Talk:Bob Avakian

message: Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased. 
My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.
Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming. 
Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already been answered.  A million times.  Wikipedia is not a Bob Avakian soapbox.  The article needs to be NPOV.  NEEDS SECONDARY SOURCES. Your self-proclaimed expertise is not enough to insure the 'objectivity' and accuracy of the article.  Hence the need for SECONDARY SOURCES.   --xcuref1endx (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This has all been discussed in the sections above. Wikipedia does not host hagiographies. A Wikipedia biography is not the place to summarize the subject's ideology and writings, cited to their own work. We rely primarily on independent reliable sources and what they say about the topic. In my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how biographies of living people ought to be written. Start slowly, step by step, correcting the factual errors, citing each change to reliable independent sources. Such edits in compliance with policy and guidelines will gain consensus. Improve the article gradually, gaining consensus for each change. Do not add any material against consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point the objections and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT posts on user's talk pages are becoming disruptive. I've left a note to that effect on the user's talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  14:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Please respond to the criticisms

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bob Avakian. 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/20050210042256/http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs02052005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs02052005.html
*Added  tag to http://kasamaproject.org/so-what-is-kasama
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) 11:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are the two related? Quis separabit? 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: RE [[Brad Avakian]]

message: Hi all. Going through the change log I noticed a very very large growth to the bibliography section of this page on the part of one user, who has also been mostly focused on editing Revcom-associated articles in an often positively-biased tone. It’s current length is excessive and reads like an advertisement. Another user attempted to delete all of the bibliography, which was immediately reverted by a bot. What’s a good middle ground we can find here? 2601:800:4002:85E0:91F9:D435:AC40:61D7 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I split the bibliography off into Works of Bob Avakian. Of course, that page still needs trimming. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography length