Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

Communism and Marxism-Leninism itself represents socialism and anti-capitalism. No need to specify it seperately here. It doesn't make sense. Even the sources are copied here. In the sources nowhere it's written specifically about anti-capitalism. So, please remove it. It's written nowhere in the sources. @XYZ 250706 @Soman @Helper201 Commie Eagle (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources mention it is anti-capitalist, also specifying is needed as it is under the Ideology section, literally telling what their ideology is. Bunnypranav (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Founder Section

Communist Party of India (Marxist) wasn't only founded by P. Sundarayya and E. M. S. Namboodiripad. Communist Party of India (Marxist) was founded by P. Sundarayya, E.M.S Namboodiripad, B.T. Ranadive, P. Ramamurthi, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, Muzaffar Ahmed, Achintya Bhattacharyya, N.L. Upadhyaya, M. Basavapunniah, A.K. Gopalan, S.Y. Kolhatkar, M.R. Venkataraman, Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri, Jyoti Basu, S.S. Srivastava, Banamali Das, M. Hanumantha Rao, E.K. Nayanar, S.V. Parulekar, Balsubramanian, Promode Dasgupta, Dinkar Mehta, Shankar Dayal Tewari, N. Prasad Rao, V. S. Achuthanandan, N. Sankariah, Hare Krishna Konar, R.P. Saraf, Shiv Kumar Mishra. Privetwik (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

ommunist Party of India (Marxist) wasn't only founded by P. Sundarayya and E. M. S. Namboodiripad. Communist Party of India (Marxist) was founded by P. Sundarayya, E.M.S Namboodiripad, B.T. Ranadive, P. Ramamurthi, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, Muzaffar Ahmed, Achintya Bhattacharyya, N.L. Upadhyaya, M. Basavapunniah, A.K. Gopalan, S.Y. Kolhatkar, M.R. Venkataraman, Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri, Jyoti Basu, S.S. Srivastava, Banamali Das, M. Hanumantha Rao, E.K. Nayanar, S.V. Parulekar, Balsubramanian, Promode Dasgupta, Dinkar Mehta, Shankar Dayal Tewari, N. Prasad Rao, V. S. Achuthanandan, N. Sankariah, Hare Krishna Konar, R.P. Saraf, Shiv Kumar Mishra. Privetwik (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

According to the official party website (cpim.org) at the leadership section he's still elected so it's not technically "vacant" so this a correction. Depotadore (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The website is not updated I think. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

2025

@EarthDude@Vif12vf@Silverdragon3002@JimmyJohnJ@MrMkG and others, for someweeks and even from some months before, there are edit warring and debates regarding the ideologies of CPI(M). Let's have a discussion here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment : Some months before, communism, Marxism-Leninism, socialism and anti-capitalism were added as CPIM ideologies. But there were edit warring regarding that and some editor possibly removed it without consensus. says that CPIM believes in Marxism-Leninism, secularism, socialism and democracy. Here it is to be noted that the similar source is also used to cite Indian National Congress's political position. Democracy and socialism together form democratic socialism. CPIM official website mentions this. The source from NCERT also writes : Accepts democratic elections as a useful and helpful means for securing the objective of socio-economic justice in India. Apart from the first source, was previously added to cite socialism ideology. along with the NCERT source justifies secularism as the ideology. and the first source proves the anti-imperialist nature. says about Anti-neoliberalism ideology of CPIM. The first source also writes this : Critical of the new economic policies that allow free flow of foreign capital and goods into the country. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you have pinged me. My only part in this was reverting a socking LTA, a few weeks ago. Though I'm confused by the latest edit by User:EarthDude. Edit summary says independent sources should be used and not just party's own words but the edit removes all independent sources and only leaves the party's constitution. XYZ's edit that was reverted by him is far more comprehensive in the use of sources though the first source (Bidyut Chakraborty's book) supports "Communism" broadly more than "Marxism-Leninism". So if you ask me I am in favor of your version with that change made. MrMkG (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually I pinged the editors having account (excluding administrators and sockpuppets) till the last 500 revisions in the article as edit warring and debates on ideology mainly happened in this range recently. I think ideologies can be taken from party programme if they make sense and are correct. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, which I think merits a study on its own, political party infoboxes across hundreds of articles turn into cesspools of speculation and guesstimates. Especially the fields 'ideology' and 'position'. I suggest, advocating for minimalist simplicity, that we put Marxism-Leninism as the sole entry in ideology of the infobox. It's better not to try to be exhaustive, the infobox should not try to capture every nuance about the party. --Soman (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think scholarly texts and sources are generally more reliable than news ones. I've replaced the constitution source with a much better one. EarthDude (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If we add the sources like the following, will that be helpful? Each have atleast one third party source along with party website source in some cases. More than one political ideologies are added in almost all of Indian political parties in Wikipedia.

• Marxism–Leninism
• Democratic socialism / Socialism (one of them based on discussion)
• Secularism
• Anti-neoliberalism
• Anti-imperialism
• Environmentalism

XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Can you please mention the page in the recently added source by you where ideology of CPIM is written? XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In the first source, they discuss of CPI(M) communism beginning in page 270, and in the second source, it is roughly 182-185 EarthDude (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, Marxism-Leninism and Democratic Socialism are COMPLETELY different things and their simulataneous inclusion would be really contradictory and non sensical. Itd be like calling a party liberal and fascist at the same time. Also, NCERT is not a reliable source. Furthermore, youve included a lot of news sources here which is generally not reliable when looking at party ideologies. Wikipedia generally prefers scholarly sources here. Also, primary sources, and direct party words are not reliable either. EarthDude (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, democratic socialism means socialism through democratic means having multi-party democracy. According to the party website, CPIM wants to apply Marxism-Leninism according to Indian conditions (India is a democratic country) and it believes in democracy. So that may not be contradictory. Marxism-Leninism and democratic socialism differ on the policy where the state should be based on one party system or multi party system. If there is still an debate, democratic socialism can be replaced by socialism. NCERT source is added in Indian National Congress and NCERT books are written by professors of different colleges and universities in India and hence can be regarded as reliable. Besides I have added only 2 news media sources and only in secularism point and hence those are not a LOT of new sources. Besides in many cases news media sources are added to cite ideologies.XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please XYZ, you can't invent definitions yourself. The ref you gave above, with the quote " The establishment of a people’s democratic government, the successful carrying out of these tasks and the leadership of the working class in the people’s democratic State will ensure that the Indian revolution will not stop at the democratic stage but will pass over to the stage of effecting socialist transformation by developing the productive forces" is fully coherent with Marxism-Leninism. And definitely not coherent with any contemporary notions of democratic socialism. See People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism). --Soman (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Soman According to Wikipedia, Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a democratic political system of government. So I have not invented my definition. If there is problem with this, I will readily welcome the idea of adding socialism replacing democratic socialism. So the sourcing after discussion till now may look like this :

• Marxism–Leninism (may be added as People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism) as clarified by User:Soman)
• Socialism
• Secularism
• Anti-neoliberalism
• Anti-imperialism
• Environmentalism XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, you seem to be confused among a lot of these terms. Democratic socialism (usually) is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned in an economically democratic system, but there are lots of variations and nuances here. Marxism-Leninism on the other hand is when such means are owned by the state in a centrally planned economy, usually governed by a vanguard political party who pledges to be the voice of the working class, in an effort to transition to communism (a proposed stateless, classless, moneyless system). However historically, they have led into a one-party autocratic regime. CPI(M) is Marxist-Leninist, and the party program you gave, reinforces this too. After a lot of searching, I haven't found any reliable scholarly sources calling it democratic socialist. Adding democratic socialism makes no sense. Also, since they're already communist, adding socialism, anti-neoliberalism, and anti-imperialism is redundant. As for secularism and environmentalism, the sourcing you have provided is weak. EarthDude (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  The argument over democratic socialism and socialism was already over. There is nothing about being redundant as articles like French Communist Party also contains communism and socialism together as they are sourced. https:/www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/places-of-worship-act-crucial-to-maintain-communal-harmony-cpim-seeks-to-intervene-in-supreme-court-plea-against-1991-act-277775 can be one more source. The source should be secondary and reliable. The source of environmentalism is also independent, reliable and scholarly review. User:MrMkG also opined not to remove citations from independent sources. Is one of the discussions above User:Bunnypranav also told one editor that specifying ideology is necessary. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  The source given for French Communist Party's socialism is weak, and I have flagged it as failed verification. The reason is that the citation is from PolitPro, which has three sources listed below: Two from wikipedia itself, and one from the party's own words. Thus, not reliable. The French Communist Party's ideological transformation across the decades is well known knowledge, which is why I only flagged it as failed verification rather than removing socialism entirely. CPI(M) has gone through no such well known transformation, and you continue to provide weak sources to back up your claims. Once again, primary sources, NCERT, and news sources are not reliable. Similarly, I hadnt noticed that NCERT was being used as a source in the INC article and I have thus removed it for being highly unreliable. The source for environmentalism which you gave is from Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), which has little to no peer review, has been criticized for predatory journalism (prioritizing profit over academic rigor), and is excluded from major databases like Scopus or Web of Science, which are used to assess the credibility of journals, and is thus also an unreliable source. EarthDude (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  What are you doing is some sort of original research on the source of the citation to some extent unnecessary and invalid and is bludgeoning the process. From where The French Communist Party's ideological transformation is arriving here? Discussion here is regarding ideology, not ideological transformation. Please let the other editors added their opinion here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  ......What????? How is this in any way original research? I simply stated that 1. I simply checked the citation for socialism in the French Communist Party's ideology section; and 2. I simply double checked JETIR, a journal I had never heard of before and had never seen before in any article as a ref. It is not present in Scopus or Web of Science. It is also not present in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) nor is it present in Scimago Journal Rank (SJR). However, it is indeed present in Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers. You get the point. This isnt original research. I simply looked up a journal, in a source you proposed for environmentalism, a journal i hadnt known of before and came across extremely concerning stuff. Verifying sources/citations is not original research. It is basic Wikipedia practice. EarthDude (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Once more pinging @Vif12vf@Silverdragon3002@JimmyJohnJ for more clearer consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am now summarising the discussion here. User:MrMkG is in favour of adding multiple ideologies with independent sources which according to him makes the article far more comprehensive. User:Soman opined to add only Marxism-Leninism as ideology although he didn't raise any objection in the discussion afterwards even after I wrote : More than one political ideologies are added in almost all of Indian political parties in Wikipedia. User:Soman also opposed the idea of adding Democratic socialism. User:EarthDude mainly raised concern about sourcing of the two ideologies : Secularism and Environmentalism because sources were from news media and NCERT and one predatory journal. User:EarthDude also told that adding socialism, anti-imperialism and anti-neoliberalism will be redundant.

Comment on the summary : Here I want to mention that there is nowhere written in Wikipedia rules that news media cannot be added to cite ideologies. NCERT can be regarded as reliable and independent sources because those books are prepared by professors of various colleges in India and questions from top exams in India like NEET UG, JEE Main and UPSC (which is considered the toughest exam in India) are largely based on NCERT books and framework of syllabus of JEE Advanced is mainly based on NCERT books.

User:Bunnypranav in one of the discussions above opined that the act of specifying ideologies is necessary. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree the way I'm being presented in the summary above. --Soman (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  A key quote by E. M. S. Namboodiripad on the CPI(M) ideological line: "... flag of Marxism-Leninism still flies high. The CPI (M) is only one of the contingents of the present-day international Communist movement which, though weakened by the betrayal of revisionists in the former socialist countries, still adhere to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. [...] The 14th Congress of the party firmly reiterated our commitment to the cardinal principles of Marxism-Leninism - the class struggle, militant alliance of the working class with the peasant masses and all other sections of the oppressed and exploited people, the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian internationalism, democratic centralism in the organizations of the party, etc. [...] The unity of Left forces and the predominant role of the theory of Marxism-Leninism form the nucleus around all other secular democratic forces are to be mobilized. [...] India's path to socialism as envisaged by the CPI (M) is thus clear and forthright. In contrast to other trends of 'socialism', the CPI (M) concept is proletarian socialism in which the working class, in firm alliance with the peasants and other sections of the working people, plays the leading role in bringing about social transformations. Hence our reiteration of Marxism-Leninism." --Soman (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Soman Sorry for misunderstanding of our point of view if there is any. EMS Namboodiripad's comment is not independent of the subject. If it is to be taken into consideration, the sources from the party website should also be taken into consideration. I will once again mention the view-points of other editors currently or previously engaged in ideological debates here. User:Bunnypranav in one of the discussions above opined that the act of specifying ideologies is necessary. User:MrMkG is in favour of adding multiple ideologies with independent sources which according to him makes the article far more comprehensive.XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I never said news media should absolutely not be added. I simply said that scholarly sources are more ideal. My main issue is that the quality of the sources you have provided to back your proposals is simply horrible. Also, NCERT, even if used for certain exams, is not a reliable source. A simple fact-checking of any of their books show a huge number of errors, biases, misrepresentations, etc. I will detail my issues here:
1: The sole source for environmentalism is from JETIR, a predatory, little known, and dubious journal
2: The only two sources for anti-imperialism are NCERT (unreliable) and the party's own constitution (also unreliable)
3: The only two sources for anti-neoliberalism are from EPW (which, while highly reputed, does have a left bias. This seems to be the only good source you have given, but to counter the bias, we should use another reputed source) and from NCERT, which is again unreliable.
4: There are three sources for secularism. The first, being from NCERT, is thus removed from the equation altogether. The other two being news sources. The first of such is a statement made by a former general secretary of the party. However, the ideologies section is for governance actions, not rhetoric. The second news source is from 2015, about CPI(M) plans for a secular coalition against the BJP. However, the proposed secular front never fully materialized and remained a simple proposal. Thus, this source shouldn't be counted either.
5: For socialism, you seem to have simply copied a source from Marxism-Leninism (Communism in India: Events, Processes and Ideologies, by Bidyut Chakrabarty; could you provide me the page number where CPI(M) is called socialist?), and the other two sources are from NCERT and the party's constitution, again, not reliable for Wikipedia.
Again, the quality of these sources is quite horrible. EarthDude (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude The citation of socialism from Bidyut Chakraborty book was cited previously (not by me). But one editor removed it without any explanation or discussion. A party proposing for a secular front can be considered as secular. Nevertheless I can give you two sources more : (https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/hinduism-and-the-left-searching-for-the-secular-in-post-communist) (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/places-of-worship-act-crucial-to-maintain-communal-harmony-cpim-seeks-to-intervene-in-supreme-court-plea-against-1991-act-277775). XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

A Source Assessment

I was asked by User:XYZ250706 to conduct a source assessment of the sources used to verify the ideologies of the CPI(M). I sometimes perform source assessments in connection with deletion discussions. This source assessment was slightly different, because I was assessing whether each source established the ideological association with which it was identified. For this purpose, the methodology differs in three ways from that used to test notability of an article. First, a source published by a political party is not independent and does not establish notability. However, it does establish the adherence of the party to an ideology. Second, at least two and preferably three sources are required to establish notability of a subject, but one significant reliable source is enough to establish adherence of a political party to an ideology. Third, the source is required to address the association of the party with the ideology, rather than only to discuss the party.

Source assessment

Number Reference Remarks Ideology Independent Significant Reliable Secondary Establishes notability for inclusion 1 books.google.com A book, Communism in India. Not read, but can be reasonably inferred to meet all criteria. Marxism-Leninism Yes Yes, and almost certainly on point. Yes, by reliable publishing house Yes Yes 2 books.google.co.in A book, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular-nationalism in India Marxism-Leninism Yes Yes, but don't know if applicable without reading the book Yes, by reliable publishing house Yes Unknown 3 books.google.co.in A book, The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy Marxism-Leninism Yes Yes, but don't know if applicable without reading the book Yes, by reliable publishing house Yes Unknown 4 cpim.org The constitution of the Communist Party of India Marxism-Leninism No, but that doesn't matter, because self-defining. Yes Yes, for this purpose. Yes Yes 5 ncert.nic.in A portion of an unpublished book Marxism-Leninism Probably Yes No (because not finally reviewed for publication) Yes No 1 books.google.com A book, Communism in India. Not read, but can be reasonably inferred to meet all criteria. Socialism Yes Yes, and almost certainly on point. Yes, by reliable publishing house Yes Yes 5 ncert.nic.in A portion of an unpublished book Socialism Probably Yes No Yes No 6 research.manchester.ac.uk hinduism-and-the-left-searching-for-the-secular-in-post-communist kolkata Socialism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 cpim.org Programme of the Communist Party India Socialism No, but that doesn't matter, because self-defining. Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 www.livelaw.in Read enough before running against paywall to be able to answer yes Secularism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 research.manchester.ac.uk Same as 6, above Secularism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 ncert.nic.in A portion of an unpublished book Secularism Probably Yes No (because not finally reviewed for publication) Yes No 10 www.business-standard.com A statement by the party secretary about secularism Secularism Yes. Looks like a news story and not a press release. Yes Yes Yes Yes 11 economictimes.indiatimes.com A story about a united front against BJP Secularism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 www.epw.in new-developmentalism’-and-left-mobilisation Anti-neoliberalism Yes Yes. Read enough before running against paywall. Yes Yes Yes 13 ncert.nic.in A portion of an unpublished book, same as 5 Anti-neoliberalism Probably Yes No (because not finally reviewed for publication) Yes No 5 ncert.nic.in A portion of an unpublished book Anti-imperialism Probably Yes No (because not finally reviewed for publication) Yes No 14 cpim.org Programme of the Communist Party India Anti-imperialism No, but that doesn't matter, because self-defining. Yes Yes Yes Yes 15 www.jetir.org Environmentalism and Left Political Parties Environmentalism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

My conclusion is that the sources do support all of the ideologies listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for your analysis. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, how do you justify rating JETIR as 'reliable'? --Soman (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Your source assessment is highly flawed. First of all, Marxism-Leninism is a very specific ideology, and can not be equated with communism or socialism. The book, Communism in India: Events, Processes and Ideologies mentions the party being marxist-leninist, but does NOT talk about its socialism. Secondly, NCERT books are unreliable because of points Ive already stated. Thirdly, self-definition by any political party is not realiable in the slightest. For example, the Nazis called themselves socialist, but does that mean they were socialist? You have not delved into any of the points i talked about, regarding why the sources are bad quality. Your "source assessment" also seems highly dubious considering the fact that it doesnt even seem like you even analyzed the given sources at all. You talk about how you dont know if certain books are applicable because you have not read them but still give the green light, meanwhile all of thr given books can be borrowed for free at the Internet Archive, meaning if you really wanted to fully assess the sources, you could've, but didn't. Lastly, JETIR absolutely cannot be used as a reliable source. I dont want to go over everything again because Ive already detailed at great length why the sourcing is of horrendous, but you should go thru it. EarthDude (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude You are still involving NCERT here. NCERT sources are nowhere used now as forbidden by the source analysis. JETIR source is removed for now as it is potential predatory journal (although potential does not mean confirmation). But socialism and secularism are cited from other reliable sources. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Besides socialism was cited by Bidyut Chakraborty book in previous versions of the article. But one editor removed it without consensus or discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Now two more sources are added citing anti-imperialism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

You have not provided the page number where the book calls the party socialist, that I asked for earlier. Also, I included NCERT because you have still included it in your ref list and also, the source assessment gave a green light to NCERT sources as well EarthDude (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude No. See properly. NCERT is marked as non reliable in the source assessment and I didn't add them. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No, but then they are green lighted as secondary sources EarthDude (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, I advice you that you cease unilaterally adding your proposals to the article, as the discussion has not ended. Also, you edit warring to keep your proposals in the article, without consensus, also goes against wikipedia guidelines. What you are doing here seems like POV pushing to me, and you have not proved otherwise EarthDude (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude I don't know the page number as I have not read the book. But it was sourced for socialism (not by me). One editor removed it unilaterally without consensus. The Manchester University research also mentions secularism and socialism. Besides please the multiple sources (not party website) I added in the article. Please don't remove properly sourced content. Environmentalism is not added as it is potential predatory journal (although potential doesn't mean confirmation). XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Marxism–Leninism
• Socialism
• Secularism
• Anti-neoliberalism
• Anti-imperialism

XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, lets go thru this. First of all, for Marxism-Leninism, it is already in the article. You are proposing adding two new sources, Source 8 which is a book titled Insurrection of Little Selves and Source 9 which is the official party constitution. Remove both of these. I have gone thru the entire book and while it does call the party communist (which is why the source is already used for the communism ideology in the infobox), not even once does it call the party Marxist-Leninists. Secondly, official party words are not reliable and should not be used. Thus, remove the whole Marxist-Leninist thing, its already in the article and redundant to add again.

Then, for socialism, you yourself claim to not know when and where the Communism in India book calls the party socialist, so remove that source. Theses are generally not reliable because they are not peer reviewed. Though being from a reputed university like the University of Manchester does give it some credibility, we shouldnt use that due to original research concerns. The final source for socialism is from the party's own words so again, that too is not reliable. This means none of the three sources you provided for socialism are reliable enough for inclusion.

For secularism, you have provided four sources. The first of such is a plea by a former party leader. Again, the ideology section should go over actions and governance, not mere rhetoric. So this source shouldnt used. Again, youve reused the thesis source here too, and i have put forth my concerns regarding that in the para above about sources used for socialism. The third source is again rhetoric, not governance, and the fourt is about a proposed coalition which never came to be. These are very weak sources.

For anti-neoliberalism, you have used only one source, however, it would be considered a fairly reliable source, coming from EPW, but on further examination, that doesnt seem to be the case. It states that while the party has been rhetorically anti-neoliberal, it has engaged in a pragmatic form of navigating and integrating various neoliberal policies itself. This is why rhetoric solely cant be used as a reliable source. This source too cant be used, and a better source is needed.

For anti-imperialism, the first source is unreliable, because again, it is the party's constitution. The second source, Source 36, is not reliable. It talks about some supporters of CPI(M) joining an anti-imperial rally which CPI(M) elites did not fully support and join themselves. The next source, Source 37, is about a single statement by CPI(M) 18 years ago, and so isnt reliable and sufficient in adding anti-imperialism to the article. The final source is especially bad, considering it doesnt even mention anti-imperial except for a small line where it reiterates the 18 year old statement by CPI(M) against US Imperialism.

Once more, your sourcing is horrible. I had already assessed your sources but you did not take a look at my concerns then and instead got someone else to barge in and greenlight most of it, in a highly one dimensional source assessment where they barely even analyzed the sources. EarthDude (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude User:Star Mississippi told me to consult User:Robert McClenon for source analysis. A party's activities definitely define its ideological tilt. You seem to push for your POV. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A party's activites define its ideological tilt. Thats what Ive been talking about this whole time. We should be using governance and actions, instead of simply rhetoric, to see what ideology a party follows, in this case, CPI(M). This is why, for example, a news article from 18 years ago about a simple party statement cant be used as a source for an ideology. How is that POV pushing? Im simply asking for better sources but your refuse to provide so EarthDude (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude How a state government can be anti-imperialist? You are denying all sources to push your POV. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Because you refuse to change your sources. I stated earlier than your sources were weak and gave my reasoning in detail, but you didnt change your sources even then. Only after pressure from others too did you remove some sources such as those from NCERT and JETIR. You are clearly pushing your POV here, as noted from the fact that you resorted to edit warring in the article. Also, about your question on how a state govt can be defined as anti-imperialist, I think most of the ideologies you are presenting are unnecessary here and will only clutter the infobox. I think secularism would be the only actually sensible choice to add but even for that your sourcing is horrible. So far, id been focusing more on sourcing due to just how egregiously bad they were EarthDude (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Why is the Manchester University source original research? Besides where does Wikipedia mentions about adding ideologies based on governance? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Usually, a thesis isnt considered a reliable source, because theses are not peer reviewed. But because it was from a reputed university (Manchester University), that gives the thesis some more credibility. Even so, we should generally refrain from using a thesis as a source EarthDude (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude One politburo member not attending rally doesn't mean the party is not anti-imperialist. Another politburo member and left front chairman a CPIM led left front and left parties to unite against anti-imperialist forces. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That specific source was more about multiple parties joining a rally against US Imperialism, which is why its a weak source. Because it is not about how CPI(M) governed its states on the ground, but rather more about their anti-imperialist rhetoric. Again, governance and action over rhetoric to decide whether an ideology should go in the infobox. EarthDude (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon@EarthDude@Soman@MrMkG What is about the consensus? XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There doesnt seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS on this right now. The discussion is very divided. EarthDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

But majority supported the idea of adding multiple ideologies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

From the list of those youve tagged, two editors support the proposals and two disagreed with it. You also supported it, but a 3-2 is not a clear consensus. Also, both Robert McClenon and MrMkG have only given one or two comments and did not deeply engage with the discussion EarthDude (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

References