Talk:Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)

message: I dont know why there seems to be any doubt that "Jack Conrad" and "John bridge" are definately John Chamberlain. He worked for the post office as John Chamberlain, he was in the old YCL as John Chamberlain, and he was employed by the New Communist Party as John Chamberlain (so he must have had a NI number that correspoded to that name). I met him once many years ago, and he told me that his name was John Chamberlain then. If his name was not really John Chamberlain in his earlier incarnations, then something very sinister was going on - which I am not suggesting. I think the only reason for his mutiple names is the man's great vanity.
:Three names per member makes the organisation look bigger, as someone has pointed out on Weekly Worker. --Duncan 13:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Gregory Chamberlain 

message: Category:Pedophile organizations states that an organization is a pedophile organization if it advocates removing inhibitions against adult-child sex.  Removal of age-of-consent laws constitutes the removal of such inhibitions.  So, because the CPGB advocates the removal of all age-of-consent laws, per the source cited in a comment embedded with the added category, it is a Pedophile organization according to the criteria that Wikipedia lists.  If you have a problem with this, try to change the criteria to be listed in the category -- do not remove sourced material, as that is vandalism.  Regards, Corax 11:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of "sourced" material is not vandalism, per se.  There are legitimate concerns about the applicability of the category.  The poster's special pleading that the link not be erased indicates that he/she is aware of the incendiary nature of the categorization.  So let's be very careful about this.  Since the source is the website of the organization itself, we need to decide what the cited language means.  Does it make any difference if the organization in question does not campaign on this issue, for example?  Does it make an difference if the organization in question is endorsing contrarian POV rather than a genuine issue in the topic? Would it make any difference if the organization will speak on the issue publicly, and if so, does the context in which the issue is discussed make any difference to the categorization (i.e. if the issue is raised as part of a discussion of State control versus a discussion of pedophilia per se)? I will post the language in question from the website of the CPGB (PCC) below and the editors of this page and whoever else can comment. DJ Silverfish 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophile organization

message: I've removed "Trotskyist" from the description.  The group does not call itself Trotskyist, has criticisms of Trotsky and Trotskyism, and is not seen by Trotskyist groups as being Trotskyist.  Leninist is the appropriate description. Warofdreams talk 01:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, "Left Shachmanism" is wrong in even more ways.  Nobody (except you) describes the group as adhering to "Left Shachtmanism" (see  and ).  The article you claim as a source for this is a signed article, in which a prominent member of the party writes "There is in my opinion much to recommend in Shachtman".  This is not a sufficient reference for your claim.  If you are interested in writing about the political orientation of the group, a well referenced section on its political influences and description might be of interest. However, even if you were to succeed in demonstrating that the party's ideology were identical to left Shachtmanism, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.  Adding random terms to the infobox is decidedly unhelpful. Warofdreams talk 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Description

message: Was this the Communist organisation who released a statement in January 2004 showing support for Michael Howard's "I Believe" statement of 2 January that year? Lstanley1979 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Howard?

message: As that campaign received no mainstream coverage and only a little coverage in the pages of the Weekly Worker and other left-wing party publications, and as it was dominated by the CPGB (PCC), I suggest that Campaign for a Marxist Party be merged to this article. Fences&Windows 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan; it was primarily a CPGB initiative and didn't generate enough attention to merit its own article. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it -- it was a failed Weekly Worker group initiative that made no traction. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: it was an initiative of the Critique Group and the Democratic Socialist Alliance which the CPGB somewhat reluctantly supported - both in the sense of endorsed, and in the sense of propped up. Nonetheless, it belongs here as much as anywhere, and certainly isn't remotely notable in itself... Commander deathguts (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Merge done. Fences&Windows 19:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of Campaign for a Marxist Party

message: I am a member of this organisation of several years (James Turley, if anyone cares), and I can assure you that the name CPGB (PCC) is used exclusively by wikipedia, and by people whose sole knowledge of us comes from wikipedia (the PCC is our leadership, not our organisation). The Alliance for Workers Liberty calls us the "weekly worker group" (eg: ), and everyone else is happy with CPGB. I would suggest as a longer term project merging the CPGB (PCC) and Weekly Worker pages into one called Communist Party of Great Britain (Weekly Worker). There is certainly no reason for both to exist separately, and the new name would reflect better the fact that it is the Weekly Worker which is primarily 'notable' about our organisation, not the name of our leading committee... Commander deathguts (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name, and other affairs

message: I removed the paragraph relating to the abolition of the age of consent as it was uncited and controversial, especially in light of the recent PIE related accusations in the press and the current general paedophilia related media obsession.. --wintonian talk 23:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of consent (again) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001082846/http://www.cpgb.org.uk:80/worker/738/leftdoesnt.html to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/738/leftdoesnt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090728203130/http://www.hopoi.org:80/committee.html to http://www.hopoi.org/committee.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120321175539/http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/ to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927051914/http://www.sademocracy.org.uk/Defeat%20the%20hijackers.htm to http://www.sademocracy.org.uk/Defeat%20the%20hijackers.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. Faulty link (https://web.archive.org/web/20110927051914/http://www.sademocracy.org.uk/Defeat%20the%20hijackers.htm) was replaced with better archived link from same service (see these edits). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005141222/http://www.marxistparty.org/MVoice/MarxistVoicev2i1.pdf to http://www.marxistparty.org/MVoice/MarxistVoicev2i1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). 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/20110608062255/http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002486 to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002486
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). 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/20140622191722/http://communistplatform.org.uk/?page_id=16 to http://communistplatform.org.uk/?page_id=16
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified