Talk:International Communist Party

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Italy

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Page Nov 2024

The updated edit features cited sources as references and aims to include more sources than just one page to match wikipedia's way of doing things. It provides material on the origin, history and positions of the party, which is important to have and was lacking in the previous version of the page, which kept shrinking in size instead of getting better --Yameezy 17:42, 16 November 2024( UTC)

Untitled

Isn't it a bit odd that the subject of the article isn't even mentioned in the history until the last third of the text? the bulk of the text in ought to be pov-checked and moved to other parts, like articles on psi, bordiga, etc.. --Soman 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather ctreat a new page Italian Left Communism?Harrypotter 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, this page needs a lot of work. It's written from a memember or participant's perspective ("there began a phase of our history best described as heroic"). I also think it was copied and pasted, more or less, from some party page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.94.184 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely this page is not written from a neutral point of view and has no citations whatsoever, the article needs a change of focus an citation from different sources.

--emilio juanatey^(talk) 09:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mess

This page, the page on Bordiga, and the page on the Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista)' are all a mess. There is material on this page that more rightly belongs in the histories of the Italian Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Italy and the Internationalist Communist Party. I propose to start working on cleaning all of them up. Markaeologist (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Markaeologist. This whole article looks like it was an attempt to appropriate most of the history of the Internationalist Communist Party by the International Communist Party. The vast majority of this article's content looks like it would belong better in the Battaglia Comunista page. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely POV and stupid article that has seemingly been up for a decade

"soon took a leading position in labor struggles. "

"With a background tragically highlighted by the failure to oppose the war when most Socialist parties voted war credits and solidified with their respective national bourgeoisie"

"The ICP remains resolutely against the participation in the parliamentary elections, rejecting the idealist and utopian outlook which makes social transformation dependent on a circle of ”elected“ apostles and heroes."

" The International Communist Party denounces and defends combating the Stalinists as revisionists and opportunists just as it has always condemned all forms of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. Oral and written propaganda are seen as an important party action. The cult of the individual is rejected as a very dangerous aspect of opportunism which should be fought, while the Party retains complete autonomy from all other political groups, parties, formations and fronts."

You get the point, this is literally just propaganda, you cannot even make the case that this is non-biased, wikipedia is not in the business of accusing people of revisionism and opportunism and "condemning bourgeois influence". This is not a wikipedia article so much as a mirror of this party's personal website. PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem of this article is that some passages are ispis verbis copies of the book "The Bordigist Current", by Philippe Bourrinet--MiguelMadeira (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bordigist here

Yeah, this page is an embarrasment to someone who agrees with the party. I agree with most of the critiques. I do have access to 3rd party histories. How do I/we go about re-inventing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.27.247 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Sorry thought I was signed on. I'm Organic Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organic Party (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Organic Party:, I proposed a merge with bordigism; perhaps you could take a look?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Splits

Due to the split in the organization known for publishing "Il Partito Comunista", there has recently been a minor back-and-forth in the links to "websites". For the sake of following Wikipedia's typical guidelines on neutrality, I strongly suggest that from now on, the Website section should include all those organizations claiming to be the International Communist Party.

It might also be good to remove some unsourced claims about the reasons behind each split, given that most seem to be based on hearsay. Since most of these split orgs have released "official" statements about the causes for each schism (e.g. On the Same Road as Always (2024) from intcp.org), we might want to include these for information, without getting too bogged down in the organization. In general, we should include more references to the party/parties' actual "doctrines". Ashcom7 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, someone just deleted all the site links except for `international-communist-party.org` again. This is likely edit-warring behavior, given that both "BordigaMan" and this new account have quickly deleted their accounts upon making this singular edit. I'm not sure what should be done in this case, but I'll just leave the link as it is right now to avoid engaging any further. Ashcom7 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it looks like I'm mistaken and just didn't understand how Wikipedia works. Neither of the people have deleted their accounts. Ashcom7 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcom7, I don't blame ya as this stuff can be pretty confusing. What boggles me is how this article has survived for so long on Wikipedia even with its plethora of issues, whereas better quality articles like this one are being blocked. I could be wrong, but as far as I understand these are somewhat rival parties? This makes me think that there is potentially some agenda at play behind these decisions... Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think either article should be deleted and both could just use plenty of work instead, but the draft (though far from perfect) is noticeably more encyclopedic than this article. And yet things remain the way they have been for some time. --Pitsarotta (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's be real, the ICP/IntCP is a pretty damn obscure organization - most of the people looking up the article are going to have some vested political interest in what is said here. This includes myself, but I still think it would be totally inappropriate for the article to take a "side" in the innumerable splits (at least 5) that came out of "Programma Comunista" in the 70s-80s.

To be frank: "Il Partito" organization has historically had more English speaking members, and so this is why the article ended up this way. But if "Programma" or "Le Prolétaire" had more English members, it suffices to say they wouldn't have tolerated this. So I think that with the "Il Partito" split, really the only reasonable option is to just avoid taking a side in any split stuff whatsoever, and mainly describe the actions/theses of the party as it was formed from 1950-73 (when it existed without any major controversies). Ashcom7 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcom7, that sounds reasonable to me, but to be honest I don't know enough about any of these to really contribute here. I did some work on the CWO article a while back as it was easier to find English-language sources about that one, but that is more difficult for some of the others. I think folks who speak Italian and/or have more knowledge about these organisations would be able to help out more. In any case, good luck with any future work here, as this can be really interesting (if confusing at times) and it would be nice to have more coverage of the communist left on Wikipedia. Especially if it's done in an encyclopedic manner, which is sadly not the case for many articles about the smaller parties here. --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]