Talk:Bob Avakian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewrite of "Philosophy and Method" section

I rewrote this section fairly extensively. I thought the edits to this whole section by editor xcuref1endx distorted Avakian's views and tried to substitute the views of the editor. For example, I tried to capture the dialectics of Avakian's views on "class truth", both what it is and how it has been expressed in the communist movement in the past, in order to give more content to what Avakian argues, especially posing his views in contrast to views of others in the Marxist and communist movements. Removing all that and reducing it to a statement about those "within the communist movements who view truth as specific to ones class, 'class truth' or 'proletarian truth' " ends up with a flat, and frankly fairly meaningless, statement. Maybe part of the issue is xcuref1endx's own views on this. Stating that Avakian believes "truth" to be scientific and objective and putting "truth" in quotation marks is precisely part of what Avakian has argued against – the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth, that it is all relative . . . which leads in turn to the view that different classes can have their own "truths".

I also don't understand xcuref1endx's the removal of the footnotes in an earlier version of the article describing what Marx and Marxists more generally view as what the Chinese called getting beyond the "4 Alls", and the reference to Avakian's exploration of the difference between "mechanical" versus "dialectical" materialism. These points may be clear to the editor who removed them, but for most Wiki readers these are very new, maybe completely unknown, concepts. The point of the footnotes is to give people references where they can look at what Avakian argues on these questions.

I similarly edited what xcuref1endx had rewritten in the section of the article on Avakian's views about proletarian internationalism. The prior edits to this section appear to reflect xcuref1endx's own views of proletarian internationalism, not Avakian's, and ascribe views to Avakian that actually argue for a different conception that what he argues for. Avakian emphasizes the fact that proletarian internationalism must be based on a recognition of the fact that revolution is a "single integrated world process" as the original entry put it. The edit – especially the focus on the view that "socialism must be first built in a particular country" while eliminating the portions of the early version that emphasize the international dimension of the process – argues for a different conception. Again, it's fine (even expected) that different readers and editors on Wikipedia will have different views on controversial subjects. But the point of the Wiki entry isn't for different editors to argue for what they think is most the most accurate view, it is to accurately reflect the views of the subject of the entry. EnRealidad (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the proletariat

The prior edits distort Avakian's views. For example, removal of the entire section on the fact that socialism not only will need to figure out how to take care of society's and the population's material needs but also open up "qualitatively more space" for people's intellectual and cultural needs and giving increasing scope for contention of different ideas and schools of thought, ends up with a view of socialism that is very much akin to the views Avakian is arguing against and that he says is different about his views.EnRealidad (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of Capitalism in China, Arrest and Self-Exile should just read Arrest and Self-Exile

Restoration of Capitalism in China, Arrest and Self-Exile should just read Arrest and Self-Exile--Darrelljon (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

all four of them

In 1976, shortly after the death of Mao Zedong, the followers of Mao (known as the "Gang of Four") were arrested ....

Mao had only four followers? —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Contention over Avakian's views

I am adding this section back in. Xcuref1endx keeps removing sections without any explanation or at best an explanation that he/she doesn't agree with a particular statement. There's no question Avakian's views are controversial, including among those who describe themselves as communist as well as many who explicitly disagree with communist theory. Xcuref1endx's own edits reflect that, as do many others in the past. That's the point of saying "controversy", that some agree and others don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnRealidad (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

-You miss the point in that Avakian doesn't create controversy. He is a nonplayer that speaks to largely to his own audience alone. No one else is listening to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.9.54.30 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, more problems with the removal or poor editing of footnotes. Perhaps xcuref1endx hasn't read the articles by Athan G. Theoharis and by Peter Erlinder and Doug Cassel cited in one of the footnotes. They make clear that there the heavy charges against the demonstrators and other aspects of the case represented significant and serious developments related to the legal attack on political opposition forces. The edit of the footnote on David Johnston's LA Times articles is also troublesome; Johnston documented repression aimed at the RCP in one city, he didn't attempt to discuss events in other parts of the country during that time period.

More significant, I'm baffled by the removal of the reference to the killing of Damián García. Again, maybe the previous editor isn't familiar with that time period, but everything I've read about the RCP and Avakian during that time viewed the García murder as a major event. If there is some reason for leaving this out, please state it. Otherwise, it is a factual reference to a significant event that shaped much of the RCP's and Avakian's views and actions during that period. EnRealidad (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What? Biography? No.

I came here looking for information about Bob Avakian, whoever he might be.

What I found was not a biography at all, but evidence how a particular thought pattern (in this case, what some people call "communism") can be more focused on arguing and tossing about thoughts about small things - and sounding important when you do it - while you completely miss doing anything about the big things which, naturally, are completely overlooked and never mentioned.

It was a futile hope, wasn't it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE26:86E9:9416:71A6:EDCC:5290 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea what your post is about, or what exactly you are upset about. However, if you have any suggestions as to how to make this article a better encyclopedia page, we are open to suggestions. --xcuref1endx (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what the IP is saying is that instead of a finding factual information about the subject's life they found an expose on the subject's political opinions. I tend to agree with that assessment and have given specific recommendations to correct it in the section below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

waah, i hate being reverted, you big meanie

An explanation would take out some of the sting. So, EnRealidad:

• Does the detail that the interview was in Madison contribute anything to the story? Is there a citation for the incident other than Avakian's own account, which is uncertain about whether it was Madison or somewhere else?
• How is it better to link to the cover page of "Nine Letters" than to the specific letters from which the statements are taken? What is the benefit of omitting the fact that the Madison story is quoted from Avakian's book?

—Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Enrealidad continues to undermine the edits of others and has attempted to turn this page into his own little project as to which what goes in must be approved his or herself first. I have made a number of attempts to make this page read like a neutral and objective article and Enrealidad immediately engages in an edit war. -(xcuref1endx (talk 18:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet I can't see how my changes could offend even the RCP ideological purity police. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you and others continually complain about how statements in the article are not supported by citations to sources, and yet you think it allegedly improves the article by taking out citations to sources. I added them back in so readers can see what the original sources say and evaluate for themselves what to make of them. I thought that was the point about neutral point of view on Wiki. EnRealidad (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

EnRealidad does it again. These aren't outside or objective sources you are linking, you are attempting to turn the page into a propaganda piece for the RCP, that is completely different from citing sources. Where is the neutral point of view when everything on this page sourced is from Avakian or from the RCP? Also, you insist on leaving in "there is much contention even among communists..." 1)Where is this contention coming from? Avakian isn't engaged in academic discourse with people, he does not subject his works to peer review. Where is the contention there. 2)What communists are engaged in any actual debate with Avakian over the topic? xcuref1endx 3:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So how come, when I adjusted two links to point directly to the source material, you changed them back to be more indirect? —Tamfang (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

xcuref1enx, I have two objections to your latest changes. First, your own comments indicate the point about "much contention" -- you clearly disagree with Avakian (which is your right, though the Wiki page on him is not the place for you to express that), and other comments in the past do the same. Further, you're clearly inserting your own opinion -- just because you don't agree there is contention doesn't make your assertion true. I assume you're familiar with the debate among international forces about Avakian's work. Second, I don't see how leaving out a link to the very publication that is cited in the article (Revolution newspaper, which Avakian writes for) makes it less neutral. Do you think that an article about a writer for the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal should not link to those publications? Again, you can disagree all you want with Avakian's theses, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to insert your opinions into an otherwise carefully cited article. EnRealidad (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC

EnRealidad, I asked you to tell me where the contention is coming from, your answer is a vague "international forces", that is as credible as saying "somebody said somewhere" that this is true. You seem to not pay attention well. I already explained why i took out the external links, they don't serve a purpose OTHER than promoting the RCP, which is against Wikipedia's external links policy. Providing a link to an external source that isn't even being used to cite anything is even more proof. You are just saying here, check out the RCP's magazine. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. xcuref1endx 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no resolution to this problem, we should seek help from a third perspective dispute resolution. --xcuref1endx

The articles you added to the article add nothing to the piece itself, they are simply pieces with a bone to pick with Avakian. They may be appropriate on some other Wiki page, but contribute nothing here. EnRealidad (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the links because they do add to the piece. They were placed within the critical opinions subsection, so the objective reader is aware of the bent. Furthermore, with a small figure such as Bob Avakian, as noted and easily observed in the reference section, almost EVERYTHING there is provided for by either Bob Avakian or the RCP. Any outside perspectives on Bob Avakian, which are hard to find, are appropriate because it offers some sort of balance to the article. xuref1endx 16:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The piece you linked, albeit in Lcritical opinions", has no substantive response to anything in the article in terms of Avakian's thinking or contributions to communist philosophy. It is little more than a complaint about what the writer feels about the RCP and Avakian's alleged "cult of the personality" with no critical analysis or even engagement with what Avakian has to say. EnRealidad (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is substance in his response, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. The essay gets to core complaints against Avakian; lack of substance in his theory, the development and defense of a cult of personality, and his and the RCPs over insistence of his importance to any sort of 'communist' movement. These are legitimate criticisms, and I placed them in the appropriate tab. --xcuref1endx (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted the controversy to Dispute Resolution. --xcuref1endx (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

First its an opinion, not a controversy. Hence the name change to Reception. I've reduced it to one sentence. The source is biased, its an opinion piece and has limited notability. Therefore it violates WP:UNDUE and creates POV to give the single source (the self described radical communist organization the Kasama Project) more than a one sentence mention.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Critical Opinions list

This is also a violation of WP:EL. They look like opinion pieces from parties with a narrow focus. If however, any of them are valid reliable secondary sources and give valid bioigraphical information then they could be incorporated into the article as sources. But they should not be listed arbitrarily in a special section as they were.

• Bolshevik Revolution. Bob Avakian: ’The Jerk’ Is Loose! - MARXISTS. December 1979.
• The Call. Bob Avakian: Dangerous, yes, but not to capitalism--MARXISTS. September 1979.
• Ely, Mike. Nine Letters to Our Comrades: Getting Beyond Avakian's New Synthesis. December 2007. (RCP response - MIKE ELY OF KASAMA)
• Gordon, Eric, The Maoist cultism of the RCP is anti-Marxist COMMUNIST VOICE. September 2005.
• Wright, Liam. On the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA: Criticizing a Residue of the Past -- KASAMA PROJECT. November 2010.
• Punkerslut. MLM vs. Anarchism --PUNKERSLUT
• Oppenheimer, Mark. “Free Bob Avakian!-- BOSTON GLOBE”. The Boston Globe, 27 January 2008. (RCP Response --REV COM (AVAKIAN'S WEBSITE))
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel edits

I have reverted the edits of this person. There was no explanation about the reason for removing major elements of the article that both presented an overview of what the subject of the page (Bob Avakian) describes as central to what he's written and his philosophy and approach, as well as removal of almost the entire history of his early life which clearly affected his later development and was the origins of much of what motivates him. If Cwobeel wants to explain WHY the removal, we can discuss it. Without that, it strikes me as simply the editor's personal opinion about the relevance of these items to the page, rather than what would contribute to a Wiki user's understanding.EnRealidad (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Enrealidad, the only editorial opinion that constantly makes its way into the article is yours. It has been pointed out in the dispute resolution, other editors have been invited to work on the article to make it more neutral point of view. The whole article essentially needs to be redone, let other editors work on that. If you are curious as to why the removal was made, simply take a look above at the clean up recommendations made by Keithbob about what standards this article needs to comply with. - xcuref1endx (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Xcure1fendx, you seem to misunderstand the point of dispute resolution. Keithbob recommended edits, he didn't mandate them. Cwobeel neither explained the massive edits nor justified them. I believe the two sections removed by Cwobeel (and again later by you) both frame the overall nature of what Avakian's political and philosophical contributions have been, and the background on his life also give context to how he developed his perspective and in particular why concerns about the oppression of Black people is so central to all this. It seems to me that it would be far more productive and principled to let the dispute resolution process that you began develop, rather than simply jumping ahead to imposing your own perspective.EnRealidad (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It did develop....We brought in other people to help us edit. It has been noted not only by me, but other people about the massive POV of the article. Jumping ahead to my own perspective? I had deleted that section before, keithbob had recommended its deletion, and a outside party found it unnecessary, the only person who is insisting on their own perspective is you. As it was pointed out in the Dispute REsolution, you do not own this article, it is not yours. Let the outside editors fix it up. - xcuref1endx (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If Cwobeel did explain, would it make any difference? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted the following on the Talk pages of Keithbob and Icarosaurvus, the volunteers who stepped forward off of Xcuref1endx's request for dispute resolution. I think it would be appropriate to leave the article as it was prior to the most recent edits until we actually mediate the dispute. EnRealidad (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob and Icarosaurvus,

I wrote to both of you a few days ago about moderating the dispute on the Bob Avakian page that was requested by Xcure1fendx. I haven't heard back from you, but wanted to see if you'll get involved more actively. (If I posted it incorrectly, my apologies. I'm somewhat new at this.)

My particular concern is that after Keithbob posted his thoughts on what was needed in terms of edits to the page, an editor named Cwobeel removed two major sections without any comments about why. I reverted the page to what it had been, then Xcure1fendx removed the same sections, removed all links to writings of Avakian that are listed, and also did some small edits to the "Claims of 'Cult of Personality' page. Xcuref1endx's only explanation for the changes (and for reverting my reversions of Cwobeel's edits) were that Keithbob had recommended changes.

It seems to me this is violating the whole notion of "dispute resolution". I take Keithbob's comments seriously. But I also understood this to be a process, not a fait accompli.

For example, I disagree with Keithbob's comments about removing some of the citations to Avakian's own writings and talks. I think that in a case like this were we are dealing with a living person with very controversial views, there is a need to reference his own writings and talks in order to accurately capture what he has to say.

That was the source of my disagreements with a whole series of edits by Xcuref1endx in late 2011 and early 2012 where he had rewritten extensive sections of the page in ways that might have captured his/her own views, but were decidedly different than Avakian's. I thoroughly explained each change and why I felt the Xcuref1endx edits distorted Avakian's views.

(I find it a bit ironic that Xcuref1endx keeps complaining that there is little controversy about Avakian's ideas outside those affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party that Avakian leads, yet he/she seems determined to keep editing the page in a way that favors his/her views over Avakian's.)

Anyway, I would like to engage in some actual, constructive discussion on Keithbob's suggestions, as well as those of others. I am not that familiar with Wiki protocol and don't know how this is done, so I'd appreciate any advice and instructions on how to go about this. But in the meantime, I don't think it is appropriate for Xcuref1endx to simply act on suggestions in a way that implies they are orders from on high and the case is closed on any differences.

EnRealidad (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Two edits by Cwobeel

User:EnRealidad is objecting to these edits made by User:Cwobeel. All editors, (User:xcuref1endx, User:Tamfang, User:MrNiceGuy1113, User: Iamcuriousblue etc.) please look at the edits and give your opinion as to whether they are valid or not and why. Thank you.

• Edit 1: Removal of content with the edit summary "rm unsourced trivia"
  • I find this to be a constructive edit as it removed un-sourced content and two sourced but non-notable, cherry picked and gratuitous quotes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (your statement here)

• Edit 2: Removal of content with the edit summary "rm section per talk, as this was all sourced to SPS
  • I find this removal of gratuitous, soap boxing (see WP:SOAPBOX) attributed to the self published writings of the subject of the article to be a constructive edit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (your statement here)

Removed the List of Lectures

It was a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:EL to repeatedly link to Avakian's web site. Furthermore the lectures are self-published and non-notable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keithbob, it seems I'm not the only one doing cleanup. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Clean up tags

I've place several clean up tags on this article. There is a lot of POV pushing on this article. Mainly the article has a strong "pro" POV due to:

• An overview section which is not appropriate and should be deleted in my opinion.
• Excessive use of citations to publications written by the subject himself.
• Excessive use of quotes by the subject from aforementioned sources.
• The Printed Talks section is a gross violation of WP:MOS and WP:EL as we do not allow inline links to web sites. Inline links are permitted only in the External Links section and a website may only be linked once in the article, not multiple times to multiple pages.

A BLP on WP is not a place for the subjects memoirs, reflections, personal and political views. Before removing the clean up tags editors need to:

• Add text cited by secondary sources (I think the current section called Critical Opinions is also POV pushing and those sources should be used for biographical info in the body of the article)
• Major reductions in the amount of text given to sources written by the subject so that the majority of the text in the article is cited by whatever secondary sources are available.
• Remove the gratuitous use of quotes by the subject.
• The Printed Talks section needs to be cleaned up and/or removed for reasons described above.

Other:

• I also think the section called Controversy is POV pushing on the negative side and the info therein is overstated. It should be reduced to one or two sentences and have an inline attribution. Furthermore, the sub-title about 'cults' should be removed.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:BLPN and asked for additional editors to look at the article and help with the clean up.[1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article is *hugely* POV, and written from the perspective and language of someone sympathetic to the views of Avakain and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA. This is not acceptable, either within Wikipedia's framework generally, or WP:BLP in particular. The biography in particular needs to be rewritten using, encyclopedic, biographical language, not the florid prose style typical of RCP literature. Avakian's contributions to Maoist theory are relevant, but again, should be written without florid, POV-pushing prose, and should be comprehensible to a reader not previously acquainted with Marxist or Maoist theory. Finally, I think a "reception" section should be expanded, including criticisms of Avakian's ideas (and there are *many* of these), as well as notable figures who have had positive things to say about Avakian and his ideas, for example, Cornell West.

Also, I think the problems with this article go back to 2010, when this article became mainly the product of one editor, who has consistently reverted changes they disagree with. That kind of "article ownership" (WP:OWN) really isn't acceptable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

These are good comments. I like the idea of rewording the article using a "disinterested tone" as described in WP:NPOV and also a reception section if there is significant media coverage to justify it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As the article has been cut back and cleaned up, I've removed the tags. I'll continue to add secondary sources as time allows. Thanks everyone for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Status check

I've added several secondary sources and the article is now concise and contains all of the information that is contained in the dozen or so sources listed at Newspapers.com. Most sources made only a minor mention so the notability of the subject seems marginal and therefore the article is short. However, there may be sources in Google Books. More content can be added as more secondary sources are found. Primary sources such as the subject's memoir are OK when used according to the restrictions given in WP:SELFPUB: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked through Google Books and found only passing mentions and a few quotes by Avakian. Very little about his life. What I could find I added to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have not been able to look at this page for several days, and discovered that it has been reduced to only a few paragraphs. I found the recent drastic edits by Keithbob to be excessive and frankly missing the point of the page. There are issues Keithbob raises that I think need to be further explored, and I may end up in agreement with him on certain questions. But I don’t think it is appropriate to simply eliminate the essential content of the page, which is what the edits have done.

It would be like taking the Wiki page on the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and reducing the article to several paragraphs that said little more than “he was a scientist and wrote for Natural History, and a lot of other scientists disagreed with him” and then removing the references to the articles and books Gould had written. It might be “accurate” in a technical sense, but it would do a tremendous disservice to anyone who went to Wiki to try to learn the content of Gould’s life and his scientific views and opinions. Instead, the article draws heavily on Gould’s own contributions to explain those views and opinions.

Similarly, this is a page about the political philosophy and views of Bob Avakian, a contemporary political figure. There is no better place to determine what Avakian actually thinks than looking at what he’s actually said. It may be perfectly appropriate to include dissenting opinions about whether what he said is correct, but that is separate from what he himself says.

That was the dispute I had with the edits from Xcuref1endx back in late 2011 and early 2012. Xcuref1endx clearly disagrees with Avakian’s ideas and opinions, which is his/her right. But I thought it was inappropriate to substitute Xcuref1endx’s own ideas in the form of edits and pass them off as Avakian’s, when they were actually in sharp contradiction and opposition to what Avakian has said.

I think part of what we’re dealing with is the question of how to accurately represent the views of a living individual – does one turn to that person’s own expressions of their views, or what someone else thinks of those views. This is particularly a problem when the source of contrary views is someone who clearly disagrees with the perspectives of the living individual.

I am thinking about Keithbob’s comments about having links to the printed materials of Avakian. For example, rather than include a direct link to each item that is found on the website of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the group Avakian has headed since 1975, it may be much more appropriate to simply say that the works can be found at that site and then just list the works themselves. I’ll work on that.

But I don’t think it is correct to wholesale eliminate the reference to the works, including the extremely substantive audio and video talks of Avakian. On the contrary, it allows the Wiki reader to see for himself or herself what Avakian has to say if they are interested, and to form their own opinions about that.

So I have re-established most of the content of the prior site. I will go through it myself in the next few days to think about NPOV questions. Let me be clear that I don’t have any problem with a genuinely neutral presentation of Avakian’s views – I did the massive rewrite of the site that has essentially been up for the past 5 years precisely to try to present an objective picture of Avakian and his views, rather than the opinions of others about him and his thinking. If the current site needs editing to maintain and strengthen that neutrality, I wholeheartedly welcome it.

But I don’t think the correct approach is to simply delete everything that references Avakian’s own writings simply because it references Avakian’s writings – that would amount to saying that Wiki cannot accurately represent the thinking of a living individual.

EnRealidad (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• No. First things first: secondary sources. Without it we cannot have any kind of objective presentation of the subject. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Look, you are attempting to gain ownership of the article. All of the issues present in the article have been discussed. A "genuinely" NPOV does NOT mean we only look at what Avakian says about Avakian. No where anywhere is this considered objective! Yet you keep insisting upon it. The lack of secondary sources is an indicator of the subjects notability. You pointed out Stephen Jay Gould, go take a quick peek at his article and note how much of the information there is NOT dependent on what Stephen Jay Gould has said about Stephen Jay Gould. That is the importance of secondary sources. xcuref1endx (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • User:EnRealidad I'm sorry but you have a fundamental misconception of how a WP biography is structured and what it consists of. You are wrong when you say: "this is a page about the political philosophy and views of Bob Avakian". Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Also note that when User:Drmies and User:Cwobeel and I (and others) removed content we did so based on WP guidelines and policies such as WP:POV and WP:PRIMARY and we removed content that was inappropriate whether it was in praise or in criticism of Avakian. Avakian has had very little press coverage and his notability using WP's standards is marginal (see WP:BIO). Therefore as a topic Avakian deserves only a short article until additional reliable secondary (see WP:RS) sources are located or published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree completely with Drmies, Cwobeel, Xcuref1endx and Keithbob. This article should summarize, primarily, what reliable, independent sources say about Bob Avakian. What Avakian and the group he leads say about Avakian himself should be reflected, but only as a supplement to what independent sources say. Independent sources about the work and ideas of Stephen Jay Gould are ample and readily available. Editors of that article have the challenge of selecting the best and most representative of them. Many of Gould's books are notable. To my knowledge, none of Avakian's writings are notable, as independent reliable reviewers seem to ignore them. Independent biographical sources about Avakian seem to be scanty. If that is true, then this Wikipedia biography should also be brief, and be based mainly on those sources. A single external link to the RCP website is appropriate, but only one, in the normal place at the end of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

EnRealidad, consensus is against your preferred version. You must win consensus for any changes you propose to make. Do not edit war to restore your preferred version against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert to Older Version

I have removed the recent massive edit of this page by editor Keithbob and restored an earlier version of the page. I did so because I believe the Keithbob version to be contrary to the whole notion that Wikipedia is a site where readers can get neutral, objective and knowledgeable information about important topics in society – which is what I thought Wikipedia stands for.

Instead, the last version (i) contained numerous inaccuracies and frankly libelous statements about the person who is the subject matter of the page, (ii) was based on a number of blatantly biased (and highly suspect) sources, apparently simply because they "said something" about Avakian and so are considered valid sources of information, and (iii) did not even attempt to discovery what is true but instead objectively relied on innuendo and unsourced statements that reduced the piece to something more akin to tabloid journalism.

I feel compelled to add a lengthy comment to the Talk page because I am very disturbed by not only the changes that have been made, but more fundamentally the whole methodology that seems to underpin those changes and how it is directly opposed to the philosophy that I thought Wikipedia is based on and stands for. I don't think anyone should be given carte blanche to massively rewrite an extensively researched and thoroughly cited article that has been up for five years without first addressing these criticisms. So here goes:

Wikipedia holds itself out as the place where readers can come find reliable information about a topic, not biased "slant", or the opinions of people with a political axe to grind. I have no problem with others disagreeing with what Avakian thinks or says. But I contend that the version that I've restored at least permits readers to find out what Avakian actually believes and then on that basis decide what they think of it, rather than finding the article I removed that objectively turned the page into a trivial and frankly demeaning piece that contributes nothing to actual understanding and engagement with admittedly controversial ideas.

I spent a considerable amount of time in 2009 carefully studying everything I could find from and about Avakian and the Revolutionary Communist Party that he is the head of, as well as a broad range of comments and texts– both supportive and critical – from a number of academics, newspaper and magazine articles, and a range of people who describe themselves as revolutionaries or communists. My intent in doing a thorough rewrite of the page at that time was to post a piece that would provide readers with some objective, and substantive, understanding of who Avakian is, what his thoughts and opinions are, and the key issues of Marxist theory and practice that he has been focusing on for most of his life.

The recent edit series, however, contained little or none of that. First, it is filled with just plain inaccurate statements. Take these three examples, all of which could easily have been caught with just some basic research: (a) that Avakian's father was a San Francisco judge (not true, he was an Alameda County Superior Court Judge); (b) that Avakian went on a speaking tour in 2000 (the statement is completely wrong, it was 1979; the inaccuracy seems to come from the fact that the article was allegedly from 2000, but the newspaper page itself is clearly dated 12/6/79); and (c) that Avakian has been chairman of the RCP since 1979 (he has actually been chairman since the RCP was formed in 1975, a widely published fact). Any one of these could be an editing error, but I feel they reveal a more general slipshod approach that seems to stem from a dismissal of Avakian from the get-go.

Moreover, the sources cited for a number of the statements frankly are something any decent journalist would question as reliable. Again, some examples:

(1) The Richard Baum book (cited four times) is Baum's memoir and contains no sources that can be checked. It is written by someone admittedly hostile to Avakian and Avakian's support for Chinese leader Mao Zedong, and the comments on Avakian read more like a "tell all" novel than a source of serious information. It is irresponsible to use Baum's unsourced prejudicial and potentially libelous allegations and present them as true, even if there is an effort to make the piece seem more "objective" by putting the claims in quotation marks. This is all the more so when Avakian himself is a much more accurate source of his own legal and political history.

(2) The newspaper article cited in footnote no. 5 was written by Dr. George S. Benson, a well-known anti-communist evangelical preacher and head of the National Education Program (there's a Wiki entry on him) who clearly has no expertise on Marxist philosophy or political theory whatsoever.

(3) And the source for the newspaper article cited in footnote no. 10 was titled "Red Cells Infiltrate" written by anti-communist journalist Victor Riesel (not the article "Leisure Will Kill You" by humorist Art Buchwald cited in the footnotes but actually found elsewhere on that newspaper's page). Riesel was a close confident of the FBI, reportedly worked with the CIA, was supportive of attempts to purge homosexuals from civil service jobs during the height of the McCarthy anti-communist witch hunts in the 50's and part of the forces responsible for the Hollywood blacklist, and even supported the FBI's Cointelpro program of disruption and assassination of political activists as late as 1973. (There's also a Wiki entry on Riesel.)

One would think that it would at least be relevant to mention these sources' obvious bias when citing to them as authoritative sources and demand some evidence for their assertions, not simply repeat them as fact.

That raises another issue that I think gets at some core concerns I have about Keithbob's edits and the supportive comments about those edits made by others, all based in one form or another on the charge that Avakian is insignificant and his views are not note-worthy.

Some of the prior edits over the years were from people with clear political hostility toward Avakian. I've noted this at different points on the Talk page, including walking through a whole range of specific edits and showing how they took carefully researched statements of Avakian's actual views and turned them into presentations of the views of those editors but presented them as Avakian's. Keithbob's edits, but contrast, don't appear to fall into that category, but they are so shoddy it makes a mockery of the notion that Wikipedia is where you turn if you want to know what is true, not just what somebody (often someone with no basis to know much of anything) has alleged. If this becomes the standard, it throws the entire Wikipedia site into disrepute.

Avakian has been working on the development of Marxist theory and its application to practical politics for four decades, yet the Keithbob edit eliminated every single reference to anything Avakian has done or thought since 1980 other than a fleeting reference to having published his memoir in 2005.

In that regard, it is irresponsible to take a "slash and burn" approach to the long-standing page simply on the assertion that Avakian is "insignificant". A simple examination of the blurbs on many of Avakian's books and reviews available from their publishers demonstrates that there are all kinds of public intellectuals and academics, people who actually know something about the subject matter, who have engaged with Avakian's ideas and find them challenging. One can disagree with any particular reviewer's thoughts on Avakian's ideas, but it is irresponsible to instead just label them "insignificant".

(I may be mistaken, but I didn't find anything in Keithbob's prior contributions to Wikipedia that demonstrated that he has any expertise on Marxism, so I don't find his dismissal of Avakian's contributions compelling or even something that should carry any weight. By analogy, I am tremendously interested in the question of the higgs boson and what the recent experiments at Large Hadron Collider show about the nature of the universe. But I have no background in theoretical physics and would not consider myself qualified to weigh in on competing theories without first immersing myself in that field of science.)

Finally, I have a particular objection to the new section titled "Reception". The only two citations in the previous article are from people admittedly hostile to Avakian (and in the case of Mark Oppenheimer, author of the piece from the Boston Globe, someone who doesn't even pretend to be knowledgeable about or curious about Marxist theory). It makes it appear that the only "reception" to Avakian has been negative. Again, what about all the prominent individuals who have blurbed his books or the reviews that have appeared? Even in terms of the two critical pieces (from Kasama Project and Oppenheimer), Keithbob's edit removed the links to extensive responses to those pieces which would at least give the reader a balanced view of the subject matter – again, this is something I thought Wikipedia stood for.

To make it clear if it isn't already, I am extremely interested in anything that can improve the objective, accurate presentation of Avakian's views. I would be happy to engage in some constructive discussion of any suggestions other editors want to offer. But the edits that have been recently made do not do that. They aren't carefully researched and frankly don't even insist on basic accuracy.

If this becomes the standard for editing, why should anyone have any confidence in Wikipedia as a whole?

EnRealidad (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You do not own this article. You have reverted edits I have made in the past, I assume without having even looked at my edits. The POV in the article is evident. It has been noted by all outsiders that have come to help us edit the page. You have ignored them all, and some in bad faith I suspect (such as reinstating dead external links). You detect malicious intentions when changes are made such as NOT crediting Bob Avakian with the philosophical ideas that he did not create! A quick example is the concept of dialectical materialism. Instead of being a mere proponent of Dialectical Materialism, you insist on stating that "He has devoted sections of many of his works to further explorations of what he describes as dialectical materialism". Dialectical Materialism has been coined Dialectical Materialism long before the arrival of Avakian, in fact there is a decent wikipedia article dedicated to it, but the way you present it in this article is that it is Avakians discovery. Whether Avakian believes he discovered DM or not is irrelevant, the article needs to be objective and not to be used as a soapbox and recruitment article for Bob Avakian. There are no secondary sources dealing with Bob Avakians so called "new synthesis" which makes it nonnotable, and its inclusion would do nothing other than use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. (BTW the blurbs on the back of his self published book is not testament to his actual influence). --xcuref1endx (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

First, Xcuref1endx, I don't think you understand the criticisms I raised about the earlier edits. The point I made is that Wikipedia supposedly stands as a site where readers can find accurate, reliable information about a topic. The earlier edits were seriously inaccurate (and in some cased probably libelous), they relied on blatantly biased sources, and did not indicate that any serious care had been taken to get to the truth of what was being discussed. Wikipedia readers deserve better. I don't believe you spoke to that at all.

And of course I read your prior edits. As you know, I wrote pages of comments about them, explaining in detail how and why I thought they inaccurately portrayed Avakian's views, and how you ended up attributing your own views to him when his positions are quite different or even in opposition to what you wrote. That's my point about being rigorously accurate and doing the work necessary to get there. Look, I have no problem with you disagreeing with Avakian, or deciding that you don't think what he's doing is significant. But the page isn't aimed at telling readers about your views, it's for people to learn about Avakian and his views.

As for the criticism about dialectical materialism, I don't think you got the point of the statement. It is from a paragraph talking about Avakian's criticisms of what he sees as "mechanical" as opposed to "dialectical" materialism, and specifically notes that dialectical materialism is integral to the science of Marxism generally. Avakian has never claimed to have invented dialectical materialism – any careful reading of a whole range of his philosophical writings (including the one cited in that paragraph, for example) discuss the role of Marx and Engels in first establishing a scientific understanding of a dialectical materialist approach to the world and how Avakian has sought to build on that and consistently apply it to his analysis of the world around us. Again, criticisms of the page are fine, but you should strive to be accurate in what is actually said, not what you claim is said.

Drmies, you haven't even bothered to comment on the Talk page before doing a wholesale reversion. I laid out a series of very specific criticisms of the prior edit (the one you restored) and how I feel it goes directly against the very stated purpose of Wikipedia to provide accurate, knowledgeable information to readers. You should at least address those criticisms. EnRealidad (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting a long wall of text and reverting hours of work by several other editors is not acceptable procedure on WP. When I arrived at this article some weeks ago it was in gross violation of several WP policies. It has now been brought into compliance by me and several other editors. You are the sole editor who has issues with the current state of the article. If you have concerns with a specific sentence or source please make a dedicated thread so it can be improved through discussion and group consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)