Talk:Bob Avakian

Early discussion

I'm NOT out to redbait here... but I don't think you can really say "he was sighted" doing something in a dictionary entry. Who said they saw him doing this?

Also sketchy is "as a result of the demonstrations" he was charged with a 241 year sentence. What were the charges actually for? etc.

=Yeah, the "over 241 years sentence" sounds ridiculous, until someone can cite a source for that it should be removed. -Xcuref1endX

Alleged whereabouts

Someone added: "Returned to the United States in 2001 and lives in Oklahoma." I've never heard this; I don't know how he could've come back without risk of prosecution. Can we verify this somehow? Everyking 22:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bob Avakian is not in Oklahoma, or at least no credible sources have claimed this. The only source on this is a series of posts of various IMC sites that also accuse him of being an FBI agent, and claim the only reason for his underground status is overweight. There are a lot of people on the left and the right who dislike the RCP. Until we hear from a credible source, I suggest we leave his location blank.

Regardless, it's hard to imagine that the statute of limitations for anything the article suggests he may have done would still be in effect. I wouldn't consider that of much influence.

Source on Tires

He was sited cutting the tires of the D.A. during the Stop the Draft Week riots, this is according to "Berekely in the Sixties" a documentary made on the history of the Berekly College.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6303947840/103-6102590-0372624?v=glance

Please respond to the criticisms

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Already been answered. A million times. Wikipedia is not a Bob Avakian soapbox. The article needs to be NPOV. NEEDS SECONDARY SOURCES. Your self-proclaimed expertise is not enough to insure the 'objectivity' and accuracy of the article. Hence the need for SECONDARY SOURCES. --xcuref1endx (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This has all been discussed in the sections above. Wikipedia does not host hagiographies. A Wikipedia biography is not the place to summarize the subject's ideology and writings, cited to their own work. We rely primarily on independent reliable sources and what they say about the topic. In my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how biographies of living people ought to be written. Start slowly, step by step, correcting the factual errors, citing each change to reliable independent sources. Such edits in compliance with policy and guidelines will gain consensus. Improve the article gradually, gaining consensus for each change. Do not add any material against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point the objections and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT posts on user's talk pages are becoming disruptive. I've left a note to that effect on the user's talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Avakian. 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/20050210042256/http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs02052005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs02052005.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kasamaproject.org/so-what-is-kasama

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RE Brad Avakian

Are the two related? Quis separabit? 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography length

Hi all. Going through the change log I noticed a very very large growth to the bibliography section of this page on the part of one user, who has also been mostly focused on editing Revcom-associated articles in an often positively-biased tone. It’s current length is excessive and reads like an advertisement. Another user attempted to delete all of the bibliography, which was immediately reverted by a bot. What’s a good middle ground we can find here? 2601:800:4002:85E0:91F9:D435:AC40:61D7 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I split the bibliography off into Works of Bob Avakian. Of course, that page still needs trimming. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)