Talk:American Communist Party

This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2024. The result of the discussion was delete.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

See WP:NOTFORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The American Communist Party is a MARXIST-LENINIST OUTFIT. It is NOT a RIGHT WING OUTFIT. Any other description is outright MISINFORMATION. 2409:4052:6E37:9C19:9187:3FE9:D141:2DA5 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not clear why this is being posted on the talk page of a redirect. The article this redirects to, Communist Party USA, is unprotected so you are free to edit it, though I'd advise you to attach reliable sources to support any claims you add, or else your edits will likely be reverted. Left guide (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect

@Ad Orientem: History of the Communist Party USA would be better Braganza (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza

Done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather problematic. There is a "SPECIFICALLY NOT THIS PARTY" group that are actively being looked for by many, myself included, and it feels like removing the article that talks about the group to redirect to the group they split from is at best accidental censorship. Genuinely feels like a base moral level failing to cut a group out of their own search result, and frankly it's hard to not see it as a political choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.212.55 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted following a community discussion because it did not meet the requirements for establishing encyclopedic notability. See also WP:NORG. You are of course free to disagree with that decision. But respect for WP:CONSENSUS is one of the foundations on which the project is built. Without it we could not function. Speaking as someone who has been on the losing side of my fair share of discussions, some of which annoyed me, I advise you to move on and find another article/topic to work on. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be blatant manipulation. The CPUSA page has received an exponential boost in traffic coinciding with the launch of the American Communist Party just 4 days ago. This is clearly not a coincidence. Redirecting to the group the ACP explicitly split from can not be seen as anything less than censorship, whether purposeful or not. It is in the best interest of the public to direct them towards the page they are searching for. 2600:6C50:183F:4F0D:4C60:16CA:AF43:D3F5 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-26&end=2024-07-24&pages=Communist_Party_USA Beamer491 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza, @Ad Orientem, I'm not sure I agree with this swap, or at least I'm missing the logic behind it. If you look at usage, both historical and in recent news articles, opinion pieces, wikilinks to the title, etc., "American Communist Party" does seem to be regularly used to refer to the party itself. Given it wasn't a historical name of the party or anything, I'm not sure a user searching for or linking to "American Communist Party" would be more likely to be seeking to be directed to this history of the party rather than the party itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza, @Yaksar I'm just the guy in charge of pushing buttons that need pushing and have no dog in this fight. See if you can come to an agreement. Otherwise you can open a discussion and request input from other editors. Maybe ping some of the participants at the AfD? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, don't think I'd call this one a fight! Was just pinging b/c there hadn't been discussion of the move in case there were any strong views/opinions, no need to weigh in! Although I think it's going to be tough for the time being to separate this discussion from the comments about people wanting the other party's article back.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the removal, i think its a denial of information, on something that is happening, there is a problem with the CPUSA, CPUSA are trying to downplay it but as a person interested. this being removed has given me a massive headache, and i want to shame anyone who supports its removal because its really annoying to find information now.. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a new party called "American Communist Party" Braganza (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But still, in the eyes of a sane Communist reader, not an actual communist party. This is why the new party didn't have enough notability to have an article. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when creating an article please read WP:N and WP:GNG. Making an unsourced article usually fails GNG, unless reliable sources are found. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

If this party is not considered notable enough to merit its own page, it should at least redirect to a page that is more relevant to what those who search for the American Communist Party are looking for. I propose instead of redirecting into the article for the Communist Party USA (a party it is not affiliated with), it should redirect to the article for Jackson Hinkle, one of the founders of the party whose Wikipedia article already mentions the founding of the American Communist Party. Additionally, I do think consideration should be given to restoring its own independent article given the fact that it has gained in only a week 25,000 Twitter followers, been covered on Medium, and been mentioned by the CPUSA publicly (if only in a denouncement). Therefore, the justification that it is not relevant enough appears very weak at this point. Chinatowndreams (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSPS, those sites mentioned above are not reliable. Just wait for RSs to cover the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the mods should still remove the redirect for the CPUSA, and for now, move it to Jackson Hinkle. CD967119 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a perfect option, since MAGA communism redirects to the section of the Jackson Hinkle article. I could retarget at request. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful Chinatowndreams (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources appear to regularly use the term "American Communist Party," both in recent news and going back decades, to refer to the Communist Party USA. Given no reliable sources refer to the new party (which was the inherent issue with the article's notability, this would be inconsistent with usage in coverage. However, an rfd could certainly be opened to discuss.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not ever seen any source refer to the CPUSA as the "American Communist Party". I have always seen the full "Communist Party USA", the shortened "CPUSA" or a more generic term such as "the Communist Party". Meanwhile the ACP has now been featured in an article on the Free Press and on the Jimmy Dore show. We have an article for the founder of the ACP, at a minimum we should redirect to him if we don't have a full ACP article yet Chinatowndreams (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article mentioned, "Haz al-Din", was created by a now-banned user and is currently subject to an AfD discussion with unanimous consensus for deletion due to a complete lack of notability and political bias, the exact issues that the "American Communist Party" article faced. SociusMono1976 (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Jackson Hinkle, who does have an article Chinatowndreams (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article is younger that the former ACP article though Braganza (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognize this is most likely a now-dormant sock or SPA, for the purposes of future good faith discussion, the claim "not ever seen any source refer to the CPUSA as the "American Communist Party" is inconsistent with both recent and historical usage in reliable sources -- from recent articles in just the past few weeks in Jacobin and Time, slightly older ones in the New York Times and Atlantic, to academic journals going back decades, the title case "American Communist Party" is regularly used to refer to CPUSA or its other historical names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]