Talk:Communist Party of Australia

message: The picture showing members of the Communist Party of Australia was taken in 2007. But these are members of the new Communist Party. This article is about the old CPA. The picture taken in May 2007 should be in the article about the new CPA. --58.104.246.168 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is for the Communist Party, new and old, in Australia. Image is relevant. Timeshift (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone so adament about keeping the new and old pages seperate, they don't seem too interested in moving the image to the new CPA page, simply removing it from the old one. So much for wanting to improve wikipedia eh. Timeshift (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in the wrong Communist Party article.  

message: I have added an intro and put what was acting as an intro into the history where it belongs.
I have changed the following comment:
:Against these achievements must be set the party's long history as an apologist for Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union. It was revulsion against this which led most of the party's best members to leave sooner or later.
1. Because it isn't neutral.
2. Because it is counterfactual.
:(a) Stalin was condemned in 1956.
:(b) The members didn't suddenly discover the party's 'long history' and leave.
I hope these edits are considered reasonable.--Jack Upland 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a lot of members left in 1956, but that doesn't fit the original statement.--Jack Upland 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Edits 

message: The comments at the end of the article violate the Wikipedia policies on NPOV and verifiability.  In particular:
"But the party never succeeded in persuading many people that Communism was the answer to these problems." -
This statement implies that the CPA was trying to persuade people that Communism was the answer to issues of civil rights, etc.  I doubt that this is the case, and it is not supported by any source that I know of.
"Against these achievements must be set the party's long history as an apologist for the Soviet Union." -
The word "apologist" is highly pejorative, and has no place in an encyclopedia article.  For example, the article on the Liberal Party does not describe them as an apologist for the United States.  In addition, the CPA appears to have been critical of the Soviet Union starting in 1968 (23 years before its dissolution).  It would be reasonable to state that the CPA long supported the Soviet Union, but this would be misleading without mentioning that the party was later critical of the Soviet Union.
"Disenchantment with the Soviet Union led most of the party's members to leave over time." -
There were many factors leading to declining membership, and some people even left due to the CPA's criticism of the Soviet Union.  Although it is likely that disenchantment with the Soviet Union was the primary cause, this statement should be more specific and supported by a source.
Giving positive and negative POV is different to NPOV.  The article should present facts without passing moral judgement.  On its own, listing the issues that the CPA campaigned on is not POV, because it does not pass moral judgement on whether these were good or bad (although the wording does tend to present these campaigns as positive).  However, using the wording "Against these achievements must be set" turns the paragraph into an argument on the merits of the CPA, with the campaigns presented as something positive and support for the Soviet Union presented as something negative.
	If this material is included, it should be given in a separate paragraph and give a factual account of the CPA's history of support and criticism of the Soviet Union. --rinlojm 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: From its annual convention in 1908, the Industrial Workers of the World were constitutionally prohibited from joining in an alliance with any political party. The 1908 IWW Constitution states,
Political Parties and Discipline.
"Whereas, The primary object of the Industrial Workers of the World is to unite the workers on the industrial battlefield; and
"Whereas, Organization, in any sense, implies discipline through the subordination of parts to the whole, and of the individual member to the body of which he is a part; therefore be it
"Resolved, That to the end of promoting industrial unity and of securing necessary discipline within the organization, the I. W. W. refuses all alliances, direct or indirect, with existing political parties or anti-political sects, and disclaims responsibility for any individual opinion or act which may be at variance with the purposes herein expressed." (emphasis added)
http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/constitution/1908const.html
This language has never been absent from the IWW constitution since 1908. So either the history of the IWW's role recorded here is somehow erroneous, or perhaps the Australian IWW (possibly because they had been declared illegal) considered that there was some special circumstance that would make it permissible for them to violate this clause. Please be aware that there was a major dispute with the Socialist Labor Party that continued from 1908 at least through 1915, and the SLP went so far as to set up a rival IWW. That memory would have been very fresh, even in Australia, i expect.
I don't know the history of the Australian IWW very well. I don't know, for example, if they somehow considered themselves autonomous, and therefore not bound by the constitution. (Or did they have a constitution of their own? I've never heard of that...) It would be great to have this article reflect, even briefly, the IWW's true historical role in this regard. thanks, Richard Myers 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IWW and the Communist Party-- something's either wrong or missing here 

message: Currently Communist Party of Australia redirects here so is there any need for a disambiguation tag? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Communist Party of Australia]]? 

message: I'd like to suggest that this party gets moved to the "Communist Party of Australia (historical)" and the "Communist Party of Australia" page becomes a disambiguation page. There's a surprising amount of mixups where people think the current party is the same as the old party. The naming scheme used is (very ironically now that I look at it) inspired by Democratic Labor Party (historical). Catiline52 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. It is inherently confusing as it is. There is also a disambiguation page for the Socialist Party of Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support -- makes sense. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The current CPA is actually a continuation of the Socialist Party of Australia, which was founded in 1971. It is not "post-1991" or "new". While small, the SPA attracted historically significant figures such as Pat Clancy, Freda Brown, and Judah Waten. And of course The Australian was obsessed with it because Lee Rhiannon was once a member. The existing article about the current CPA is woefully inadequate and misrepresents it.  We are not proposing to treat the parties on the same level. We are proposing that Wikipedia helps people tell the difference between the two. Making snide remarks about electoral performance is unhelpful to the task of building an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I think changing this article to "SPA" would be even more confusing. However, I would support redirecting "SPA" to here. This party is the one known as the "SPA". The Socialist Party (Militant) have never been called the "SPA", and the third party mentioned on the disambiguation page is a real, real non-entity.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. The redirect does seem to be a no-brainer. Frickeg (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I support this change over changing the more notable Communist Party page. I also agree that the current page for the SPA-CPA is lacking. However, what date should be used for the splinter party? The SPA was founded around 1971, but they weren't the CPA until 1996. Would Communist Party of Australia (1996) be more appropriate, as it differentiates it from the party which dissolved in 1991? Catiline52 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The SPA is more notable than the current CPA. I would prefer something like Communist Party of Australia (formerly Socialist Party).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move to "Communist Party of Australia (historical)" 

message: I have removed this from the "Legacy" section:
:The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens continue to have socialist wings as part of their parties in the 21st century.
There are factions of the ALP which call themselves socialist, but there always have been. I know there have been socialists in the Greens, but I'm not sure that there is a "socialist wing". In any case, how is this a legacy of the CPA?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist wings of ALP and Greens? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Australian Communist Party (2019) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Sorry my talk ended up on the wrong talk page, oops. Anyway I was changing the disambiguation box for clarification, otherwise it looks like there were two concurrent CPAs. Cheers. Locochoko (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: Despite WPs position in the article, the CPA still exists and this is their website: https://cpa.org.au/cpa-introduction/ 182.239.144.69 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That party's article is Communist Party of Australia (current).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks Jack. 14.2.202.183 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPA still exists