Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War

Naxalites vs. PWG

What's the relation between Naxalites and the Peoples War Group?—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

PWG falls under the naxalite banner. Naxalite is a loose grouping of those following a similiar ideology. Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

merge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Maoist%29 Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, these are not identical. CPI(Maoist) was formed through the merger of PWG and MCC. --Soman (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That;s true, but there is some overlap in content. Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to start cleanup of the article. The two should not overlap, they are clearly notable in their own right both of them. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

This article was tagged for copyright evaluation on January 20th. Investigation shows that on July 2008, content was placed in this article which duplicated the previously published [1]. Text was also copied into the article at that time from [2]. The current version of the article seems to be therefor an unauthorized derivative work of those sources. One is explicitly protected by copyright; in the absence of verifiable evidence otherwise, the other is presumptively copyrighted as well.

The article will need to be completely rewritten or reverted back to the last clean version, here. I'm resetting the clock on the investigation because the contributor of this text, who may be able to offer evidence of permission or otherwise clarify these concerns, was not notified. The article will be revisited in a week to see if permission has been provided or the article rewritten in the temporary space now linked from the article's face. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per WP:COMMONNAME. Both editors appear to agree that the group is better known as the people's war group and per the commonname policy, that's where the article should be. --rgpk (comment) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War → People's War Group —

• The most common name for this group is People's War Group However for some reason it is a redirect to the current name, which is ridiculously overlong and convulated. Tentontunic (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, CPI(ML)PW is the correct name, PWG its nickname. CPI(ML)PW clarifies the linkage to the original CPI(ML). --Soman (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Communist Party of India Marxist Leninist People's War 19 results People's War Group 2,180 Per WP:COMMONNAME it ought to be changed, never mind just common sense. Tentontunic (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• CPI(ML)PW was the actual name of the party, "PWG" the name ascribed to it by media. There is a point in using the actual name, which is less mystified that the nickname and gives a better idea of what type of organization we are talking about. In any case PWG name is clearly mentioned in the intro of the article. --Soman (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referencing

"Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa" doesn't really provide any solid information on the party, it just has a sweeping mention. Reading through the rest of pages 131-132, it shows that the authors have a very superficial understanding about the development of the communist movement in South Asia. The authors says that PWG was a Nepalese organization (not Indian), which goes to show that they know nothing about it.

There is no lack of potentially proper references on the subject. "The Naxalite movement in India" by Prakash Singh (a former police commander) is a good start, which I recall dealt with CPI(ML)PW in some detail. http://cpim.org/marxist/198501_marxist_naxalism_Prakash.htm gives background for the early stages --Soman (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I really can`t see the communist party of india being a good source for this article. Terrorism, Instability, and Democracy in Asia and Africa is printed by an academic press and is highly reliable. We can also use Resources, governance and civil conflict By Magnus Öberg which is published by Psychology Press, see p77. Tentontunic (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Terrorism, Instability, and Democracy in Asia and Africa says that PWG was a faction of the Nepal Communist Party and that they initiated a "civil war" in 1996. That is absolutely bogus, they can't differentiate between Indian CPI(ML)PW and CPN(Maoist).

Karat's article is certainly not impartial (and very negative towards the naxals), but does present a rare and systematic survey of the movement at that juncture of its history.

Öberg is ok by me to use as a source, regarding the 2004 Hyderabad rally, roots in Telangana movement, resurgence in Srikakulam in 2002, vaciliating positions of AP government and tactic of mobilizing Adivasis. But it provides little detailed background on the party in particular. Also note usage of name CPI(ML)PWG on pages 77 and 97. --Soman (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also note "People's War Group" on pp 77, 84, 86, 97, 290. Per WP:COMMONNAME again you see. Tentontunic (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you missed the fact that it was I who wrote "usually called People's War Group (PWG)" in the very first version of this article? --Soman (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Revolutionary and dissident movements of the world by Bogdan Szajkowski, 2004, p. 161, states that CPI(ML)PW is the official name, PWG is the common name, that the party was founded on April 22, 1980 and that Muppala Lakshmana Rao was its general secretary (after KS one assumes). --Soman (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I had not looked that far back, but now I have I am curious as to why it has taken you so long to actually add references to this article? Since 2004 it has been unsourced. And now you have the gall to complain about sources and offer up communist party ones? Wow. Tentontunic (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Around 2004-2005 (when Wikipedia was still largely undeveloped and follow-up on policies much more laxed than now) I didn't generally add references to articles I created. To reference all those article is a pretty big backlog, and not something easily done. I occasionally come across such cases and add references. I appreciate when other editors chip in and find references, and I'm happy to help out when other editors find interest in improving old articles I started. However, a bad or outright fault reference (in this case a book that cannot differentiate between India and Nepal) is worse than no reference, and should be removed. As you can see from this talk page I have commented on the different sources you provide, and already begun adding other ones. --Soman (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please drop your issue with the source, were exactly is Jehanabad? You know, the place were this group formed? Right next to Nepal, were they have operated in and carried out attacks. The source is fine. Tentontunic (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CPI(ML)PW was not formed in Jehanabad. In fact it was quite weak in Bihar for a long time, the party established itself in the region first with the merger with CPI(ML)Party Unity. Cox et al simply confused CPI(ML)PW and CPN(Maoist). --Soman (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As per the book edited by P.V. Ramana, do note that it is a product of ORF, a Sangh Parivar-linked think-tank. That doesn't automatically discredit its usage as a reference, but it is equally politically partisan as Karat's article. --Soman (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And as per the naming issues in P.V. Ramana (ed.) authors of different chapters use either CPI(ML)PW and PWG. The index page in the beginning lists solely CPI(ML)PW, though. --Soman (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, WP:COMMONNAME I am unsure why you do not wish to use the most widly used term for this group. Ramana was printed by Pearson Education, a reputable publisher. Tentontunic (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Reputable" and "partisan" are not mutually exclusive. My main problem is not the article name, but the deletion of the formal name (CPI(ML)PW). WP:COMMONNAME is a guideline, but there are plenty of cases in Wikipedia were it isn't applied mechanically. I prefer CPI(ML)PW, for accuracy. My view is that both names have to be mentioned to decrease confusion over the identity of the organization. Also, a case of just this sort of confusion can be found in page 16 of Ramana, where it is assumed CPI(ML)PW and PWG are two different entities (a move that seriously undermines the accuracy of the work). --Soman (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The name of this page should be changed to Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People's War. Many other political parties are very rarely referred to using their full names. For example, The INC and AIFB are commonly called Congress and Forward Bloc respectively. More frequent mention of the CPI(ML)PW referred to as the People's War Group is found in newspapers because the press always does not address Maoist groups formally. Some vernacular newspapers go to the extent of referring Maoists as "Maos". But these are not enough reason to replace the formal name of a political party with its "common name", specially when that common name gives little or no trace of the party's history or ideology to the average reader. Srijon (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)