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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Portuguese Communist Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has several issues that will need to be resolved in order for it to retain its good article status. Issues include but are not limited to:

• Insufficient references – most of the article's information is missing inline citations
• Remove the external links in the article's body per WP:EL
• per WP:LAYOUT "See also" goes before "References" and "Notes"

Please keep this page updated with the article's status. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues have not been resolved, therefore this article has been delisted. Gary King (talk) 18:08, 10 December 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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 BunnyHopp 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

Vallee01 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 [1] 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)

Soman 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)

Vallee01, 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 Soman, I struggle to see where the problem is. BunnyyHop (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Soman 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.

BunnyyHop 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)

Vallee01, 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

Vallee01, 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

BunnyyHop 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)

sam1370 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)

@BunnyyHop: 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 [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)

sam1370 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)

sam1370 it's completely redundant to state this in the lead. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, 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, Vallee01. 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)

References

Response to third opinion request:

Good evening, I am Springnuts. As far as I know I have neither previously edited this article, nor interacted with any of the editors involved. I am a Brit, and we have a soft spot for Portugal, our oldest ally and one of the 22 countries in the world we have never invaded. So I hope I may be able to help. I would like to thank you for a very clearly expressed request for a 3O: “Whether «relatively small» should be stated or not”. May I first of all draw your attention to a discrepancy in the encyclopedia: according to Assembly of the Republic (Portugal) the Portuguese Communist Party has ten seats; according to this article it has twelve – likely due to participation in the Unitary Democratic Coalition, I assume. I don’t consider this difference significant to my opinion. I note membership figures of 54k (17% of those who are members of any party), compared to the 129k (40% of those who are members of any party) who are SD members. But I am unsure what weight you can give to such a comparison, because the figures are not necessarily comparing like with like; nor are they, from a quick scan of the articles and sources, official or externally audited figures. Number of votes in a national election seems a more reliable figure, and I note that in the election of 2019 the Unitary Democratic Coalition, which includes the PCP, gained around 5% of the vote. My opinion is that «relatively small» is used appropriately in the article. It seems to me that here we have an assembly; within which are two large parties, a couple of relatively small parties and a number of very small parties. Relatively here naturally refers to the size of the whole assembly, and to the size of this party relative to the largest party. My opinion is a linguistic one and not in any way a political one; and fwiw I do not see there being any moral or value judgment in the description, nor do I see the words as being in any way POV or weaselly. That is my 3O. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Great response, thank you for your time colleague Springnuts. --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)

BunnyyHop 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#When to remove: 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)

pandakekok9 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)

@Des Vallee: 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

BunnyyHop, JMagalhães, Eta Carinae, Young Brujah, 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 BunnyyHop 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)