the Expressbuzz article. 3) If you feel my comment earlier about editing patterns is unjustified, I have to clarify that it is my personal perception and is not necessarily correct. If I'm proven wrong, I would apologize. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I do not know if Arbitrarily0 has come in yet to help out but you must stop this. Starting May 31 any reversions made must have the Wikipedia policy violated in the edit summary. I don't care how you feel about this. I have started talking to the ArbComm about Viplovecomm, Nithinj, and Soman. This is not biased in favor of Deshabhakta because all of you are currently the ones instigating the problem. Please end this bickering Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, either you participate in the discussion or you don't. Just ranting with bold markings and talking as if you are giving commands ("you must", "I will have you banned", use of exclamation points, etc.) is not communicating. The article is protected until May 31 in order to encourage the involved parties to find a solution. Finding a solution requires communication, stating "end this bickering" is not conducive for discussion. Are mine and some other editor's objections not valid, and if so on what basis? And do you feel that Deshabhakta has tried to present a balanced view of the political situation in northern Kerala? --Soman (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Soman,

The issue you are mentioning is again the same you asked under Current Edit War section of this talk page above. I have given a detailed and thorough explanation on this issue already. You have not got back in any way to my explanation; instead the same question is being asked again. I have even listed alternatives to the sentence in the lead section. Current sentence in lead section is as such much milder to what the sources listed say.

Further, this article is about CPIM party and not about political conflicts in northern Kerala. So i will restrict myself to matters related to CPIM.

A participatory forum does not mean editing at will. Wikipedia, as such a participatory forum, is driven by policies and guidelines. All editors are expected to abide by those policies. Otherwise, it will become a scrapbook. Nothing should be added/removed/changed in Wiki just because one feels it to do so. All edits, whether update or revert, on Wiki must comply to the policies in place. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reply above was "Clearly this shows use of violence by CPI(M) and hence the sentence is not out of place. If you have problem with the word "criticized" because no third party criticism is listed in the mentioned sources, I can reword the sentence in the lead section as "The party uses violence to suppress opponent political movements." or "There have been many instances of the party resorting to violence against political opponents."

The last quote is a court verdict; no better proof needed.", which essentially means agreeing to the fact that you construct your own intepretation. --Soman (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

its not a constructed opinion. Its a statement based on several listed reliable sources/reports. Wiki is not a copy-paste media to put sentences taken directly from a source as it is. It will lead to copyright violation. Wiki articles are based on or sourced from reliable sources; not copy pasted from sources.

That too the lead section should contain a concise summary of the article. The statement added in lead section is a summary of various instances listed in sections of the article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Invaild Objections

In fact Soman, I do believe that your objections are invalid. I believe that unless something actually violates a wiki policy than it should not be removed. You seem to have the misguided idea that you may delete anything that you find incorrect or inappropriate. I think instead Deshabhakta's sources and ideas should be respected and if thought to be incorrect discussed. Instead we are deleting information that should otherwise be kept. I understand that my previous attempt at mediation was slightly in the wrong; but (yes there is a but) I still do agree with all I have said. Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 21:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Try to apply that logic on entire wikipedia, and check what the consequences would be. If we were to reach a consensus on each removal of text, Wikipedia would serve little use more than a messaging board. The very essence lies in the participatory aspect, that all text can be edited at anytime by anyone. Sometimes disagreements occur, and then there lies a mutual responsibility to encounter constructive solutions. To clarify, I do think that Deshabhakta's edits are incorrect (and have argued that they are problematic considering WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH guidelines), that he consciously is trying to portray an incorrect and biased image of the party. That does not mean that all details in his edits are hoaxes or that the linked publications are frauds, but the conclusions he choses to draw from those references are misleading. --Soman (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In theory that logic should be applied to all of wiki. This is, of course, impossible. But, when we have edit warring it should be practiced. Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already replied to your objections based on NPOV and SYNTH. What is the basis for accusing my edits as portraying an "incorrect" and "biased" image of the party? What are the reasons for calling them "incorrect" and "biased"? Please list out reliable sources to assert that my sources are "incorrect" and "baised".

Plus, we must all agree to adhere to Wiki editing policies at least in the dispute resolution cases like this. As Mr Root has said, ideally, this should be universally true for Wiki. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a section of work:

I am writing regarding this section: "The CPM resorts to violent techniques to gain political advantages. The acts go to the extent of murdering members of other political parties. In Kerala, Yuva Morcha State vice-president KT Jayakrishnan was hacked to death by the CPI(M) men in an upper primary school in East Mokeri while he was teaching his students. The BJP cadre are subject to torture by the police and CPI(M) goons in Kannur and Thalassery areas."

These sources say nothing of political advantages, and it may be most ideal to refer to the men accused, not the organization. Here is a suggested rewrite. Note that I have removed the assertion that KT Jayakrishnan was hacked to death by CPI(M) men, as the source notes only an allegation, which is not enough to support a blanket statement that it had happened:

"CPI(M) members have used violence against political adversaries. There have even been murders by CPI(M) members. There has reportedly been a history of violence between political parties, which can even extend into the realm of police power. Frontline 2009"

Also notable here is the wider view of the killing, I've only just moments ago started studying these politics, but it didn't take me very long to discover sources which do not find CPI(M) members to be the only players in the field of violence (that's the final link, which is not numbered or referenced). Regardless, the characterization of CPI(M) members as goons is non-neutral and should be removed. This is the only part of the article I've focused on, but I do find myself greatly concerned with what appears to be a non-neutral tone. I invite conversation in this regard! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

- Dear 72.192.46.9,
Thanks for removing attemts of vandalism, and improving the quality of CPIM article on wikipedia. I request you to please thoroughly go through this article and list out certain sections that are unresonable, or just shading a biased point of view on this article. Please list your concerns on this page, and you are free to edit content that doesnot require further discussions(minor edits).

Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I originally only made extra time on wikipedia for the sake of one instance, I will try to fulfill this request to the best of my ability, within the time that I have! One thing, the newly edited statement saying that CPI(M) has been criticized for use of violence by its opposition parties may not be entirely neutral either. Stating that CPI(M) members have committed acts of violence as well as members of other parties, I believe, is the more neutral statement (they aren't just accused, CPI(M) members have been convicted of acts of violence). Thoughts? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

- All Needful has been done, and that portion is being preserved in a neutral way. Examples that quote misleading citations were removed. Please check it once.
regards
-Viplovecomm (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I must disagree, the citation clearly states that the men were convicted of, not accused of, a crime. Those are different things, are you saying that the source is incorrect, or not reliable? If that is not so, then it is not neutral to state convictions as accusations. We need to revisit your first revision, as you seem to have swung the point of view too far in another direction, from my summation. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP User,

I am almost in agreement with your suggested rewrite to "CPI(M) members have used violence against political adversaries. There have even been murders by CPI(M) members." I will study your other suggestion (with frontline as source) as well and get back to you on this thread soon. --Deshabhakta (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Rewrite

I've done some rewriting work on "USE OF POLITCAL VIOLENCE", It was poorly written in a biased and informal manner, SOME USERS have demanded to correct that, I've done rewriting work, and corrected that. Also removed "Harmad" case it was just reported in TNIE, and no where else, further, the Following interview in tehlka(reputed reliable news magazine of India), goes against its existence: [[1]]
-Viplovecomm (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The change was made to say something like "Like all other political parties". Please note the listed sources do not indicate anything near to this. Have reverted back this change.

Regarding Harmath paragraph, it was removed saying it is only from one source. There is no rule in Wiki that material from only one reliable source should not be used.

I am fine with you another edit in which you have transformed the specific mentioning Jayakrishnan's case into a generic statement. have retained and elaborated it. --Deshabhakta (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

-Sorry Deshbhakta Your current edits on Harmath are completely unacceptable, a general consensus was made against it, so its better to remove them, to maintain the neutral point of view of the article.

Best and Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont see a 'general consensus' on this talk page about Harmath. NPOV does not mean removing critical facts about the party. Its the mentioning of both good and bad things that makes an article neutral. What is this "like all political parties are involved in violence..."? This is based on what reliable source? The listed sources do not point to any such thing? If all parties involve in violence that does not make a holy cow of CPI(M). If sources say CPM cadre are involved in murders and other such anti-social and criminal acts, the article should say the same without mincing words.

You have not answered to both my queries above: 1. "like all parties.." and 2. What wiki policy prohibits use of only one source? But still you go ahead revert my edits! Over that, my edits are even labelled vandalism in edit summary. Strange and Unacceptable! --Deshabhakta (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The source he is referring to is likely this: the article I discovered. The reason I invited the wider view (mentioning that other political parties are involved in violence) is because it gives the reader a greater understanding of the elements at play. Just as if one were to read about sea stars and there is a mention that they eat phytoplankton, mentioning that jellyfish also eat phytoplankton might be useful for greater understanding of the sea stars (are they in the same waters, do they compete for food). To present this information as if CPI(M) members are singular in their violence is not a correct viewpoint if violence is ongoing between many parties. In another example, if we were to present a fistfight between a man in a red shirt and a man in a white shirt, when they both were arrested for fighting... If we reported that as "The man in the red shirt was striking the man in the white shirt repeatedly until eventually he was arrested." is not neutral because it gives undue weight to only one portion of a greater conflict, not informing the reader of all the information they could otherwise have.

As to your other question. "What wiki policy prohibits use of only one source?" if the source is reliable for the type of information the source is providing here, then it may not be correct for it to be prohibited. If other reliable sources disagree about the existence of Harmath, then we'd have a different avenue to go. However, this is the Wikipedia policy I am currently the most concerned with. If Harmath is truly only supported by a single source, mentioning them unequivocally as a militant arm of the party based on that one source might be undue weight. Saying "One source claimed that an organization called Harmath is a militant arm..." might be better, but we must take care not to use that as a gateway to simply reprint the article here. If there is but one source, the weight that this should be given is likely minimal. Does that properly speak to my viewpoints? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Deshbhakta dear,
ALL THE USERS SEVERAL TIMES HAVE ANSWRED YOUR QUERIES, and if someone really read this page then it is clear that the general consensus is against your edits, and that is the policy of wikipedia you are opposing to. REGECTING THE GENERAL CONSENSUS is simply known as "Edit War".
Further you are denying TEHLKA MAGAZINE as a reliable source, because it is critical of your edits.

REGARDING ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN VIOLENCE:
Many users above are also critical of that, what i've wrote now is completely neutral, following are the evidences to prove that, and i will introduce them as REFERENCES in the article soon!!!
[CPIM activist murdered by RSS]
[Shahbuddin RJD MP murdred so many people]
[BG Verghese on Crimanalisation of politics]
[BJP's hand in Naroda Patiya Messcare of GUJRAT RIOTS]
[Congress's involved in 1984 ANTI SIKH RIOTS]

So it is clear that all the parties here in India are accused of Political Violence, CPIM is not only one.
I hope you will appreciate my RESEARCH.
Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What will a supposed general consensus do which is not at all abiding wiki policies? Simple question i have asked - What policy of Wiki prohibits mentioning of the harmath related material on this article? Please answer this before declaring a so called general consensus. Tehelka was not removed because it was not a reliable source but because the quoted text by you in your edit did not exist in the article in Tehelka. All other sources in that edit of yours are CPI(M) mouthpieces and some stray internet website. Not at all acceptible as reliable wiki sources. I appreciate your research on political violence in India. Please suggest a compromise edit here. We will discuss here and post that onto the article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

-YOU have OVEREMPHASIZED HARMATH,(however it has poorly quote only one source), in the way that it is more looking like you are here to just diminish the image of a party, in this way you have VIOLATED WP:NPOV.
Secondly at the same time that article in TNIE is looking like based on rumours(more often in bengal AITC, a rival of CPIM is using terms like HARMATH), in that way you have violated WP:POORSRC.
THIRDLY, Deshbhakta, I've just researched about your history on CPIM article, your first entry was recorded on 7th of March 2010, which was about HARMATH, in the period of these 3-4 months, you have not inserted any thing to either update or expand the article. may I ask WHY? Why you are continously pushing forward the things that are not neutral.

One more thing you have deleted many of my citations, branding them as collected from "MOUTH PIECE OF CPIM", as unreliable content, may I ask why? WHICH POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA SAYS, USING CPIM MOUTHPIECE IS NOT PERMITTED?... It was used to analyse the both dimensions of the NANDIGRAM ISSUE.

Let me tell you a story, there was a user some 3-4 years back, who have inserted in the introduction that "CPIM is a party governed by upercast Brahmins.", later he admited somewhere to Soman that He Belongs to Right Wing 'Bharatiya Janta Party', so he is pushing forward such an agenda like that, to disrupt the public image of a major political party of India. I dont Know Deshbhakta, but please try to help us in maintaing a 'Neutral Point of View.'
Looking forward to hear from more experienced users of Wikipedia, over the issue like that.
regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Look Viplovecom. The only consensus reached was by Soman and Deshabhakta that they would include negative and facts about the party in order to create a balanced (aka neutral) article. Deshabhakta's information is correct and should not be changed. Please stop reverting non-vandalism without changing the edit summary. Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to a currently reverted edit - I think, editing conflict aside, we might be moving toward a better tone now. This sentence: "The cadre of party are convicted in several cases of murdering members of other political parties and non-left ideological movements." Can be difficult to read, and has an issue of assumption that I'd like to address.

Firstly, it says that there are several cases in which there were convictions, but the citations show two cases. Since two is not several but the amount is still significant, I would recommend "Members of the party have been convicted of murder in multiple cases." Going on to say they were political adversaries is alright so long as the source says something to that effect specifically. On another note, I feel that mentioning CPI(M) as participants in a political climate of violence may be more neutral, just looking up the murders again (since the citations are currently removed from the article at the time of this writing) revealed this. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP user, your point regarding the "several cases" part of the edit can be considered. We can reword it to say "multiple cases". I did not say "political adversaries"; my edit has it as "other political parties" and "non-Left ideological movements". So that part looks good. If you are looking at a reliable which says RSS is a non-Left ideological movement, I can search for one and add it. The source you have listed regarding 'the climate of political violence' mentions that the violence was started by CPI(M) workers. So lets restrict to the current form of edit instead adding one more statement that CPI(M) workers initiate such violent attacks thereby negatively affecting the political environment in the certain parts. Already a few fellow editors are not happy about the mentioning of truth about CPI(M) workers having involved in murders and other criminal acts. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Deshabhakta! May I ask that you indent your replies with a colon? It can make the discussions easier to follow, especially for those who arrive to see a long ongoing conversation! As to your possible allusion that the only thing to be gleaned from that article I previously mentioned is that CPI(M) workers started the attacks, if that is what you were saying then I disagree. From the article:

"Within half an hour of the attack, Ranjith came under attack by alleged BJP-RSS workers on Logan’s Road, which is the heart of Thalassery town. Though he was immediately rushed to a hospital at Thalassery, he succumbed to his multiple stab injuries."

The source further goes on to say that after those attacks, CPI(M) retaliated further. The other source I gave gives an even clearer image for this, and both of those were found incidentally. Ignoring that there are other sides in this conflict might not do us any good. I believe some mention of this is necessary to get a clear picture of the violence in question. As to your suggestion about political adversaries, the reason that wasn't quoted was because it was an open statement, not that I thought your edits were incorrect. Pardon while I get more specific though, now that I've had time to read them again.

One of the murders is of, quoted from the source "Congress Trade union-INTUC Idukki district secretary". Now I don't know anything of Indian politics, but a quick study of the Indian National Congress (which INTUC seems to be a part of) could show it to be a left-leaning ideological movement if my foreign interpretation is correct. But, I understand you may simply be defending your previous two statements as literally correct which I wasn't trying to speak on. Perhaps I seemed as if I was disagreeing when I deferred to the sources? OH! Perhaps you were wondering how I might rewrite it in keeping with those statements you'd like to keep in?

I'd say..."Members of the party have been convicted of murder in multiple cases. The victims include members of other political parties or of non-left ideological movements." That should read better while retaining, I think, the fullness of your original intentions. If that's what you were asking, do those two sentences fit better for you and for anyone else reviewing this? Mentioning the politics of it, however, makes mentioning the political climate all the more relevant in my opinion. I.E. to mention the political affiliation of the victims implies that it is relevant, which also implies that the potential politics of violence is also relevant. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to "The cadre of the party are convicted in multiple cases of murdering members of other political parties and non-left ideological movements." If you or anyone could suggest a sentence about the 'violent political climate' in which the party functions, we can accommodate that as well.

Dear ViplovCOMM,

Mentioning critical facts about the subject of the article does not lead to violation of POV. It is necessary to maintain neutrality of the article.

In an article running into pages, 4-5 sentences on harmath do not constitute to its over-emphasizing. Please compare this with your edit on Nandigram violence using mouthpiece publications; that itself ran into a page.

TNIE article was taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You have already been told this several times but still I will repeat as you are asking it again. It has been decided at RSN that the TNIE is a reliable source for the Harmath related edits. With that the poor source arguments falls.

You are accusing me of not 'expanding' the article in the last 3-4 months. My edits did 'expand' the article and provided more details about the party to the millions of readers of Wiki.

And, the argument regarding use of party mouthpiece is completely untenable. Use of in house publications and party mouthpieces clearly violates WP:RS (reliable source). Even if you want put forward CPM's perspective, you will have to source it from a reliable wiki source. Wiki should not be used as an advertising or promotion platform. CPM mouthpiece would become a primary source which violates "No original research" policy of Wiki.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the following could not be continued on this article "Like many other political parties of Democratic India, CPI(M) too accused of using violent means, as a means to respond power struggle, among different political parties. " because

• "many"
• "as a means to respond to power struggle among different political parties"

could not be traced to the cited sources. You may want to frame the sentence in a different manner reflecting the actual content of the source articles. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"The cadre of the party are convicted in multiple cases of murdering members of other political parties and non-left ideological movements." I still disagree with this phrasing. Moreover, I have done research into the other murder involved here. The High Range Plantation employees Union seems to be associated with AITUC, which I don't think is NON-left. That leaves the only non-left murder as, what is described by the source, a 40-year old allegation as opposed to a conviction. Now that I have looked into this further, I disagree with another aspect of the sentence.

Unless the High Range Plantation Employee's Union and INTUC are indeed non-left, to characterize these murder convictions as murders of people with non-left ideology is simply incorrect. Moreover, "non-left ideologies" is an imprecise term. If it matters, we should be as specific as we can about it. It seems both cases refer to members of other political parties, so how about we keep the phrasing in that area. Also, referring to them as a 'cadre' seems non-neutral. The sources for these murders don't even use the term cadre. Members is a far more neutral term.

This leaves my rewrite proposal as such: "Members of CPI(M) have been convinced of murder. Those murders were committed by a group of CPI(M) members in each case and involved victims with different political affiliations. A pattern of extrajudicial violence among the major parties has been present in some form in Indian politics, beginning between the late 1960's to the early 1970's." and this would be the source for my addition about the extrajudicial violence.

A few changes of note here, rather than saying the entire party's membership has been convicted "The cadre of the party are convicted", it is less broad, stating only that "members" have been convicted rather than implying all of them were. This, however, left an implication that the murders might simply be by people in the party without any relation to their politics. Since the sources didn't leave me with that impression, I added that the killings were done by groups. This leaves the proper impression that (as I read) the news reports gave, which is that these were efforts made in concert, not individual acts.

Also, Deshabhakta, would you mind indenting the fullness of your replies rather than a single sentence? It really will make this conversation easier for newcomers to follow. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

-SORRY DESHBHAKTA, your edits didnot expand this article but they were an attempt to vandalize the neutral sence of the article. Wikipedia has clearly stated in its WP:RS policy has clearly stated that QUESTIONABLE sources are those which are "SELF PUBLISHED" on internet. Peoples Democracy is a newspaper approved by the "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA"(RNI). So It cant be marked as questionable source. The editorial fraternity of this article is AGAINST YOUR EDITS, because they are considered to be moved by pre planned biased intention.
PLEASE These allegations are on your edits, dont take them in other way, you are most welcome to edit and expand the article in a healthy way.
BY THE WAY, Why have you removed the WELL CITED STATEMENT "Like many other political parties of India, CPM too accused of using violent means". All the references from well known dailies were cited there.
SO I' m reverting back, to the well cited content that carries a "neutral" and "balanced" tone.
Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Any TDH newspaper or publication cannot be considered a reliable source in Wiki. You are sourcing from CPM official website and also from these stray websites. Not just reliability questions, your edits also lead to copyright violation. If these edits are introduced again, i will reach out to copyright monitors of Wiki and will let them take the decision. If you still think these sources are reliable, please prove it on RSN.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

-Deshbhakta can you please explain, HOW my edits were COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS. As per your issues with stray websites, no stray website(self published website) has been cited by me there. FOR THE SAKE OF PUSHING YOUR BIASED AGENDA, You are ACCUSING ME of COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I can SAY SAME in YOUR "HARMATH" issue. However 2 of the citations which were(http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/98206-Land-issue-Nandigram-West-Bengal.aspx) & (http://udayani.org.in/files/what_happened_in_nandigram_cpim.pdf), are quoted from "lesser known" websites. I am fine with that and now replacing these two citations with more APPROPRIATE ONES.
Plz. post the link of "RSN", you have discussed above. HOWEVER, for your General Query:

• KAFILA.ORG is a website maintained by some of the very well known journalists of India.
  
• PEOPLES DEMOCRACY is a well known weekly of India, Recognized by the "Registrar of Newspapers in India"

SECONDLY The text written in this article is written by me, IT IS NOT THE COPY OF ANY SOURCE. However I've RESEARCHED a lot many articles, press releases, interviews and others to write this down.
Please stop posting NONSENCE ACCUSATIONS.
It shows you have NO FAITH in healthy standards of Editing.
This article(as stated by wikipedia), is of VERY TOP SCHOLARY IMPORTANCE in India, and we are striving hard to preserve its schloary value.
Now you have compelled me to go to ARB-COMM. I am registering a complaint against you there.
CONSENSUS AGAINST YOUR BIASED EDITS(harmath), is gaining popularity below(plz. see)
Last but not the least, IT SEEMS, that you are NOT HAPPY with my edits, thats why EVERYDAY , YOU ACCUSED ME citing those policies of WIKIPEDIA, that dont have any linkage with the current issue.

In my opinion dear friend, we are indulged in a EDIT WAR, and needs a mediator that have staunch understanding of the Politics of India(especially west bengal).
I am reverting back to previous edits, you have removed WELL RESEARCHED CONTENT ALONG WITH CITATIONS. I am replacing two citations as discussed above with more appropriate ones.

ALSO I've cited CPIM's website and Peoples Democracy(which is a recognized newspaper) on THREE places, which was NECESSARY to KNOW the OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. It was needed for the accuracy of my write up.
Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

CPI(M) official website (that too as claimed by the website), Kafila, People's Democracy, and India Study Channel cannot be considered as reliable sources. CPI(M) website will anyway put its own biased content and might lead to advertising its beliefs and propaganda using Wiki. Other websites are not at all well known and do not seem to have a credible editorial board. Even city level newspaper or magazine is registered with "Registrar of Newspapers In India". That does not make every newspaper a reliable Wiki source. You want me start quoting from "Kamal Sandesh" or "Organizer"??? You have even objected to using Pioneer as source and want to quote from these stray and/or mouthpiece publications! For 'other side of fence' also you should use a WP:RS and certainly not an in-house publication; Something like Times Of India saying CPI(M) things the attacks were by others etc. Will reply back on copyright violation soon. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-Hi Deshbhakta as per your demand I've replaced KAFILA & India Study Channel, with more appropriate VIDEO DOCUMENTARY CITATION. I hope you will welcome my decison.
This NANDIGRAM ISSUE, belongs to West Bengal, for this sake it is imprtant to have a look on "Peoples Democracy", because it is the mouthpiece of the party which is ruling the state. More, it is just for General Referencing.
But Dear friend, the two newspapers which you have just discussed yet "KAMAL SANDESH" & "ORGANISER" are the two RIGHT WING DAILIES OF INDIA. You can indeed use them in some article on GODHRA RIOTS, while looking at the point of view of an party ruling the STATE OF GUJRAT. But here I dont think that these two dailies has any thing to do with the state of West Bengal.
Moreover not at all the times we sit and wait for Times of India Reoporter to go and cover the issue
I am giving the citation of a well known documentary "Nandigram: Asman ki talash mein" (Nandigram: in quest for truth-tr.), I hope that on site coverage which contains Video News feed of credible TV CHANNELS. , is enough to prove my word.
KAFILA & other so called crap citations have been REPLACED.
-Regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepting this video hosted on a public video site that too by Leftview as a credible and reliable source will be awful. this is shoddier than the earlier sources called kafila, indiastudychannel etc! You agree that People's Democracy is a mouthpiece publication and hence no way acceptable as RS. Plus, if organizer is a RS for GOdhra riots, well, considering it having national circulation we can use it for CPI(M) article as well. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus against Harmath

Majority of Users on this page, are against the edits of DESHBHAKTA, regarding his continous push for "Harmath" propaganda. He is continously denying that general consensus, and engaged in an "EDIT WAR" with other editors. I request all the editors here to stop pushing forward the biased agenda, and preserve the high scholary value of this article, please make "Constructive Edits". More he has further deny Tehlka(a reputed news magazine) as incredible, [[2]], because it goes against his edits. -Viplovecomm (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To both of these I have replied in the section above. Please read. What was attributed to Tehelka article could not be traced to that article. Hence it was partially reverted. I have no issue in putting material from Tehelka in this article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Viplovecomm. Deshabhakta should stop pushing his agenda. Such efforts show that his objective is not make the article unbiased. Let's uphold wikipedia standards.Nithinj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Viplovecomm is right, Harmath must be removed at all costs possible, Deshbhakta must stop posting slanted edits on this article. Well done Biplav for posting the mindopening story on nandigrame, From past few time, this article has become a "adda"(place) of biased agenda. Deshbhakta's edits are not supposed to be in good faith, and Harmath must be stopped from posting. Ravivajpayee (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, is any voting happening here? We need to talk and we need to talk issues. I am open to providing any clarification sought regarding Wiki policy violations by the Harmath related edits. And I have been doing so. If you need further clarifications, please let me know. "Mind opening" stories? They are sourced from somethings called kafila, indiastudychannel etc and can only be considered 'stories' - not worth mentioning on Wiki. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for straight praise. Wikipedia is a place for a balanced article including both good and bad things about a subject. Just because someone or something has done a distasteful act does not mean it should be censored from the article. If someone has possibly done something than it should not be included. We know that Harmath happened. So it should be included in the article. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Harmath did happen. In the 15th century, that is. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-GENERAL CONSENSUS IS AGAINST HARMATH. Majority of Editors including "Soman", "Viplovecomm", "NithinJ", and "RaviVajpayee" is clearly against the HARMATH. The term seems to be pushed with BIASED INTENTIONS. It must be removed with an immediate effect, and users must be refrained from including this term in future in this article.
Regrads.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any 'general' consensus. The source i have quoted is not talking about 15th century Harmath; its about the current (asa recent as 2009) version of Harmath being practiced in the West Bengal. --Deshabhakta (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. The point here is that harmath is virtually a cognate of 'bandit', a fact that should be taken into account. --Soman (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If the party uses bandits, lets mention it on this article. The TNIE article clearly says the party hires goons, pays lacs of rupees to for murders and rioting.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page following a request on WP:RfPP. I've also removed a contentious section that was poorly worded, after a request from Deshabhakta. [3] If that section is returned, it will need to be written very differently; editors should stick closely to the description of events given by high-quality independent sources, and should cite the sources using inline citations, making clear which source supports which point. See the policy on sourcing at WP:V. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Protection CPIM Article.

(copied from SlimVirgin's talk page)

Hello, You have protected CPIM article, and removed the controversial sections. Thanks for that. I want to inform you that this user Deshbhakta is vandalizing the article from past 4-5 months. I've been editor of this article from past 4 years. More experienced editors were against his edits.
He criticized me on writing "NANDIGRAM CONFLICT", because it goes against the propaganda put forwarded by him. Now you have removed that section. But I ask you to please read it once, no crap citation is given there. The written word in that article is proved with the best citations possible from most popular dailies of India, and also with popular documentaries.
I request you to please take a look in the case, personally.

That Documentary "Nandigram: In quest of truth" is not a stray documentary. It was made in 2007 by Senior Scholars from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Deshbhakta has said that it contains just pictorial graphics, but dear friend, this Documentary uses video feeds from NDTV & 24 Ghanta News Channels. Additional references from "Peoples Democracy" Newspaper was also provided by me, along with this documentary. This documentary is however is in hindi, i feel that you cant understands Hindi language, thats why Deshbhakta is able to convince you on the issue. Please have a look in the issue. I think wikipedia is a place of high academic value, we must free its platform from all the biasedness and propaganda.

[NANDIGRAM SECTION]
Warm Regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi VLC, whatever the background to what happened, the section was written inappropriately, e.g. "On 7th January the armed gang of possibly ...[X] activists have attacked ... [Y], the hooligoons have beaten him up, burnt his house, and then burnt him alive till death on haystack. A women was raped by these hooligoons, just because she belonged to a family of ... [Z] sympathisers." This was written in Wikipedia's voice. We have to write in a disinterested tone, closely following reports from the best sources available. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's best to have this discussion with the other editors on the article's talk page, so I'm going to copy this there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin for full protection of the article but for ur kind info this article had been previously been fully protected for 1 weak after that both Viplovecomm and Deshabhakta have continued to rv their each other edits, its like both of them are fighting as communist and anti-communist groups and have zero consensus between them. If you look at both their talk page they all received warning but who cares still maintaining their ego. And I have no doubt that Viplovecomm is a strong communist supporter and Deshabhakta a strong anti-communist supporter. Rather improving the quality of this article both are obsessed about rv their edits. So SlimVirgin PLS keep an eye on both of them and yes after the protection level is expired I'm quite confident they would maintain their journey. Its an ENDLESS battle between two groups.--Kkm010^as© 09:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-Hmm. a genreral consensus is needed in any case, what if deshbhakta denies my edits with his Biased material. I want a healthy discussion here, to make this article free from all the bias. Slim virgin is right, i've to reframe my "poorly written" paragraph and introduce it into a more formal tone. But at the same time it is extremely necessary that Deshbhakta must give a respect to the editorial fraternity of wikipedia, he must accept the consensus, even if it goes against his edits. I am ready to reintroduce the nandigram in a more formal tone.
A HUMBLE REQUEST in the end. Dont make it a fight between "COMMUNISM" & "ANTI-COMMUNISM", but instead develop this article in a healthy way.
KKM010 is taking interest in this article from past 4-5 days, because i've reverted his edits on "RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA", where he tries to go against the norms set up by the "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA" , and introduced his personal point of view. I think any one can edit an wikipedia article but at the same time we must have to abide by a universal guideline of "NON ALIGNEMENT". In this way we can keep our tone more formal and unbiased.
Any one can see here how the majority of editors of this article goes against the edits of DESHBHAKTA.
-regards
-Viplovecomm (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

go through the multiple sources i have listed along side my edits. they clearly indicate that this political party has used violent acts even to the extent of murders. With the sources being one amongst the best available and no synth issues with edits there has been clearly no reason to remove my edits other than personal considerations of some of the editors. some talk of general consensus here and what has been arrived at is quite far away from it. those who do not want this article to tell the truth about use of violence by the party do not tell what wiki policies are violated by my edits. All their queries have been answered by me point by point. If general consensus means a compromise edit, the state fellow editors involved in this content dispute want this article to be nowhere captures my study of the party based on various sources. Hence, it cannot be considered a compromise edit. Further, That video is in no way a credible/reliable source. Its by LeftView which clearly shows its bias towards the subject party. Add to that, no well known authors. Highly inflammatory and graphic material. Along with that, there was already a paragraph about nandigram violence with well established sources. Why was that replaced with this stray video? This is no way to make this a scholarly article. not just 'poorly written', 'poorly sourced' also. As mentioned in the sources i have listed, lets accept the fact of involvement of CPIM cadres in murders and rioting and list the same in this article to show a more truthful picture of the party. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems the documentary on Nandigram, since made by Leftview has become unpalatable for Deshabhakta. But he has no qualms in citing from Pioneer owned by a BJP member of parliament.This once again exposes his sinister agenda.Nithinj (talk)

- Very true nithinj, Even the Indian Express group, if you research a deep is a pro BJP publication. Ramnath Goenka the founder owner of this newspaper was alleged of having links to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, most of his close aid journalists were also active workers of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Recently The Indian Express Newspaper was involved in a slanderous campaign against the Editor in Chief of The Hindu Mr Narasimhan Ram. For this N. Ram was about to sue The Indian Express Newspaper.[N Ram to sue Indian Express] Hindu is considered as a prominent English daily of India, which is on second position in terms of circulation. The Hindu has a left-wing inclination.
Such facts shows that Indian Express is also a highly biased paper which has an agenda to fulfill against the Communism and Left Front. How can we believe the so called agenda known as "HARMATH" plotted by this newspaper.
Moreover Deshbhakta is arguing that his sources are reliable, while rejecting my updated sources on Nandigram. A general consensus was reached against harmath above, but deshbhakta refused to accept the voices of other fellow editors. I think if the article is opened again for editing, there are chances that such kind of attempts of vandalism will be seen again by some of the users.

regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

i am again requesting fellow users to stop using attacking and abusive language. We can have either good faith edits or not good faith. Please dont term edits as 'sinister agenda' etc.

If somebody "feels" that TNIE is biased it does not matter for Wiki unless proved with credible references. Now TNIE itself is being attacked as source. Please check with RSN. I have already this particular article from TNIE to RSN and it has already been decided that both TNIE and this particular article on Harmath are reliable and credible sources. I have seen TNIE carrying sunday special editions on communist parties and communism; so it is tough for me to believe TNIE has anti-communist bias. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

False. The archive of the discussion is availible at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#The_New_Indian_Express_and_CPI.28M.29, in which one user says "They appear to be reliable sources for the citations. As it says at the top of the page, POV issues are for the NPOV Noticeboard". To claim that any decision has been taken is not correct. RSN is a notice-board on seeking advice about the use of sources, not a moot court. There was no deeper debate in the RSN thread about the bias of the publications in question. For me, the question has not so much been the editorial bias of the publications referenced but rather the creative interpretations by Deshabhakta of the article contents. --Soman (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no "creative" interpretation in my edits. SYNTH has already been discussed and i have clarified on all questions raised.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we agree to disagree on this. I suppose. --Soman (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

- I've gone through that RSN posted by soman here, though dlabot aprooved the reliablity of TNIE, but indeed Deshbhakta is not using the citations properly. Moreover it is wrong if a user uses a news report, to interpret his own POV.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

can you please come up with some new thing please? i know communism believes in telling a lie 10000 times to make it truth but that would not work on Wiki. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

-Deshbhakta please dont attack me personaly, wikipedia's policies are against this attitude. Secondly, This was a saying by a famous right wing propagandist Goebels...and yes 'the attitude to propagate lies, libels and slanders' will not work on wiki...
-Viplovecomm (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deshabhakta says he know that communism believes in telling a lie 10000 times to make it truth. Wonderful! And also we should expect his edits to be in good faith. Viplovecomm, need not educate this gentleman as though he is not aware of the dictum of Goebbels. He has been applying the Goebbelsian principles deftly to tarnish CPI(M).May I remind him that it won't work in wiki.Nithinj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

Personal attack by me? what? where? --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This debate has entered a downward spiral once again, each of the editors involved ought to take it as their own responsibility to break the negative pattern. As per Deshabhakta's question, the comments refers to your comment on 8 July, 17:01. --Soman (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't it Stalin who said that if you tell a person something one time, he doubts it, if you tell him twice, he believes it, if yo tell him three times, it is his gospel? (By the way, mosts sociologists agree, Nazism and Communism are one and the same. Ronk01 talk, 04:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

-@ ronk01, so this means that you have a pre-concieved viewpoint for communism, and communist parties, and this viewpoints dictates your edits on wikipedia. You have explained that you will defame communism by hook or crook, or by any means possible. But my friend wikipedia dont allow to enforce any kind of point of view in articles.
TO OTHER EDITORS CONCERNED, I am feeling that some users try to make groupism kind of things on basis of "RIGHT WING SUPPORTERS" and vice versa, please dont have this attitude for healthy development of this article. Even those people are taking interest in this article who dont know even a basic "ABC" of Indian Politics. I appeal that only those person have expertise in Indian Politics please help to edit this article, otherwise it will more appearing as a battleground.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there is talk of groupism now. this talk has so many reference to a supposed "consensus". where did that come from? Group editing. When the other editor(s) had not agreed at all, the group claimed 'consensus' :) --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

- That general consensus(which however vetoed against the edits of deshabhakta) was among the active editors of CPIM article who have a knowledge of the politics of India & west bengal. Soman is arguing from last so many months "for such person as mediator who knows the political scenerio of India" and is not aligned to any power(political) block. BUT TILL NOW what we get in result is clearly evident if we read the comments of Ronk01 and Mr. root...
-Viplovecomm (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Viplovecomm are u feeling insecure/sad that CPI(M)/CPI is slowly vanishing from India. Losing election after election. Its quite evident that this party doesn't want any development for India and its people but can certainly create violence against other political parties. Well people of India adore democracy and capitalism (Which the CPI(M) hates). And no party can stop this country from progressing. Good luck my dear socialist friend, in 2011 (West Bengal + Kerala) they are going to get the death punch! god knows what the fate of that party shall be. A day shall come when this party would get ZERO votes and people of India will hate this party. Thank You--122.173.189.231 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, (more or less) identical commentaries were common in Indian media/public debate in the early 1990s. Thats like 18-20 years ago for now. --Soman (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But this time its different fall of communism is inevitable look at USA or UK they are free from communist violence or communism, India too shall be free from this goons(Yes they are goons no doubt). The whole world has embraced CAPITALISM and Hated socialism its the capitalism that is the clear winner. There future is looking bleak the nightmare is yet to come. Not even god can help them, their collapse would similar to Soviet Union during 1990. Remember time is ticking!--122.162.17.134 (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The End of History and the Last Man was published in 1992. Since then, CPI(M) has grown by some 30%. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

- Ahh!!! hidden intentions!!! It is obvious that the Mccarthy era has braught USA a genration of people who dont realize truly what the communism really means. Its a kind of Dogma they are living in. Since wikipedia servers are located in USA, it is obvious that a majority of editors came from US itself.
Now what i m learning from the discussions going on this page is that some users(like the one ip user above, based in India), are seeking help from these mediators(like mr. root, ronk01 etc) and adminstrators. They are telling them that a "crusade"(holy war) is going on against communism in this article, they are seeking help from these administrators only because they know that the administrators based in USA are highly misinformed, and are not well versed with the political scenerio and issue of India.
It is a better initiative by 'slimvergin' better that this article is blocked from editing, for extended period.
It seems that CPIM may lost upcoming elections, because it is a democratic party, Defeat and Victory is obvious in democracy. If the party lost election we will introduce neccessary updates in this article, but WE WILL NOT ALLOW any kind of VANDALISM in the name of the defeat of this party. Positive attitude, and positve criticism is highly welcomed...
regards -Viplovecomm (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} A change in the protection template is needed to properly categorze the page by reason for protection. Also, the protection template should not be small because: this is an article; protection, though indefinite, is not permanent; and editors should have notice on the page of the reason for protection. (This is why small is a parameter, and is not enabled by default.)

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}

with:

{{pp-dispute}}

--Bsherr (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk 05:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Add expiry=11:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) as parameter to protection template. Move protection template below content template per MOS. --Bsherr (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Date parameter  Done

Move template  Not done I can't find this in the Manual of Style. If you can give chapter and verse for where it is then I will be willing to consider doing it, but without any indication that it is preferred by the MOS it seems to me better to have the protection notice first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Myteam.n, 7 December 2010

{{edit protected}}

Becoming a Party member

Getting a party membership in a Communist party has a procedure. Its that you will have to work under any of the mass fronts like the students wing, womens, farmers & so on.then seeing the persons dedication & committment,he/she will be referred to be a part of the party,but party membership is not given.

During this period you will be informed about the party events, programs & other activities held.you could participate in it & gradually learn the principles,organisation structure & many other things related to the party.by learning these things it helps a person to think & act in favour of the common man.then again by seeing the dedication & committment,improvement he/she will be referred to be a part of the party in the area level.

So a person will be reffered to various committees like area committee,dist committee,state committee & so on.so only the people who possess good knowledge about marxism & who live according to its principles will be referred to the higher committees.to get a party membership it might take atleast 3-4 years & this after assosiating with various mass fronts.so by the time a person becomes a party member he/she will be a communist by all means.After becoming a party member a person's involvement will be verified every year during the time of membership renewal.if the higher committee feels that the person is inactive or kept away from the party activites,then his or her membership would not be renewed.During membership renewal a persons negative & positive aspects are discussed & he/she will be asked to improve on the negative qualities that he/she has.the feed back is given by members in his same designation & from his immediate higher committee members.

every party member is suppose to contribute to the party as levy on the percentage of his/her salary, which will be used for party activities,to pay the salary of party workers,office expenses.

Myteam.n (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Updating the article

Hi and New Year wishes to all,
Friends as we all know Wikipedia adminstrators have granted us all the "edit rights of CPIM article" as a new year gift. In the Past few months since the article was blocked from editing, Some of the constrictive editors like "Soman" have suggested that "CONTROVERSIES" are of no good for an healthy article, particlary in case of political parties controversies are often planted with biased intentions. Lateron the curator of Trinamool Congress article KKM010, also agreed somewhere with this view, when he reverted slanted biased edits of a Pro-CPM supporter on "Trinamool Congress Page"(regarding AITC Maoist Nexus).
So considering the genuine concerns of these two constructive editors, i am removing controversy section from CPIM page.
Because of this controversy section the "valuable time" of Constructive editors is being lost in reverting the slanted edits of POV Pushers.
I've decided to UPDATE this article here on after. Please support our idea of "removing controversy section" for preserving the high scholarly standards of this article. -Viplovecomm (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Parimal and Promod

regarding this edit, do note the following passage in Link, vol. 7, "But there were 15 delegates who supported Parimal Dasgupta. Even Promode Dasgupta. the organisational boss in the State, said that he agreed with many points made by Parimal but he thought they could not be eleborated in the Tenali..." --Soman (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition of official twitter account

Hi all,

I have added the official twitter account of Communist Party of India (Marxist), https://twitter.com/cpimspeak in the external link section. I am supporting my edit with the following reliable citation.

• http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/cpm-embraces-the-power-of-social-media-launches-twitter-account-for-better-connect-with-gen-next-ahead-of-ls-polls/articleshow/31207538.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work2win (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting the change i have done by mistake, sorry for that, adding back official site, removing official twitter account in external section, no publicity here. This was done after discussion with an editor in BJP talk page. Work2win (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150419103048/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/yechury-set-to-become-next-cpim-general-secretary/article7118990.ece/ to http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/yechury-set-to-become-next-cpim-general-secretary/article7118990.ece/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071017160748/http://ganashakti.com:80/archive/left_unity.htm to http://www.ganashakti.com/archive/left_unity.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121125073315/http://cpim.org/content/members-pb-elected-previous-congresses to http://cpim.org/content/members-pb-elected-previous-congresses
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121124133818/http://cpim.org/content/members-pb-elected-previous-congresses to http://cpim.org/content/members-pb-elected-previous-congresses
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131227010637/http://ibnlive.in.com/elections/2013/tripura/ to http://ibnlive.in.com/elections/2013/tripura/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080224023939/http://www.cpim.org:80/pd/2005/0403/04032005_membership.htm to http://www.cpim.org/pd/2005/0403/04032005_membership.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism - changing communist to criminal

what on earth? I'm trying to revert but it isnt saving. please make this page semi-protected. 122.176.32.138 (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805205314/http://www.kerala.gov.in:80/knowkerala/political.htm to http://www.kerala.gov.in/knowkerala/political.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805205314/http://www.kerala.gov.in:80/knowkerala/political.htm to http://www.kerala.gov.in/knowkerala/political.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616182735/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616182919/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_OR_71.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_OR_71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616183041/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_TN_71.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_TN_71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616182944/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_WB_71.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1971/StatReport_WB_71.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314030901/http://www.kozhikodepartycongress.org/kerala-cpim-history.php to http://www.kozhikodepartycongress.org/kerala-cpim-history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013802/http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2001/october/charu.htm to http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2001/october/charu.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223113220/http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1712/17121050.htm to http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1712/17121050.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129141351/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1969/StatReport_WB_69.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1969/StatReport_WB_69.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212015159/http://www.cpim.org/content/leadership to http://cpim.org/content/leadership
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kerala.gov.in/knowkerala/political.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718185438/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1977/Vol_I_LS_77.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1977/Vol_I_LS_77.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175926/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713070349/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807091250.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807091250.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227165455/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of India (Marxist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023515/http://nhrc.nic.in/Publications/NHRCJournal2002.pdf to http://nhrc.nic.in/Publications/NHRCJournal2002.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121210104/http://www.ndtv.com/elections/index.php to http://www.ndtv.com/elections/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Controversies heading

Hey @SerChevalerie: I see you have deleted this heading and its contents. Would you please point out why and which other editor has agreed on deletion of it? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

'Controversies' sections in articles on political parties is always a bad idea, and renaming them doesn't solve the issue. The removed section constitutes WP:SYNTH, whereby the Wikipedians seek to connect dots between disparate events. I'd say that a more constructive approach would be:

• At this point the party history ends in the article in 1971. Obviously this needs to be expanded.
• I'd say that separate articles on state units of the party is warranted, especially for Kerala and WB>
• Considering that CPI(M) governed states with population of a combined population of 120+ million people, there needs to be some discretion on outlining what are the central themes of the history of the party. For example, in regards to Kerala, yes there are pockets were followers of RSS and CPI(M) have been involved in tit-for-tat attacks for years, but this is hardly the defining characteristic of CPI(M) in Kerala. I'm not saying that it can't be mentioned in the article - but it must be proportionate and describe the situation in a neutral way (i.e. including perspectives of both sides, and make mention of the attacks against CPI(M) workers as well).
• Regarding the 1962 VS blood donation story - this isn't a controversy per see. It's an urban legend that a writer has wished to revive decades later to make a political argument. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we have to take some care how we reproduce biased materials into the encyclopedia.
• Regarding the other points in the removed section - So the Nandigram violence is really the only one of these event that had a major impact on the party, which notably doesn't developed at all in the removed passage. The Nandigram conflict, which wasn't one-sided, was major factor in the subsequent electoral debacle in WB. I don't think the same can be said about the other WB events highlighted in the removed passage. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. Also per WP:DUE it should be mentioned that the allegations were not proved in court (or haven't been proved currently). Pinging Tayi Arajakate to weigh in. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Soman:, after going through the pages of a number of political parties in the US, UK, China and India, I do see there are no Controversies/Reception sections in those. So you are right, this section is not needed here. Perhaps a separate page for it could be created. Cheers, Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose this is already settled but Georgethedragonslayer, a WP:POVFORK is even more discouraged. You will also find that there are no pages dedicated solely as a list of "controversies" of particular parties either and would also constitute synthesis as well. As soman has already stated, ideally all significant events, incidents, activities, etc should be included in the history. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)