Talk:Communist Party of Great Britain

message: I don't have time right now, but I do feel there should be a reference to the Zinoviev letter, a fraud which showed in 1924 how frightened both the conservatives and their electorate were of the communist party. Johncmullen1960 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zinoviev letter 

message: I'm not sure how you edit references, but this page definately needs to be updated with historiographical material, especially regarding the CPGB's reaction to the war. See for example 'The British Communist Party and Moscow, 1920-43' by Andrew Thorpe (Manchester University Press, 2000), and 'About Turn, The Communist Party and the Outbreak of the Second World War' by Francis King and George Matthews (eds.) (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1990).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.217.84 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure on how to edit references... 

message: Isn't there any symbol/logo that can be used for the infobox? something that could be cropped from a pamphlet or poster? --Soman (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this, did the CPGB ever adopt an official logo at all? Extua (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: I have always understood that he only stepped down as general secretary and remained on the CC. Can anyone reference this?
Borewatch (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollitt's resignation 

message: "At the 1975 Congress, Dave Purdy proposed that Dave Purdy put the motion"
Does this reflect some arcane standing order or is it a typo? BTLizard (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975 Congress 

message: This article is built around a really unsatisfactory periodization, clumping decades together rather than defining historical periods. In my view the rational way to divide this would be as follows:
: ===Organizational History===
: 1. Forerunners and formation (1920)
: 2. Early years (1921-1928)
: 3. The depression decade (1929-1939) -- from "Class Against Class" up to the Soviet-German pact of 1939.
: 4. The war years (1939-1945)
: 5. The cold war period (1946-1956) -- from the end of WWII to the Secret Speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
: 6. After the thaw (1957-1976)
: 7. The final years (1977-1991) 
I'd tear out the old structure and put in the new one with appropriate segues myself, but I figure it would be reverted in about 15 seconds unless there was some sort of discussion and agreement on the matter. So here's your chance. 
I'm a 1920s guy myself, and once things get broken up correctly, it becomes pretty simple to add further divisions (Raid on Party Headquarters, Campbell Case, Zinoviev Letter, Arcos Affair) with pointers to main articles. But first there really needs to be a sledgehammer taken to the old decade-based framework, in my opinion. Comments?  —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR (USA) Carrite (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that would be a much more sensible way to arrange the article. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree that would be a better periodisation (although I'm not sure about describing only 1946-56 as the cold war - perhaps the "start of the cold war" or "early cold war" would be better). Warofdreams talk 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Early Cold War Period" is fine by me. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Really Terrible Periodization

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Communist Party of Great Britain. 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/20081024143757/http://www.euroleft.org.uk:80/ to http://www.euroleft.org.uk
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) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed the term "Stalinism" from the ideology section for a few reasons;
*(1) the term Stalinism is a hoax, it exists only as an epithet used by Trotskyists and imperialists. It is derogatory.
*(2) the CPGB towed the Revisionist line of Khrushchev including his attacks on Stalin
*(3) eventually it degenerated so much that it became Eurocommunist and then social democrat.
Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stalinism" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of Great Britain. 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/20071012083616/http://mail.phm.org.uk/archive.htm to http://mail.phm.org.uk/archive.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.euroleft.org.uk/
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) 12:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Denis Healey is listed as a member. That is not mentioned in his article, and he doesn't seem an obvious candidate for having been a member in his youth. Is his membership verifiable? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Healey did a TV interview on BBC Newsnight (Tuesday, 28 Aug 2007) in which his early involvement with the Communist Party is mentioned. Extua (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a mistake while editing the "notable members" section and now the "citation needed" tag has moved and I don't know how to fix it. I also happen to be familiar with Healey and I know he worked for the Information Research Department, a secret government propaganda department built to spread anti-communist propaganda. BulgeUwU (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the tag back to be against Healey. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: Evan Smith discusses the term tankie in this blog post
https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2020/01/27/tankie-the-origins-of-an-epithet/ Extua (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In the six years since the AfD discussion about "tankie" as its own article, the term has gained increasing currency in American political discourse, in which context it is decisively not a specific reference to the CPGB. Seems like it might be up for re-discussion? Krinndnz (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tankie was restored as its own article about a month after this comment. Removing the AfD merge notice from the top of this page in a moment. Amedee123 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tankie 

message: This obviously highly partisan work is cited multiple times. Might I suggest that better sources might be found? Also the Jersey Democratic Movement's politics should be clearly separated for those of its founders - it was not a Communist organisation, but an organisation that had Communist members. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism" 

message: The article is clearly highly biased in favour of the CPGB - notice how when the lede talks about WWII it doesn't talk about how they opposed the war due to the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact, and how it refers to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia as an "intervention". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're tagging an entire article for two points, rather than making edits and seeing what develops from that? The WWII stuff is in the main text of the article, the discussion then comes down to what should be in the lede. Possibly a brief summary would fit, but it was a position that didn't last very long. The article on Hungary (not Czechoslovakia, not mentioned in the lede as the big exodus of members was after Hungary) also calls it an intervention. So I'd suggest starting at the talk page there and bringing any consensus for a change back here. On the whole though, I think you are confusing your point of view with a neutral one, and there is enough factual information in the article as it stands for readers to draw their own conclusions. Amedee123 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed the Czechoslovakia link in the main article text to invaded to reflect the wording of the article it links to. Will look at the lede wording next and then remove the tag. Please don't restore it unless you can list a lot of issues that need dealing with here. Either tag or edit individual issues as you find them, tagging the article in general is not helpful. Amedee123 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article may need an update in relation to the recent Ukraine invasion and the group's position.  —PaleoNeonate – 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're thinking of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist). Yue🌙 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I'll suggest the update there instead.  Sorry for the confusion, —PaleoNeonate – 06:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent pro-Russia propaganda 

message: Asked some people, and they don't remember the CPGB ever using this logo. Also doubt it's correct as the font used is 'Code New Roman' which was released in 2014... Endim8 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong logo?