text:
Talk:Cloned video game console

Article
The only game system article I know of that has both an article about it's clones and a link to it's clones article is the NES article. If any Wikipedians know of any other game systems that have clone consoles/handheld units, please write articles about those too! --SuperDude 15:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a minor note, I suppose, but the Tristar 64 is both an NES and SNES clone. What would be interesting, however, is to see some info on those little Atari 2600 clone devices that were popular before the glut of NES clones starting to hit the streets a few years ago.... – Seancdaug 00:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rename?
Is "game system" really the correct terminology for this? The categories seem to use the "console" term more frequently, and it seems like "Video game console clone," or "video game console hardware clone" (if we go by the way the Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clone article is named) would be more appropriate. Any thoughts? – Seancdaug 03:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Cloned video game console


text:
André Lacroix (businessman)

André Lacroix (born 1960) is a French businessman who, from 16 May 2015, is chief executive of the FTSE 100 multinational company Intertek Group plc.

He was president of Burger King International between 1996 and 2003, before becoming chairman and CEO of Euro Disney SCA, the company that owns and operates Disneyland Paris. He held that post until May 2005 and then from January 2006 to March 2015 was the group chief executive of Inchcape plc, a British multinational automotive retail and services company.

Lacroix is a graduate of ESCP Europe, a French-European business school.

title: André Lacroix (businessman)


text:
Toshio Kagami

Toshio Kagami (加賀見 俊夫) is the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of The Oriental Land Company, and the representative director, chairman and CEO of the Tokyo Disney Resort in Japan.

Early life
In 1958, Kagami graduated from Keio University in Tokyo, Japan, with a bachelor's degree

Career
In 2009, Kagami was named chairman and CEO of The Oriental Land Company Ltd., and chairman of Milial Resort Hotels Co Ltd.

title: Toshio Kagami


text:
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) is an independent, democratic non-profit organisation. Founded in 1987, it is one of the oldest human rights organisations in the country.

HRCP is committed to monitoring, protecting and promoting human rights in Pakistan. It is not associated with the government or with any political party.

Mission
HRCP's goal is to realise the entire body of human rights, as defined in international instruments, by all citizens of Pakistan as well as all persons present otherwise in the country. This goal applies without any distinction or discrimination on grounds of gender, race, belief or religion, domicile, disability, socioeconomic status, and sexual identity or orientation. It applies particularly to vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, such as women, children, members of ethnic and religious minorities, workers, peasants and victims of human rights abuses.

Scope of work
HRCP's scope of work includes:

 * Advocacy campaigns to raise public awareness of human rights through publications, workshops, public meetings and rallies.
 * Focusing attention onto areas in which human rights have been denied or violated, by collecting, publishing and disseminating data.
 * Organising special fact-finding missions to probe the more serious violations of rights.
 * Lobbying with the appropriate authorities to introduce and implement measures designed to check human rights abuse and promote respect for human rights by offering concrete alternatives.
 * Providing redress to victims of human rights abuse by referring complaints and grievances to the authorities concerned and by extending legal aid in special cases or those that affect collective interests.
 * Promoting democratic governance and the rule of law by generating ideas and pressure for (a) constitutional and legal reforms, (b) participatory democracy and communities’ role in governance, (c) fair electoral processes, (d) the independence of the judiciary and legal profession, (e) pro-people administration, and (f) minimum standards for law enforcement agencies with respect to the use of force and protection of the rights of litigants and detainees.
 * Training and mobilising activists to promote awareness, advocacy and intervention.
 * Networking and cooperation with similar organisations, both domestic and international, on broad human rights themes as well as specific issues.
 * Liaising with the United Nations system, including the Universal Periodic Review, to exchange ideas on the areas listed above.

Structure
HRCP comprises over 5,000 members across Pakistan and is governed by an executive council elected by its members.

The organisation's secretariat is based in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. It has seven regional offices in Gilgit, Hyderabad, Karachi, Multan, Peshawar, Quetta and Turbat. Additionally, the Centre for Democratic Development operates from Islamabad. All HRCP offices work with volunteer groups, augmented by active members in districts and towns across Pakistan.

History
Co-founded in 1987 by Asma Jahangir and Ibn Abdur Rehman, HRCP has a wide mandate, including women's rights, including gender equality, violence against women, domestic violence, honour killings, enforced disappearances, the abolition of capital punishment, restrictions on press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and belief, freedom of movement, state excesses and religiously motivated violence. The commission is a member organisation of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), the Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM), the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's chairperson is Hina Jilani, internationally acclaimed human rights lawyer and former UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders.

Some of HRCP’s achievements
Abolition of separate electorates. HRCP demanded that separate electorates be replaced by joint electorates at its foundation function in 1986. These demands were largely met in 2002.

Faith-based discrimination. HRCP's campaign against the insertion of a ‘religion’ column in people's national identity cards put pressure on the government to withdraw the move.

Bonded labor. The Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act 1992 was drafted by HRCP and moved in Parliament by one of its board members. The draft was adopted and became law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also accepted HRCP's petition whereby bonded haris can seek relief under this act.

Rule of law. In 1995, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto asked HRCP to investigate the state of lawlessness in Karachi, Pakistan.

National Human Rights Commission. While revisiting the draft law on the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission, the Ministry of Human Rights sought and incorporated input from HRCP.

Death penalty. HRCP has consistently campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty. The government placed a moratorium on executions in late 2008, which was withdrawn five years later. Efforts to revive this moratorium and abolish capital punishment continue.

Electoral reforms. HRCP's proposal for electoral reforms was accepted by the government, including simultaneous polling for the national and provincial assemblies and extension of adult franchise to the Tribal Areas.

Torture. HRCP and Amnesty International have a long history of collaboration: in 2012, HRCP organised a joint training session for activists from Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on monitoring cases of torture.

Forced labor. HRCP's data on forced labor was used by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery in the annual report for 2016.

Enforced disappearances. HRCP has consistently brought the thorny issue of enforced disappearances to the public agenda. It raised the issue in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2007 and has continued filing cases.

International work with the UN. The selection of two HRCP council members—the late Asma Jahangir as a UN Special Rapporteur (on extra-legal killings as well as freedom of belief) and Hina Jilani as the UN Secretary General's first Representative for Human Rights Defenders—was largely in recognition of their work at, and for, HRCP. In 2013/14, they served on UN panels for Palestine and Sri Lanka. In 2010, HRCP was granted special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council.

Honours

 * Pax Christi International Peace Award, 2016

title: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan


text: Talk:Calgary (disambiguation)

title: Talk:Calgary (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Frederic Leighton

Conflict
Problem - although there are some sources that back up the birthdate we use - Britannica uses born Dec. 3, 1830 Lotsofissues 15:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Oxford DNB confirms Dec 3. as the birthdate. Lotsofissues 21:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bizarro!
Leighton cannot have met Picasso in Paris when he used to live there from 1855 to 1859 : Picasso was born in 1881. I guess it might have been Pissaro instead but this should be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balearn (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He met Picasso...?!
That would be an interesting feat. According to Wikipedia, Pablo Picasso was born in 1881. And according to the same source, Leighton died in 1896. I'm not saying that it would have been impossible for the two to have met -- but it certainly couldn't have happened in 1860, as this article suggests.

If I dig up the right sources, then I'll edit the article myself. I'm just too lazy to do that right now, so I'll leave it to someone else, unless I beat him to it.

- Sammy James 24.218.224.48 13:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)SammyJames

Edmund Blair Leighton
Is this Leighton any relation to Edmund Blair Leighton? -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask the same question. Drutt (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So was I. Paul Magnussen (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

New file File:Frederic Leighton, Baron Leighton by George Frederic Watts.jpg
Recently the file File:Frederic Leighton, Baron Leighton by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm ...
Are there any indications about his sexual orientation -- i. e., was he gay?

Factual information about this will be much appreciated, thanks. Maikel (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just visited his house and guide suggests he may have been homosexual but no one is absolutely sure. He was fairly lose to at least one woman, but uncertain if involvement was romantic. Will look up some sources. 109.144.221.141 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Better portrait?
I found this portrait entirely by accident, but it is very good: The Album Supplement, Apr. 29, 1895, page 1. The photo credit says Russell & Sons. The Album appears to be a journal worth mining for portraiture. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frederic Leighton. 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/20070703215310/http://www.newforestparishes.com/page8/page2/files/page2_1.jpg to http://www.newforestparishes.com/page8/page2/files/page2_1.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031019204716/http://www.victorianartinbritain.co.uk/obituary/leighton.htm to http://www.victorianartinbritain.co.uk/obituary/leighton.htm

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) 06:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederic Leighton. 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/20140421064402/http://ateneum.fi/en/frederic-leighton to http://ateneum.fi/en/frederic-leighton

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) 00:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederic Leighton. 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/20060617220548/http://www.lordfredericleighton.co.uk/ to http://www.lordfredericleighton.co.uk/

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) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Collection of Iznik Pottery
Reference is made in the biography section to his collection of Iznik tiles. I think it would helpful to include a link to the Wikipedia article on Iznik pottery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznik_pottery Crouchend (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frederic Leighton


text:
William G. Boykin

William Gerald "Jerry" Boykin (born April 19, 1948) is a retired American lieutenant general who was the United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush from 2002 to 2007. During his 36-year career in the military he spent 13 years in the Delta Force and was involved in numerous high-profile missions, including the 1980 Iran hostage rescue attempt, the 1992 hunt for Pablo Escobar in Colombia, and the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu, Somalia. He is an author and visiting professor at Hampden–Sydney College, Virginia. He is currently executive vice president at the Family Research Council.

Early life
William Gerald "Jerry" Boykin was born on April 19, 1948, in Wilson, North Carolina. He attended New Bern high school and was the captain of the football team. He graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) with a bachelor's degree in English in 1971.

Military career
As a young officer, he served in the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood, Texas; with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam, and as a company commander in the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Stewart, Georgia. In 1978, at age 29, Boykin volunteered for and completed a specialized selection course for assignment to the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta, or Delta Force. He would hold numerous leadership positions in the elite unit, including operations officer, troop commander, squadron commander, deputy commander and finally unit commander from July 1992 to July 1994.

Lieutenant Colonel Lewis H. "Bucky" Burruss, who helped with Delta Force selection in early 1978, recalled that Boykin "had a bad knee and I thought he would never make it....I thought, I hate to see this guy busting his [butt], I don't see how he can make it on this bad road wheel, but he surprised us." Burruss wrote at the time that "Jerry Boykin is a Christian gentleman of the highest order." Boykin believed God had a hand in things: "God led me into the Delta Force....And He said to me, 'This is where you ought to be.'"

In 1980, he was the Delta Force operations officer on the April 24–25 Iranian hostage rescue attempt. Boykin called it "the greatest disappointment of my professional career because we didn't bring home 53 Americans." Despite this, his "faith was strengthened" believing he had witnessed "a miracle": "Not one man who stood with us in the desert and pleaded for God to go with us was killed or even injured that night."

In October 1983, Boykin took part in Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada. He was wounded by anti-aircraft fire during the Delta helicopter assault on Richmond Hill Prison. In 1989, Boykin participated in the U.S. invasion of Panama as part of the mission to apprehend Manuel Noriega and participated in Operation Acid Gambit. From 1990 to 1991, Boykin attended the Army War College. In 1992 and early 1993, as a colonel, Boykin was in Colombia leading a mission to hunt for drug lord Pablo Escobar. Seymour Hersh later claimed in The New Yorker that there were suspicions within the Pentagon that Boykin's team was going to help assassinate Escobar with the support of U.S. Embassy officials in Colombia. Hersh refers to Mark Bowden's book Killing Pablo, which alleged that the Pentagon believed Boykin intended to break the law and exceed his authority in the operation. Bowden wrote that "within the special ops community...Pablo's death was regarded as a successful mission for Delta, and legend has it that its operators were in on the kill." Hersh quotes an anonymous retired army general as saying, "That's what those guys did. I've seen pictures of Escobar's body that you don't get from a long-range telescope lens. They were taken by guys on the assault team."

In April 1993, Boykin helped advise Attorney General Janet Reno regarding the stand-off at Waco, Texas, between the federal government and the Branch Davidians.

In October 1993, Boykin fought in the Battle of Mogadishu (1993), also referred to as "Black Hawk Down".

Some time afterwards, Boykin served at the Central Intelligence Agency as deputy director of Special Activities, and was promoted to brigadier general. He was made deputy director for Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization when assigned to the Army Staff.

From 1998 to 2000, he served as the commanding general, 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. From 2000 to 2003, he was the commanding general, United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, N.C. In June 2003, he was appointed Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under Dr. Stephen Cambone, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Post-retirement
Boykin retired on August 1, 2007, and began teaching at Hampden–Sydney College. In May 2016, he wrote on Facebook, "I have been terminated from teaching at Hampden-Sydney College after nine years there," though he and the college later reached agreement on another one-year contract. The college denied it had conducted a campaign to fire Boykin following his recent comments about transgender people using bathrooms, including, "The first man who goes in the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery."

On July 16, 2012, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins announced that Boykin had been named the group's Executive Vice-president.

Awards and decorations
Boykin attended Armed Forces Staff College, Army War College, and Shippensburg University (where he received a master's degree).

2003 speech controversy
Boykin, a born-again Christian with conservative political views, has gained attention for his use of religious imagery to comment on political and social issues over the years; some of his public remarks, which cast the War on Terror in religious terms, generated considerable controversy.

In an October 2003 speech to a community church in Oregon, Boykin was recorded stating that Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan." William Arkin, military analyst for NBC News, was the source of the video and audiotapes of Boykin. The following day the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on Boykin. Among several quotes, the article revealed Boykin giving a speech about hunting down Osman Atto in Mogadishu: "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Boykin later said that he was implying that Atto's true "god" was money.

Boykin's remarks were denounced—Arab and Muslim organizations within the US were highly critical of the comments. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and a number of commentators called for his resignation. Several publications, such as Newsweek, similarly carried articles calling for his resignation. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) were quick to denounce the remarks. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) and Democrat Carl Levin both urged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to launch an investigation. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and 26 supporters put forward H. RES. 419 "Condemning religiously intolerant remarks and calling on the President to clearly censure and reassign Lieutenant General Boykin".

President George W. Bush distanced himself from the statements, saying that Boykin didn't "reflect my point of view or the point of view of this administration." Donald Rumsfeld defended Boykin, describing him as "an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces", and that the War on Terrorism was "not a war against a religion".

Marine General Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that Boykin was later "sad...that his comments created the fury they had," and expressed his belief that Boykin "does not see this battle as a battle between religions; he sees this as a battle between good and evil, the evil being the acts of individuals."

Boykin issued a public statement: "My comments to Osman Otto in Mogadishu were not referencing his worship of Allah but his worship of money and power; idolatry. He was a corrupt man, not a follower of Islam. My references to Judeo-Christian roots in America or our nation as a Christian nation are historically undeniable." CNN later revealed that several parts of his statement were removed on the advice of Pentagon attorneys. Among the parts removed was Boykin's assertion that "the sensitivities of my job today dictate that further church speeches are inappropriate", and "As a Christian, I believe that there is a spiritual war that is continuous as articulated in the Bible. It is not confined to the war of terrorism."

Boykin then requested an investigation by an inspector general into the allegations. A ten-month investigation carried out by the Department of Defense concluded in August 2004 that Boykin had broken three rules in giving the speeches: that he did not clarify that he gave the remarks in a private capacity, that he hadn't received clearance for making the remarks, and that he hadn't declared the reimbursement of travel funds given to him by one of the religious groups hosting the speaking events. However, the report made no comment on the actual remarks made, and little action was taken against Boykin. An anonymous senior Pentagon official said that the infractions were relatively minor and rarely led to prosecution. The report defended the decision not to comment on Boykin's actual comments for several reasons, primarily because "freedom of expression considerations under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply in this case."

Other comments and activities
On September 26, 2009, Boykin gave an address at a How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, Missouri, hosted by the Eagle Forum. According to the Canada Free Press, Boykin asked the audience: "What are you prepared to give up for America? Are you willing to pay the ultimate price?" and said, "there is no greater threat to America than Islam". Boykin has been described as part of the counter-jihad movement.

In 2010, Boykin was one of two "team leaders" of Team B II which released a report entitled Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis, published by the Center for Security Policy, which William Arkin and Dana Priest have described as "a Washington-based neoconservative think tank." The other team leader was Harry Soyster, a retired lieutenant general and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; that team included R. James Woolsey, Jr., former CIA Director; and CSP President Frank Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting). The book "describes what its authors call a 'stealth jihad' that must be thwarted before it's too late," and argues that "most mosques in the United States already have been radicalized, that most Muslim social organizations are fronts for violent jihadists and that Muslims who practice sharia law seek to impose it in this country." According to an opinion piece in the Washington Post, "Government terrorism experts call the views expressed in the center's book inaccurate and counterproductive."

Boykin is listed as a board member of The Oak Initiative, a conservative Christian group that describes itself as "a grassroots movement to Unite, Mobilize, Equip, and Activate Christians to be the salt and light they are called to be by engaging in the great issues of our time from a sound biblical worldview." Other board members include Rick Joyner, founder of Morningstar Ministries and Heritage International Ministries; and Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Boykin is listed as the Grand Chancellor of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, a self-styled order of chivalry claiming relation to the historical Knights Hospitaller.

In January 2013, the retired general received a letter of reprimand from then-Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army Lloyd Austin for disclosing classified information in his book Never Surrender: A Soldier's Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom.

In February 2014, Boykin said in a speech that he believed that Jesus will return to Earth carrying an AR-15 assault rifle. Alluding to a biblical passage in which Jesus says, "I came not to bring peace but to bring a sword", Boykin said, "I believe now that the sword he'll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15."

In another 2014 speech, Boykin said Jews are the "cause of all the problems in the world", which the Southern Poverty Law Center characterized as "an awkward attempt at humor". During that speech, he also asserted President Barack Obama had sent "subliminal messages" to Muslims during his 2009 A New Beginning speech in Cairo.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Boykin first advised Sen. Ted Cruz. Then, on September 6, 2016, he endorsed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Boykin has endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was rigged to favor Joe Biden and claims that the United States "has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government."

On April 11, 2021, Boykin was one of 124 retired U.S. military flag officers who signed the "Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals" that raised concerns of the survival of the United States as a constitutional republic. The letter claims that the country "has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government."

War on Terror tactics
The New York Times reported on March 18, 2006, that, when asked by Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone to "get to the bottom" of abuses committed by an elite counterinsurgency task force, Boykin found no pattern to them, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

A December 9, 2003, item in The Guardian connected Boykin with secret Israeli counterinsurgency assistance in Iraq, allegedly including assassination squads. In another Guardian article, Sidney Blumenthal, President Bill Clinton's former senior adviser and current Washington bureau chief for Salon.com, claimed that towards the end of 2003, it was Boykin who, under Donald Rumsfeld's orders, advised then Camp X-Ray head Major General Geoffrey Miller in Guantanamo to transfer the same Camp X-Ray methods to Abu Ghraib and the Iraqi prison system.

In 2003, Seymour Hersh claimed in the New Yorker that Boykin was a key planner, along with Stephen Cambone, behind Rumsfeld's Special Forces approach to fighting the War on Terror. Furthermore, when Boykin was questioned in a congressional inquiry regarding similarities between current War on Terror special operations and U.S.'s Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War, he said, "I think we're running that kind of program. We're going after these people. Killing or capturing these people is a legitimate mission for the department. I think we're doing what the Phoenix Program was designed to do, without all of the secrecy."

In 2005, Hersh claimed that the U.S. had begun to undertake secret, off-the-books, covert missions in Iran to identify key targets for possible strikes in destabilizing its nuclear facilities, and against the larger War on Terror, with the chain of command for the commando operations falling to Rumsfeld, Cambone, and Boykin.

title: William G. Boykin


text: Category:Philippine poetry

title: Category:Philippine poetry


text: User talk:68.45.37.17

title: User talk:68.45.37.17


text:
Oranje

Oranje may refer to:

 * A nickname for a national sports teams of the Netherlands, especially the national football team
 * Oranje, Netherlands, a village in the Dutch province of Drenthe
 * The Orange River in South Africa in Dutch and Afrikaans
 * M.S. Oranje, a Dutch passenger ship later renamed M.S. Angelina Lauro
 * Oranje Zwart, a Dutch hockey club
 * In Oranje, a Dutch drama film
 * Negeri Van Oranje, a 2015 Indonesian adventure drama film
 * Oranje, the name of one of the bastions of the Castle of Good Hope
 * De Oranjes (plural of oranje, lit. "the oranges") is a shorthand term used to refer to the Dutch royal family.
 * Sometimes used to refer to the Orange Free State
 * Oranje, Blanje, Blou, the nickname of the Flag of South Africa (1928–1994)

title: Oranje


text:
Battle of the Seelow Heights

The Battle of the Seelow Heights (Schlacht um die Seelower Höhen) was part of the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation (16 April – 2 May 1945). A pitched battle, it was one of the last assaults on large entrenched defensive positions of the Second World War. It was fought over three days, from 16–19 April 1945. Close to 1,000,000 Soviet soldiers of the 1st Belorussian Front (including 78,556 soldiers of the Communist Polish 1st Army), commanded by Marshal Georgy Zhukov, attacked the position known as the "Gates of Berlin". They were opposed by about 110,000 soldiers of the German 9th Army, commanded by General Theodor Busse, as part of the Army Group Vistula.

This battle is often incorporated into the Battle of the Oder–Neisse. The Seelow Heights was where some of the most bitter fighting in the overall battle took place, but it was only one of several crossing points along the Oder and Neisse rivers where the Soviets attacked. The Battle of the Oder–Neisse was itself only the opening phase of the Battle of Berlin.

The result was the encirclement of the German 9th Army and the Battle of Halbe.

Buildup
On 9 April 1945, Königsberg in East Prussia fell to the Soviet Army. This freed the 2nd Belorussian Front under Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky to move to the east bank of the Oder. During the first two weeks of April, the Soviets performed their fastest front redeployment of the war. The 2nd Belorussian Front relieved the 1st Belorussian Front along the lower Oder between Schwedt and the Baltic Sea.

This allowed the 1st Belorussian Front to concentrate in the southern half of its former front, opposite the Seelow Heights. To the south, the 1st Ukrainian Front under Marshal Ivan Konev shifted its main force from Upper Silesia north-west to the Neisse River.

The three Soviet fronts together had 2,500,000 men, 6,250 tanks, 7,500 aircraft, 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars, 3,255 truck-mounted Katyusha rocket launchers and 95,383 motor vehicles.

The 1st Belorussian Front had nine regular and two tank armies consisting of 77 rifle divisions, two cavalry, five tank and two mechanized corps, eight artillery and one guards mortars divisions and a mixture of other artillery and rocket launcher brigades. The front had 3,059 tanks and self-propelled guns and 18,934 artillery pieces and mortars.

Eight of the 11 armies were posted along the Oder. In the north, the 61st Army and the 1st Polish Army held the river line from Schwedt to its meeting with the Finow Canal. On the Soviet bridgehead at Küstrin, the 47th Army, 3rd and 5th Shock armies, and the 8th Guards Army were concentrated for the attack.

The 69th Army and 33rd Army covered the river line south to Guben. The 1st Guards and 2nd Guards Tank armies and the 3rd Army were in reserve. The 5th Shock and 8th Guards were posted directly opposite the strongest part of the defences, where the Reichsstraße 1 to Berlin passed through the heights.

The German 9th Army held the front from about the Finow Canal to Guben, an area which included the Seelow Heights. It had 14 divisions, the "Fortress" (Festung) Frankfurt, 587 tanks (512 operable, 55 in repair, 20 in transit) and 2,625 artillery pieces (including 695 anti-aircraft guns). Further south, the front was held by the 4th Panzerarmee, which opposed the 1st Ukrainian Front.

General Gotthard Heinrici replaced Heinrich Himmler as commander of Army Group Vistula on 20 March. He correctly predicted that the main Soviet thrust would be made over the River Oder and along the Reichsstraße 1 at Seelow Heights. He decided to defend the riverbank with only a light skirmishing screen, but to strongly fortify the Seelow Heights, which rise about 48 m above the Oder and overlook the river where the Reichsstraße crossed it. He thinned out the line in other areas to put more men on the heights.

The Oder's floodplain was already saturated by the spring thaw, but German engineers also released water from a reservoir upstream, which turned the plain into a swamp. Behind the heights, they built three lines of defences, spreading back toward Berlin. The last was the Wotan Line, 10 - 15 mi behind the front line. These lines consisted of anti-tank ditches, anti-tank gun emplacements, and an extensive network of trenches and bunkers.

Battle
In the early hours of April 16th, the offensive began with a massive bombardment by some 9,000 artillery pieces and Katyushas. Over 500,000 shells were fired in the first 30 minutes of battle. Well before dawn, the 1st Belorussian Front attacked across the Oder and the 1st Ukrainian Front attacked across the Neisse. The 1st Belorussian Front was the stronger force, but it had the more difficult assignment since it was facing the bulk of the German forces.

The assault by the 1st Belorussian Front started with an intense artillery bombardment. According to Beevor and Ziemke, Heinrici and Busse had anticipated the attack and withdrew their defenders from the first line of trenches just before the Soviet artillery would have obliterated them. Whereas according to a report to Stalin, Zhukov claimed that: "Considering that the enemy moves its infantry from the first to the second and third lines of trenches in the morning, I used a nightly artillery barrage with a high density of fire for 30 minutes, with the use of searchlights to blind the enemy and light up the terrain ahead of the advancing troops... According to the interrogated prisoners, artillery fire was so sudden and overwhelming that the enemy did not have time to move from the first trench line; the second and third lines were at all times under heavy fire from our artillery. As a result of this, the enemy units in the first line of defence suffered heavy casualties."

The swampy ground proved to be a great hindrance, and a German counter-barrage caused heavy Soviet casualties. Frustrated by the slow advance, Zhukov threw in his reserves, which according to his earlier plan were to be held back until the expected breakthrough. By early evening, an advance of 4 - 6 km had been achieved (the 7th Rifle Corps from the 3rd Shock Army had advanced 8 km), but the second German defensive line remained intact. Zhukov was forced to report that his battle was not going as planned. However, in the south the attack by Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front was going according to plan. To spur Zhukov on, Stalin told him that he had let Konev direct his tank armies north towards Berlin.

On the second day, the 1st Belorussian Front's troops bolstered by their reserves slowly advanced. By nightfall on 17 April, the German second defensive line (Stein Stellung) was finally broken by the weight of the 5th Shock Army and 2nd Guards Tank Army. The right flank of the 4th Guards Rifle Corps of the 8th Guards Army, together with the 11th Guards Tank Corps of the 1st Guards Tank Army, had taken advantage of the success of their comrades and also advanced. The 47th and the 3rd shock armies progressed another 4 - 8 km.

To the south however, the 1st Ukrainian Front was pushing back the 4th Panzer Army; the left flank of Army Group Centre under Ferdinand Schörner was beginning to crumble. Schörner kept his two reserve panzer divisions in the south covering his centre, instead of using them to shore up the 4th Panzer Army. This was the turning point in the Berlin Offensive because the positions of both Army Group Vistula and the centre and right sectors of Army Group Centre were becoming untenable. Unless they fell back in line with the 4th Panzer Army, they faced envelopment. In effect, Konev's successful attack on Schörner's relatively poor defences to the south of Seelow Heights was unhinging Heinrici's defence.

On 18 April, both Soviet fronts advanced with heavy losses. The Seelow Heights was bypassed from the north, during which Soviet troops met counterattacks by German reserves: 11th SS Panzergrenadier Division Nordland, 23rd SS Panzergrenadier Division Nederland and SS-Panzer Abteilung 103 (503rd). By nightfall, an advance of 3 - 5 km on the right flank and 3 - 8 km in the centre had been achieved, and the 1st Belorussian Front had reached the third and final German line of defence.

On 19 April, the 1st Belorussian Front eventually broke through the final defensive line of the Seelow Heights and now nothing but broken German formations lay between them and Berlin. The remnants of the 9th Army and the 4th Panzer Army were enveloped by the 1st Belorussian Front and by elements of the 1st Ukrainian Front which had broken through and turned north. Other armies of the 1st Ukrainian Front raced west towards the Americans. By the close of 19 April, the German eastern frontline had effectively ceased to exist. All that remained were pockets of resistance.

Aftermath and analysis

The defensive line on the Seelow Heights was the last major defensive line outside Berlin. From 19 April, the road to Berlin—90 km to the west—lay open. By 23 April, Berlin was fully encircled and the Battle in Berlin commenced. Within two weeks, Adolf Hitler was dead and the war in Europe was effectively over.

As a result of the 1st Belorussian Front's success at the Seelow Heights and the Oder Front in general, most of the forces of the German 9th Army were encircled before they could retreat to Berlin. The city was then defended only by broken formations, the Volkssturm, small detachments of Hitler Youth, police, and air defence units, which resulted in the Red Army taking it in 10 days.

After the war, Zhukov's critics asserted that he should have stopped the 1st Belorussian Front's attack via the direct line to Berlin along the Autobahn and instead made use of the 1st Ukrainian Front's breakthrough over the Neisse or concentrate its armies on surrounding Berlin from the north. This would have bypassed the strong German defences at Seelow Heights, and avoided many casualties and the delay in the Berlin advance.

Zhukov supposedly took the shortest path, the critics contend, so that his troops would be the first ones to enter the city. However, Zhukov chose the main thrust to be through the Seelow Heights not because he thought that was the quickest way to get to Berlin, but because that was the quickest way to link up with Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front and cut off the German 9th Army from the city.

Also, bypassing the Seelow Heights and attacking Berlin from the north would have exposed the northern flank of the 1st Belorussian Front to a potential attack from German forces to the north, which could have pinned Zhukov's forces against the Seelow Heights. Furthermore, in actuality only two of the five armies of the 1st Belorussian Front attacked the Seelow Heights themselves and the heights were eventually bypassed from the north as soon as there was a narrow breakthrough.

Estimates of Soviet casualties during the assault on the Seelow Heights vary from under 10,000 to over 30,000 killed.

title: Battle of the Seelow Heights


text: User talk:80.208.11.73

title: User talk:80.208.11.73


text:
Boxerwood Gardens

Boxerwood Nature Center and Woodland Garden is a 15 acre arboretum featuring both native and unusual plant specimens, located within a larger preserve at 963 Ross Road near Lexington in Rockbridge County, Virginia, United States in the Shenandoah Valley. Established as a private garden in 1952, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2015.

The Arboretum contains thousands of labeled trees and shrubs, including 1,300 cultivars, with fine collections of dwarf conifers, magnolias, dogwoods, rhododendrons, azaleas and Japanese maples.

Examples of its collection include: 163 varieties of Acer palmatum (Japanese Maple), Abies nebrodensis (Sicilian Fir), Acer buergerianum (Trident maple), Acer griseum (Paperbark Maple), Acer pensylvanicum (Striped maple), Aesculus parviflora (Bottlebrush Buckeye), Aesculus pavia (Red Buckeye), Aesculus x carnea 'Briottii' (Red Horsechestnut), Chaemaecyparis obtusa (Hinoki Falsecypress), Chionanthus virginicus (White Fringetree), Cladrastis kentuckea (American Yellowwood), Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese Cedar), Halesia tetraptera (Carolina Silverbell), Ilex verticillata (Winterberry), Liquidunbar styraciflua 'Corky' (Corky Sweetgum), Malus 'Red Jade' (Red Jade Crabapple), Picea omorika 'Pendula' (Weeping Serbian Spruce), Syringa reticulata (Japanese Tree Lilac), Taxodium distichum (Baldcypress), Taxus species (Yews), Thuja occidntalis (American Arborvitae), and Viburnum prunifolium (Blackhaw viburnum).

Boxerwood Nature Center has a PlayTrail, a nature playground designed especially for young children. Kids can run through the plant tunnels, float leaves down the mini creek, make pies in the mud kitchen, climb tiny house mountain and more. The rules include "make noise," "touch anything," "get dirty," and "have fun". There is also a Fairy Forest where children can build their own fairy structures, and a wetland walk where visitors can cross the zigzag bridge over the garden wetlands. In fall 2016, a pollinator garden was added to the gardens.

title: Boxerwood Gardens


text:
Talk:Keith Speed

Untitled
1992  Ashford   Conservative    31,031 ( 54.6%)

title: Talk:Keith Speed


text: Category:Italian styles of music

title: Category:Italian styles of music


text: File:LiveALiveBoxArt.jpg

title: File:LiveALiveBoxArt.jpg


text:
Talk:Portuguese Communist Party

Salgado Zenha vs Ângelo Veloso
Joaopais, the candidature of Veloso, that had been accepted by the Constitutional Court, was removed shortly before the election after an agreement between the PCP, the PRD and Zenha. So, the PCP supported Zenha at the day of the election, and that's shown in the election article as Zenha had the majority in Beja, Évora and Setúbal, the communist strongholds. The communists voted for Zenha, so, the Party's candidate was Zenha. And one more thing, I wrote the article of the election myself, I don't need to refer to it. Regards! Afonso Silva 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I accept your explanation. But a reference to Ângelo Veloso would be good, do you agree? After all he's candidature was accepted by the CC. Thanks. Gameiro 16:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That reference was already present in the Notes below the results table. Afonso Silva 18:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Noone killed in Moscow?
Is the PCP the only party not persecuted during the Purge? Xx236 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Emigracao pcp.PNG
Image:Emigracao pcp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jcp logo.PNG
Image:Jcp logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salazar retirado da sede da PIDE.jpg
Image:Salazar retirado da sede da PIDE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pt ue pcp.PNG
Image:Pt ue pcp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solidariedade-Africa-MOAMBIQUE01.jpg
Image:Solidariedade-Africa-MOAMBIQUE01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:O militante52005.jpg
Image:O militante52005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Portuguese postcard demanding freedom for Álvaro Cunhal and political prisoners.png
Image:Portuguese postcard demanding freedom for Álvaro Cunhal and political prisoners.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jcp logo.PNG
Image:Jcp logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't mention 25 de Novembro
Like it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.58.101 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a coup against organized by the conservative wing of MFA to counter the party itself it should be mentioned, I agree. Why don't you develop the history section? 2.81.162.192 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to either change the position or remove it
I think the political position for this party should either be changed or removed. For a long time the political position had stood in the info box as "left-wing to far-left". However this has recently been changed to just left-wing by one editor. I would argue the party is far-left, at the very least to a certain degree. This is due to its ideological basis. Communist and Marxist-Leninist parties are virtually always far-left, due to the extreme nature of these combined ideological stances and the belief in the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Currently neither position has been evidenced, nor discussed, nor received consensus for this party and some sort of discussion should have happened here before changing a long standing position. I have tried to revert things to the way they were, until there had been proper discussion and I offered to use talk here, only to have my edits constantly reverted. I see no reason why this should have been changed. Only one editors perspective was given for the change, no evidence, nor consensus. A change such as this should have been given evidence and / or discussion before being changed. If a position cannot be agreed upon I would opt that it be removed from the info box of this page. Helper201 (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I think your comment above underscores how subjective this is. First of all, using "x to y" is meaningless, 'Far-left' and 'Left' are not mutually exclusive, 'far left' is covered by 'left'. What we see across many wiki articles is difficulty to agree on a position, since different editors see the political spectrum differently. I vote for the removal of 'position' across all infoboxes. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Personally I would opt to keep positions as they can usually be well cited, although I understand where you are coming from. Regardless that is a matter for a wider page regarding politics on Wikipedia. I am merely putting forward that this be returned to the way it had long stood. This way it keeps two positions, of which I'd assume virtually everyone would agree it meets the criteria for at least one of the two, if not both. Its usually the case that if someone wants to make a significant change to what has long stood, they either provide evidence or engage in discussion first, of which neither has been done here. On the other hand if there is still no consensus I would opt for the removal of the position, for this page. Helper201 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * In case of no consensus, you should keep it. Also, this discussion should go on for a bit longer. --B.Lameira (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And the PCP no longer advocates for the dictatorship of the proletariat, you seem to be a little biased towards leftist parties with a bit of subjective analysis. You should classify the Left Bloc as "far-left" in that case, simply because it has Trotskyists who were part of the PSR prior to its foundation. --B.Lameira (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, if there is no consensus things should be kept as they are, and may I remind you that you are the one that initially made the change that lead to this discussion. Therefore it should change back to the way it stood for a long time before you recently changed it (which was left-wing to far-left). You are the one that made the change, you should have discussed it first. Since there was disagreement I reverted to a more neutral state by not placing either. To simply go and revert is very unhelpful and your basically edit warring now. Since you reverted before even discussing here. Helper201 (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Or maybe no one really paid attention to it, I want this subject to not be superficially debated. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * That's your perspective, not fact. However I respect the proposition of the matter being discussed. Either way, as you yourself have acknowledged, discussion should have took place before you made the initial change. Therefore it should either be reverted back to the way it was, or we can opt for the neutral option of removing it entirely until there has been consensus and evidence provided. Helper201 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No, you were the one who decided to make the initial change, do not be manipulative. Soman only stopped reverting because the user in question did not want to engage in a edit war. I would say you are being quite disruptive. In matter of fact, I do not hear this party being called "far-left" unless in a pejorative use and context. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Portuguese Communist Party. 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/20150312024801/http://guerracolonial.home.sapo.pt/ to http://guerracolonial.home.sapo.pt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111153446/http://www.pcp.pt/english/programme.html to http://www.pcp.pt/english/programme.html

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) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on quotes
The section on quotes should be removed immediately. Wikipedia should never uses quotes as the way typed things, the current quotes gives a soapbox for the party, this is against Wikipedia's terms on a NPOV, BunnyHopp there is way to twist this it will be removed. It doesn't constitute a NPOV. However please state your rational for keeping it which it won't because the way it is constituted can and will never be allowed on Wikipedia. Vallee01 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's WP:NPOV. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources, the party itself being one, should be stated as Wikipedia's voice. In this case, the facts they point out is what the ideologies of the party are - being thus unconstested. I only to hear the final concerns of the colleagues over at Marxism-leninism to remove the quotes here - it will be sourced in the page of the ideology itself. BunnyyHop (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
As stated by other editors, the insentient use of quotes completely fails at making this article have a neutral POV. The way in which this article uses quotes gives a soapbox for Portuguese Communist Party. BunnyyHop's edits are all giving a soapbox to the Portuguese Communist Party and is therefor unacceptable. Vallee01 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No other editors have expressed themselves against this except you, who is making very disruptive edits, removing years-old information and replacing it with gibberish "the synthesis of nationalism and state communism", which is completely absurd, as well as replacing PCP with PGC(!!), again - all of this without any sources. We must have neutral editing, it would be a violation of NPOV if framed what the party defines itself as in Wikipedia's voice. Using this as a third voice, in this case the voice of the party, is neutral editing. I could add news sites to back that up instead of using only primary sources. But use the talk page before making any edit to the lead of the article.
 * You seem to be equivocated on what "Neutrality" means. According to the guidelines, this is a golden rule: assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves. A simple search returns 40 400 results BunnyyHop (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * if the neutrality is disputed, it is disputed it is against the rules to remove it. There are currently two involved in this discussion and you have already been blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia. Don't edit war but feel free to edit the article or revert my changes, however you can not remove the neutrality disputed. It is disputed. You are giving a soapbox to the PCP you can't state outright state that the PCP is a "vanguardism role in the service of the class interests of the workers, of the process of social transformation, for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism." So just use a quote to a self published source. Also googles definition has nothing to do with Wikipedia. What you just stated was complete waffle. See WP:NEUTRALITY for the official guide, nonsense on what a google search means doesn't mean anything. Vallee01 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * is clearly disruptive in his/her edits. It is not NPOV to state that PCP considers itself as a vanguard party of the working class. The edits is ill written, confusing and misleading (for example claiming that PCP considers itself as a 'dictotoral vanguard' or that the party itself would be a synthesis, whatever that means...). --Soman (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * the use of quotes completely takes away neutrality from the article if we look at other articles like Ghandi, quotes are only used in a a sparring manner and only used when needed. What does the quotes add to the article that simple phrasing couldn't be done by simply phrasing it? Absolutely nothing, the entire article breaks the rules of quotes, by giving a soapbox to the party. This seems biased and an unnecessary inclusion to me, this quote does not need to be in the article and is simply fluff. The same idea can be given with far less bias and also far less words with simply, paraphrasing the statement of the PCP. The quote in other words can be described with far less words and far less bias by simply paraphrasing things. The issue with quotes is that when you are using quotes you are putting up a soapbox for people to express there ideas and Wikipedia is a neutral space. I agree that the edit was subpar but that doesn't take away from the fact this article can't be considered neutral. The unexplained removal of sections stating the PCP failures after the collapse of the eastern bloc also doesn't fit a NPOV. Vallee01 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm struggling to make sense of the comment. What 'rule of quotes' are you talking about? The linked essay doesn't back up your argument. --Soman (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

, I'm not blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia. "outright state" I did not "outright state" those things. According to the party is something stated in a lot of articles, as shown by the Google Search. This is just to make you understand what neutral is and isn't. Jobbik, for example, has the following in the lead: "According to the party's "Manifesto on the Guidelines of a Future Government", Jobbik represents all Hungarian citizens and people and aims to build a modern national identity, while rejecting the chauvinism of the 20th century." In this case, according to the political thesis of the party, it maintains its "vanguard role in the service of the class interests of the workers, of the process of social transformation, for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism". To say this is a soapbox is to not understand what a soapbox is. It's the official party line and it should be stated in the lead. And this is not something redundant - vanguardism and revolution are central aspects to understading the party line. It's in quotes because it's not something neutral or factual but their opinion - which is in quotes and written in an impartial tone, it's an opinion stated as an opinion and not as fact. If it was stated as a fact - then we would have a problem. It's right there on the WP:NPOV article, and like, I struggle to see where the problem is. BunnyyHop (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * When you allow quotes to be used in this way, you give a platform to the PCP. My ultimate point is as follows, the quote is not needed. It simply gives a microphone to the PCP. The quotes aren't needed, you could easily maintain the same idea using neutral words. "The PCP claims to be a synthesis of Marxist-Leninism and also claims to be patriotic." The issue with the quote is that it is directly supporting the PCP. The best way to change the article would be get rid of the quotes and replace with info detailing the PCP.
 * ''"Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. We encourage the inclusion and use of all reliable sources—including biased ones—but biased and point-of-view (POV) content must be reliably sourced and POV language must be quoted and attributed, rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis."
 * The wording the PCP is using is itself not neutral, and doesn't serve any use other then to allow a POV to be pushed into the article.

 * Quotes should be used sparingly and only used when necessary. This article has an entire paragraph dedicated to quotes. Quotes as an example for Aristotle stating "All I know is I know nothing!" or George Orwell stating "2+2=5." Using quotes in favor of actual wording takes away Wikipedia's neutrality and allows any pot head to state whatever they would like. See the issue? If something can be stated without the need of quotes and nothing is lost don't use a quote it simply gives a soapbox and makes it impossible for things to be written in an encyclopedic format. don't overuse quotes. I agree that wording stating the PCP supports vanguardism is acceptable. However it can be stated more neutrally and it doesn't need quotes.

 * You were blocked two times, and got unblocked two day ago. You were blocked for biased editing on the pages Portuguese Dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as well the Portuguese version of the Portuguese Communist Party (this very article.) You were warned 4 times before you got blocked. You also were warned twice for edit warring on the page Marxist-Leninism twice.

 * You appear to have an extreme close connection the article as you are a member of the Portuguese Communist Party and other Portuguese communist parties. As stated on your talk page "This user supports the Portuguese Communist Party." You also are a Marxist-Leninist "This user is a Marxist-Leninist." You support and seem to admire Álvaro Cunhal a Marxist-Leninist politician. The fact you have such a close connection the article with you being a member of the PCP, makes you impossible to be a neutral source on this article. You have a conflict of interest. You keep editing pages relating to Marxist-Leninism always removing negative elements of Marxist-Leninism. I myself am a anarchist and build myself of anti-authoritarianism, anti-capitalism and radical equality and describe myself as leaning left wing. However you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Vallee01 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * , there is a total of three small quotes in a paragraph describing the party and its goals. Saying this is "a paragraph full of quotes" is absurd.
 * According to the same quotes article: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them"; "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution".
 * Quotes here are used to comply with WP:NPOV, only quoted on the segments where the party describes their goals and motives. What you propose is completely violating WP:NOR.
 * "you give a platform to the PCP" "The issue with the quote is that it is directly supporting the PCP." "It simply gives a microphone to the PCP" - This is coming from the same guy who accuses me of "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", but I'm not going down this path. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * "Not using quotes is original research." Original research is when someone does something you don't like the more they don't do what you want the more original research it is. A dedicated PCP member cannot be expected to write an encyclopedic article about the PCPC. You don't need a quote to state the PCP stated goals. It's most certainly not necessary. That's complete waffle and not Wikipedia's policies, amigo. Vallee01 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not a PCP member. If you have no further objections other than your POV, please remove the "neutrality template" from the page. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. To have an article about a party that fails to mention its goals is not being an encyclopaedia. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's not how discussion or Wikipedia policies works. You can't state "no further objections other than your POV, please remove the 'neutrality template'" and try to shut down the conversation. BunnyyHop sorry for the accusations, I didn't know aren't a member of PCP. Your also not a Marxist-Leninist I assume. Vallee01 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

, consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. This new edit is tendentious, it's a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole. You have removed policy-abiding paragraphs and replaced them with original research such as "the stated goal of the PCG is to adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and to be a synthesis of patriotism, and state communism". So far, two editors have strongly opposed your edits. They are based on a strawman of MOS:QUOTE, where there should be no quotes because otherwise it's WP:PROMOTION. But where the promotion is, is yet to be seen. Everything is written according to WP:NPOV - a simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but to not assert opinions themselves. Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional:

Acceptable: Siskel and Ebert called the film "unforgettable". Unacceptable: The site is considered "sacred" by the religion's scriptures.

Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.

Permissible: Siskel and Ebert called the film interesting. Unnecessary and may imply doubt: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting". Should be quoted: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting but heart-wrenching". BunnyyHop (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * This entire argument makes no sense, these quotes put the PCP to spouse it's views the quotes can be used, the quotes aren't needed. You also reverted someone else's edit's. Vallee01 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is about neutral editing, not neutral content. The word "neutral" in the NPOV policy is frequently misunderstood by new editors, visitors, and outside critics. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "It does not mean what they think it means." They think it means that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove content and sources they perceive as "not neutral". They do not understand "neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and think NPOV means content should have "No Point Of View", when nothing could be further from the truth.

 * The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias and editorial POV, but does not forbid content bias and content POV, which is the type of bias found in reliable sources, many of which are far from neutral. All significant points of view must be documented, and all types of reliable sources, including biased ones, should be used: "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Therefore, source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They must include source bias, must preserve it, and must remain neutral in how they do it.

 * Without the use of non-neutral sources to document the non-neutral biases in the real world, most of our articles would fail to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and would be rather blah reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

 * A change of the NPOV policy to accommodate such specious reasoning would mean the radical neutering of millions of articles, violation of NPOV, and denial that such points of view exist in the real world. BunnyyHop (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * This isn't how Wikipedia's policies work, it complete misunderstanding. Quotes should only be used when necessary, a biased source can be used but Wikipeida must always remain neutral, you need to understand this. Mein Kampf can be used on a source on what Adolf Hitler believes but it must be written naturally. BunnyyHop posting a copy and text a wall of text doesn't provide an argument. The quotes are not required the quote can be paraphrased without going into a soapbox. Vallee01 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * This is exactly how Wikipedia's policies work. The quotes are used to directly quote the political opinions about political positions (facts), which constitutes neutral editing. BunnyyHop (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Again you haven't stated why the quotes are needed. Yes you could argue that the quotes are being used to demonstrate the policies of the PCP, however why can't you simply paraphrase the quotes allowing Wikipeida to neutrally state these things instead of having quotes from the PCP? I also don't know how much you can edit neutrally considering you yourself are a member of the PCP. It's a conflict of interest. Vallee01 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The quotes are needed exactly for the reason you point out - to keep the article neutral. The phrase is neutrally stated if it's within quotes and attributed to the right person. WP:V BunnyyHop (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * BunnyyHop it's attributed to a party something which is not only completely vague but also not needed. Why is the quote needed? Why can't you simply paraphrase the quote, as an example: "The PCP claims to 'Defend the working class against leaches!'" vs, "the PCP claims to want to defend the working class as to what it sees as 'leaches'", it is a complete POV section. Also you are edit warring as I restored to a previous version before these edits. Keep in mind your action has consequences, if you edit war it's not good. You are a stated member of the PCP, and a Marxist-Leninist. How can you be a neutral source for the PCP? Vallee01 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

maintaining, according to the party, "vanguard role in the service of the class interests of the workers, of the process of social transformation, for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism" is completely necessary and constitutes neutral editing. There's absolutely no problem with this, and the quotes are needed because otherwise you would be stating an opinion, which is against neutral editing. My version is the stable version - it was the version in place before you started the dispute. Moreover, your version has been reverted by another editor who claimed yours "introduced heavily pov". BunnyyHop (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * a random quote is not "completely necessary and constitutes neutral editing" and it's not even necessary. What information is lost by using this instead "The PCP claims to be a vanguard and have class interests in favor of the 'working class' to destroy capitalism?" It's not "completely necessary," a completely necessary information would be an info-box. Vallee01 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The information lost is
 * maintaining, according to the party, "vanguard role in the service of the class interests of the workers, of the process of social transformation, for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism"
 * This is not a random quote. This is the in first article of the statutes of the party. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * and the information that is lost by simply paraphrasing? You didn't answer why the quote is needed over paraphrasing the information, it's a random quote that the party believes we already make clear what the ideology of the PCP is at the top, we therefor don't need this information stated by what the parties website states, 1/3rd of this articles lead is dedicated to quotes, something which is a textbook example of an overuse of quotes. Vallee01 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BunnyyHop that's not correct grammar, I don't really need to say anything on that, it's not right. Vallee01 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Paraphrasing the information will simply make it more confusing - that is - if you pretend to make WP:NPOV edits. "1/3rd" There are 40 words under quotes in a 155 word paragraph. About 26% is under quotes. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * BunnyyHop 26% of the article being given to the PCP to state there policies is still completely ridiculous. Also 1/3rd of the paragraph. 26% rounds to 30%, and more then that is dedicated to quotes. Vallee01 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 26% of the third paragraph, not of the article. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it constitutes "relatively small". 4th largest with 50.000 members in a near 11 million population where there's 50% of absentees? The current government would fall]] apart if it wasn't the support of this party in the parliament. 6% of a vote share isn't relatively small, unless you count every party to be relatively small compared to the one who got most votes. I have made a quick Google search, and "relatively small" appears to be used for the Catalonian Communist Party - when it had around 400 members. This List of political parties in Italy article defines major as "more than 4%". List of political parties in the United Kingdom defines minor parties as parties with no elected UK representation. Thus it shows the arbitrariness of using "relatively small compared to other parties". In fact, this is the only wikipedia page with the phrase "relatively small compared to other parties", Here. Because this violates WP:ASSERT --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really the spirit of the guideline. Opinions, such as saying "X is the best", "Y is evil", etc. should be removed from articles. However, stating something is small or large doesn't really apply here.

 * Yes, the terminology of major and minor, small or large, etc. varies between articles and the specific situation. However, it applies here.... the [|governmental party has ten times and the opposition has eight times] as many votes as the PCP. That is relatively small. I'm going to need a source for your claim that the government would fall apart if not for the support of 4% of the voters before I believe it. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Its around 6% in the legislative elections, european elections, and around 10%(!) in local elections. https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/economia/abstencao-do-pcp-praticamente-viabiliza-orcamento-do-estado-para-2021_n1278310 they abstained, which was enough to be approved. All other parties voted against, so if the party did the same thing there would be a political crisis in the minority government of the government's party. Also, no, it does not apply here just because the government party is 10 times larger. It's completely redundant to state this in the lead because it's right on the infobox. This "relatively small" is an asserted opinion, which violates WP:NPOV. There's minor parties (usually ones that aren't represented in any parliaments) and there's major parties. BunnyyHop (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's completely redundant to state this in the lead. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * , the party is relatively small, we state it that's it. 2-5% of the election is generally small, the reason we state "small" is not for some random reason but because the previous sentence is "the party maintains support from."

 * It's not 2-5%, it's 6,66% just in the Assembly of the Republic. In municipal elections, it's 10%. "relatively small" here is stated as fact, but it literally constitutes the editor's POV. Some might argue: How is it "relatively small" if it's bigger than 5 other parties represented in the assembly? What about all other minor parties, which by the way, don't have themselves described as "relatively small" but as "minor" parties? "the party is relatively small" in your POV, . Moreover, it's completely redundant to state the amount of seats in the Assembly at all - it's repeating information stated in the INFOBOX. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Great response, thank you for your time colleague. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality template
What is the rationale for keeping the «neutrality is disputed» template when the «dispute» has ended? This tag is not for a single editor to filibuster or complain about an article when they don't get their way. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 01:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article isn't neutral it uses weasel words, constantly soapboxes for the PCP, mis-use of quotes, you also removed a section which details that the party lost support through the 1990s simply because you don't like it. Removing a tag that is in dispute isn't allowed. We can call for the article to be reviewed, for neutrality as it's not neutral. you added a large amount of POV pushing sections. Des Vallee (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which? -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 01:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See the extensive details on mis-use of quotes, Pro-soapboxing as a stated member of the PCP, stating things like Socialism or Communism is required, pro-Marxist-Leninist agenda etc... Other editors have stated the neutrality is extremely pushing this has already made clear above and you already know this why are you then asking I don't know. Des Vallee (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the NPOV tag, per Template:POV: It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given., as well as the 3O provided by Springnuts above. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springnuts went directly against BunnyyHop, the third. moreover other users have stated the neutrality is nonsense, if we look at the discussion multiple users have pointed out BunnyyHop's POV sections such as the removing of "relatively small" numerous times. A strange waffle when users have made it extremely clear the extreme overuse of quotes gives a complete soapbox to PCP. Des Vallee (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So far, only you have brought this up, I don't really understand which users you're talking about. What users? What «extreme overuse of quotes»? Removing «relatively small» is a «POV section»? BunnyyHop  ( talk ) 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springnuts and Sam1370 only went against BunnyyHop on the "relatively small" issue, and Bunnyy dropped the issue after Springnuts provided their third opinion. For the rest of the "issues" you claim, you are pretty much alone on that. Again, I've yet to see what really is the issue here, and I haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from your side. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The portuguese version of this page is seriously compromised by PCP militants
,, , , just to name a few of the portuguese language users with deep sympathy towards the PCP have absolute rule over the portuguese language version of this page and have posted blatant disinformation and party propaganda as facts to the point that it is completly compromised. Under no circunstances should that page be used as a standart for the english language page, which although still slightly biased towards the PCP, it still is far more neutral than the portuguese language page will ever be. The extreme left-wing bias in the portuguese politics pages remains a stain in Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. TheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 * that's a problem for the Portuguese version of the page, an irrelevant to this one Castroonthemoon (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why is there a warning that says: "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Portuguese"? TheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that just means we think our article might be improved if we were to translate some content from the Portuguese Wikipedia. Now, if neutrality on the Portuguese article is as compromised as you say, maybe that's a bad idea! (I can't check; I don't read Portuguese, alas.) But it's basically just a routine tag. At the end of the day the English Wikipedia doesn't have any jurisdiction over any articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Perhaps you could look up what sort of dispute resolution is available on the Portuguese Wikipedia? Sorry that most of us here probably can't be too helpful since most of us don't know Portuguese. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Even you if can't read in portuguese, you can just read the other discussions about ideologically motivated editing on the english language Wikipedia, then you can check that he is the main contributor for the portuguese language article and that will tell you everything you need to know about its neutrality. Most of the references are either from the party's website, the Avante newspaper or other media affiliated with the PCP. The portuguese language Wikipedia has insane left-wing bias from people that have barricated themselfs behind moderation roles and should NOT be used under any circumstances to improve english articles. TheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound so great. In fairness, if you expand the tag on the article, it does point out: "Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article." So hopefully if indeed the Portuguese text is as bad as you say, people will realize this and not translate it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is so ridiculously lopsided that even though the last portuguese local elections were on the 26th of September 2021, the infobox still displayed the amount of mayors and councillors from the 2017 local elections. And the section about the party's reaction about the russian invasion of Ukraine is pure unfiltered party propaganda. TheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Use a neutral source to back up your argument. That's the only way you can convince us. 아키라 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are unable to see beyond your bias, but it is me who must challenge you to prove my sources, which include academic journals, aren't neutral. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As for your request for the pro-russian sentiment within the party:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portuguese-police-raid-local-body-where-russians-handled-ukrainian-refugees-2022-05-10/

https://www.portugal.com/news/pcp-will-not-be-present-for-president-zelenskys-speech/

https://www.portugalresident.com/cdu-refuses-to-condemn-russia/ NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

are you still at this? you've been obsessed with editing this page for the last month. none of those sources you keep trying to use are good enough for your claims, as 20 days ago myself and a few other editors had to keep reverting your vandalism. you've been warned to stop multiple times Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are unable to cope with facts. The sources stated are either from newspapers or academic journals, but I guess you would prefer more party propaganda. Your comrade was the one crying about the edits, to the point that he left me a mensage. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

there's really no need to get uncivil here, it's wikipedia. You're the only one in these discussions getting emotionally involved in this Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You really should bother reading the whole discussion thread before making stuff up in your head. It would really improve the quality of your arguments, instead of complaining endlessly that academic peer review sources aren't valid. Either try to keep your bias away or refrain from editing this page. I am always open for civil discussions, but unfortunatly you and your comrades have failed to do that since the very beginning. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality
I recently found a non-neutral addition to this article. The sources accompanying the additions are uncomfortably biased, inconsistent with the text, and generally long written. Therefore, it is absurd that 'anti-reformism' and 'euroscepticism' were added to the ideology. I think there is a serious problem with the content, and it is necessary to delete it.아키라 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I think the user who added this content needs to know the exact meaning of 'anti-revisionism' and 'euroscepticism'. Finally, I think there needs to be a serious talk on this. 아키라 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In particular, for sources added to anti-revisionism, one was written in 1990 and one in 2006. In the latter case, bias is serious, and the former does not contain the latest content. 아키라 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The PCP is well known as an eurosceptic party. It is documented in the run up to the 2019 european elections, when the center-left Socialist Party accused it of having an "extremelly dangerous project", even when the PCP was giving parlimentary support to the minority PS government. As for anti-revisionist, the fact that the eurocommunists and pro-Perestroika faction that were purged in the 90s remain outside of the party speaks for itself. I do agree that more updated academic sources would be better, but there are not that much english sources to chose from. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Also if the Left Bloc, a soft-eurosceptic party, is described as such on Wikipedia, I would like for you to provide valid reasons for a hard-eurosceptic party to not be described as such. Again, it does seem that you have big ideological bias and have become quite emotional on this subject. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Concerning the parliamentary representation, only the aforementioned PCP and BE contain Eurosceptic elements in their programs. The PCP is economically one of the most orthodox and conservative Communist parties in Europe"

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0062-8

Is this better for you? NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"2. The main political parties seemed to agree upon their European perspectives. The decreasing politicization of Europe in Portuguese politics – when compared with what happened with the “hard” Eurosceptic position of the Communist Party or the “soft” Euroscepticism of the right-wing CDS-PP in the 90’s (until the demise of Manuel Monteiro’s leadership) – might explain the absence of a “European cleavage” in voting behaviour and, thus, a higher abstention rate."

source: https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2019/06/european-elections-the-silence-of-the-lambs-and-the-dangerous-political-resignation-in-portugal/#_ftn12 NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Data are also limited to the '90s. Whose is the source? Attempts to link the conservative Communist Party to anti-revisionism are incomprehensible. Why is your point of view the standard of PCP?아키라 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Standards are not something I can define. I'm just a user trying to meet Wikipedia standards, you just have to read and familiarize yourself with two articles. I say in this article that it is very unhealthy and destructive to put an ideological emphasis on anti-revisionism and Eurosectism. 아키라 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You should read that again, it is pretty clear that 90s reference is about the CDS-PP and not about the PCP. In the early 90s the hardline wing of the party took over and started to have an eurosceptic outlook, to the point that it was kicked out the EPP. In the late 90s the establishment wing took over again under Paulo Portas, and the party returned to being pro-EU. It is quite clear you don't know much of anything about portuguese politics and should refrain from editing anything related to it. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm using the same standarts used for another ideologically similar party, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). The anti-Perestroika sentiment is what defines the Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash) as anti-revisionist, but not the Syrian Communist Party (Unified). Several PCP members celebrated the death of Gorbachev and the party still has not reinstated the purged pro-Perestroika and eurocommunist factions. You cannot claim that the PCP, by far one of the most hardline communist parties in Europe, is not anti-revisionist, specially when compared to the PCF or the PCE. Are we done here? NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portuguese Communist Party


text: Category:Italian music history

title: Category:Italian music history


text: Talk:Denkard

title: Talk:Denkard