Talk:Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre)

Untitled

This kind of news is quite interesting in understanding the tactics and strategies of the party:

Nepal rebels ready to surrender under UN supervision [ Sunday, November 20, 2005 01:13:57 amPTI ], from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1301467,curpg-1.cms

KATHMANDU: Nepal's Maoist rebels, spearheading a decade-old insurgency, have agreed to lay down arms under UN supervision and support the movement launched by an alliance of seven political parties to limit King Gyanendra's role as a titular head, highly placed sources said on Saturday. (...)

This is not true. The Maoists have clearly stated on multiple occassions that they will not lay down arms until an elected, constituent assembly convenes and decides the state structure of a post-monarchist Nepal. In the Stacks

---

On the contrary: As can now (january 2007) be seen, the maoists HAVE laid down arms, negotiated a peace settlement, and accepted UN supervision. Togrim, user of the Norwegian wikipedia, 2007-01-20

This article doesn't fully do justice to the origins of the Maoists, their conduct, or their current state.I would hope the wikipedia community would be more willing to allow edits that try to somewhat add some context to the situation.

The thing about the CPN(M) being a Khmer Rouge in the making was said in a major British daily newspaper - I can't remember which one - try Google searching if you really want to know.--XmarkX 07:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Nepalese Maoists aren't the only people who don't accept the orthodox version of what happened under the Khmer Rouge: for example, Noam Chomsky. Questioning the official version of history in Cambodia does not necessarily translate into support for the Khmer Rouge (they don't; Maoist politics are actually quite different from Pol Pot's, irreconcilably so). To suggest that the CPN(M) is another KR in the making is really quite silly.

I'm not disputing that it's a stupid claim - the point is that it has been made--XmarkX 02:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True; but if it's a bullshitty claim that's objectively false, some mention should be made of that. The way it's just sort of left to stand implies that its true or has merit.

.... in the interview linked from the main page, he says "we are no Khmer Rouge"

---

Do we have a reliable source that the government atrocities are much more severe? -Hmib 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a blatantly, blatantly biased item, characterizing democracy's use of elected representatives as a "shallow" means of involving citizens in self-government, and making an unsupported statement that "The human rights abuses of the monarchy are over 5 times those of the Maoists, and far more horrific, although this fact is ignored by nearly all foreign press."

Apart from this problem, the item itself is shallow and fails to explore the political ramifications and causes of the maoist insurgency in Nepal in anything beyond the most summary terms of stating that it exists, and then saying that the royals are worse then the maoists.

This needs to be completely rewritten.

Read amnestys last Nepal reports. They say that both parts break human rights, but the govt side is much worse. Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-17

Unsatisfactory Work

I think this article leaves a lot to be imagined, there is nothing here seemingly on the ideological character of the CPN (M), its role in the International Maoist movement and its relations with other various Maoist groups including those in India. I think someone should really try to put this together, I am willing of course to help.

India's Prisoners

"India had provided the Nepali government with aid to combat the insurgency and is currently holding two commanders of the CPN-M in jail." I don't have the resources right now to source it, but the two prisoners there were held in India were freed about a month to two months ago.

Maobadi

I receive frequent posting from a left wing discussion group (trainspotters) refering to the "Maobadi" although I am somewhat unclear of what it refers to. I is clear from context that it pertains to 1) Nepal 2)Maoist politics. Does the term "Maobadi" refer to CPN-M? If so I would create a redirect page to this article. Currently a wp search for "Mobadi" in article namespace returns nothing. Edivorce 20:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 'Maobadi'/'Maovadi' is Nepalese (and Hindi, Bengali, etc.) for 'Maoist'. The Nepali name for CPN(Maoist) is 'Nepal Kamyunist Party (Maobadi)', colloquially called 'Maobadi'. --Soman 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Material copied from other side without proper referencing / copyright infringement?

Hi,

the text under Leadership, Command Structure is almost verbatim copied from

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/nepal/terroristoutfits/index.html

but no reference to this source has been made.

Can someone please check if this is o.k. and if other text from the same site has been copied? Wei Xiwu 11:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Weaponry

I added a statement to this section making note of the relatively antiquated nature of some of the weaponry carried by the Communist insurgents. I added a link to a photo gallery showing the insurgents carrying what appear possibly to be muskets. --KobaVanDerLubbe (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I removed that here as it appears to be a classic case of OR. You need a reference if you want to make a note of their antiquated weaponary. You cannot add something based on your intepretation of a photo. While the whole article is in dire need of referencing it doesn't mean we should just add more OR. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was working in rural Nepal for an INGO from 1995 to 2000 and as a neutral observer of the conflict can confirm I saw and heard Moaist cadres using muskets / muzzle loading weapons. Many farmers in the hills of Nepal use/used "Banduks" old muzzle loaders for hunting and these were "requisitioned" by Moaist activists. Shotguns, home made pistols and other simple firearms were widely used in the early days of the conflict but increasingly replaced by modern weapons after 1998 for frontline operations. Dr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.75.203 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

massive update needed

large parts of this article still refers to the party as if the war was still going on. Details on armed forces needs to be shifted to a separate People's Liberation Army (Nepal) article. --Soman (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

This Article is problematic. It seems as if a few writers urge the visitor to pick up a specific point of view regarding this. I would suggest to simply remove anything without sources, and rewrite the whole stuff that is without any facts. And more links to a critical, thinking journalism would not be bad here. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

program or aims of the party

i found this is missing in the artice could someone add this? a posible starting point to get info on this could be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7348049.stm

quote: A message of "land to the tiller", already tried out in some remote places, has huge appeal in a country of subsistence farmers and labourers.

So too do the promise of deliverance from caste or gender discrimination, or the financially crippling dowry system - changes the Maoists really have set about introducing. In business, Maoist trade union mobilisation has in some cases doubled people's pitiful wages.

Their promise not to hamper private enterprise means some entrepreneurs are swinging behind them.

In their own leadership and parliamentary appointees the Maoists have introduced more women and more people from disadvantaged castes and ethnic groups, something they promise to continue.

Ideologically, the Maoists remain textbook communists and will certainly not ditch their title, professing admiration for Mao. But Maoist-watchers say that in government they will be pragmatic, not rigid. -- endquote --Stefanbcn (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like a peice of party literature. It should receive a rewrite to remove the more huffily dogmatic bits, and should include international critiques of the group more prominently.

Video shows Dahal admitting real strength of PLA not more than 8,000

Can you believe a communist would lie

http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/may/may05/news12.php#1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8Riley (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Different from Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)

Just what is the difference between this Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)? Why can't they agree to cooperate, since they both believe in Communism? Why can't they create a unified government? These things are still not clear to me. Selerian (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Selerian thats a good question. I would simply say, nepalese are stupid :(. --DBhuwanSurfer 14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

explanation

in my last edit, [1], i hit enter a bit to fast by mistake. In brief, the edit would be summarized in the following manner: There are no inherent values of left/right positions. Left/right positions always depends on the national or regional context in which the particular party operates. UCPN(M) is the largest party in Nepal, thus per se not a fringe group. --Soman (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Every political party is considered to be somwehere in the political spectrum. The masoists are considered communists and communism is automatically in the far left position for any political party. Please come up with some logical argument and try to revert the edit. And yes, left/right positions are a very important part of the political spectrum. The UCPN(M) manifesto declares that they are a far left party. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Also, there is a centre left party with its manifesto clearly being inclined to socialism: the CPN(UML). That also is my supporting argument that political specturm has to be enabled in Nepalese party pages. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I did present a logical argument, above. There are no inherent left/right values. You, however, clearly contradict yourself. You say that a communist party is per definition 'far left', then goes on to label the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) as 'centre left'. --Soman (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at these articles before any edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum http://www.ucpnm.org/english/adopted-resol.php You obviously do not seem to have knowledge about topics on Nepal's parties as seen with your page creations and edit history. Nor do you seem to have knowledge about the UCPN(M)'s manifesto. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You also do not obviously understand the difference between Socialism and Communism. While the UML's manifesto is based on socialism. The UCPN(M) have a clear, well written and declared Communist policy in their manifesto. If you engage in more edit reverts (without any convincing reasoning), i will have to file a complaint. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, try to find a reference to back up that claim. --Soman (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am with DBhuwanSurfer on this one. I will try to find some old copies of A World To Win to post. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a very different thing from Marxism-Leninism.Gee totes (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Two follow-up queries: 1) Wouldn't a study of AWTW to judge the 'far-left-ness' of UCPN(M) be WP:OR by default? and 2) you are aware that RIM is defunct since quite a long time? Documents from the 1990s would do little justice to describe role of Nepalese Maoists in the Constituent Assembly period. --Soman (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the RIM has been defunct for awhile. I'm not suggesting doing a study of AWTW. However, I do remember some articles in AWTW written by UPCN(M) that highlight the differences between them and the UML, which would be helpful to post, since it would end this debate.Gee totes (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking through online back issues of AWTW (the one dedicated to Nepal is missing, unfortunately) I can share these two links: here and here. However, this interview in Monthly Review Magazing with a member of the UCPN(M) about the 2008 CA elections clearly identifies the UML as "center left".Gee totes (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee totes, thanks for providing the references. 

Any one who has studied the manifesto of these two parties should clearly know their positions on the spectrum. I am throwing another document to convince Soman: http://www.ucpnm.org/english/doc1.php Please go through that thoroughly. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee totes is right. And no one is judging the party's ideology other than the user Soman here. By default, Communism is in the far left of the spectrum. Gee totes search will not be WP:OR, instead the user will be finding sources to back the argument here. What documents of the 1990s are you talking about? The Maoists did not even exist back then. Please do not revert the edit without a valid agreeable reason. Or try to bring others to back your claim. As of now, we are two here to support our explanation. And most importantly, as Gee totes explains, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a very different thing from Marxism-Leninism. thus, the UML of Nepal is by default a socialist party with its position on the centre left and the UCPN(M) is in the far left. Both of these have a totally different manifesto. I suggest you read it before engaging in even any discussion. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Maoists did exist back in the 90s.Here is a 1996 letter from them.Gee totes (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee totes , thanks for correcting me. I mistook 90s as 90. Sorry about that. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, we are back in the exact same issue as with all the edit conflicts of how 'political position' is to be determined in wikipedia. Gee totes finds one article in which UML is labelled "center left" (in brackets). If I find an article that describes UML as 'far left' (such as this one http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,RSF,,NPL,4896c4801e,0.html ), are we then 1-1? The MR article is obviously sympathetic to Maoists and puts the 'center left' on UML in a derogatory fashion.

And this argument is filled with contradictory statements. DBSSURFER stated above that a communist party is 'far left' per se, which is essentially a circular argumentation. Confronted with the fact that there could be a communist party far more moderate (UML), he/she when states that UML is not a communist party. No true Scotsman is a good reading for these types of arguments.

No one is saying that UCPN(M) and CPN(UML) are politically identical, but the differences between them are not easily identified along a left/right axis. Both the far and centre left labels are essentially POV terms, and the whole left/right axis is extremely arbitrary. Thus better to leave it out. --Soman (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd say that claims of vandalism and phony template postings are not very helpful for a constructive discussion. --Soman (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your article above does not say CPN(UML) is a far left party. The manifestos are clear, not your references. You are again just putting your point of view. I suggest more opinions on this matter as clearly you are giving your relative point of view based on articles which have no connection on defining party's ideologies. Also, yes there could be a communist party far more moderate (UML), but you are still missing the point here. No one has said, the UML is not a communist party,I have said its ideology as per its manifesto is more socialistic and the Maoists' is obviously more revolutionary and states clearly about its position. again, the issue you need to understand here is we are talking about Marxist-Lenninist and Marxist-Lenninist-Maoist. Please read the manifestos. And yes, you are kinda vandalising through your edit reverts because as of now you have zero references to back up your claim. I just dismissed the recent one. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, are you just trolling around? You stated that "The masoists are considered communists and communism is automatically in the far left position for any political party." That would, in clear English, mean that according to you any communist party would be 'far left' by default. As per the UNHCR link, it states "...was attacked by student members of the far-left CPN-UML party...". I'm not saying that UML is 'far left', I'm just trying to show how arbitrary and meaningless these labels are. --Soman (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you find the labels arbitrary and meaningless does not mean that they are not encyclopedic content. Gee totes (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia should be based on factual and verifiable information. That MLM is the ideology of UCPN(M) is verifiable. The election symbol of UCPN(M) (which keeps on getting removed in DBSSURFER's edits) is verifiable. Whether UCPN(M) is 'far left' or not is not verifiable, because there is functional definition of 'far left'. Arguments like "communists = far left" or "maoism = far left" are tautologies. Far left simply means that someone occupies the leftmost position in a given spectrum. It is, at present, not clear if that applies to UCPN(M) as a series of group that critique UCPN(M) far somewhat left positions are emerging. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think Prachanda Path was scrapped with the merger with UC-Masal, see http://archives.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=148 --Soman (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would repeat the same thing first. You are putting your relative point of views here. And yes, just because you do not find the position/label meaningless does not mean anything. Why dont you go out and check other maoist parties/ communist/ socialist parties and try to find any wiki pages without their position in the spectrum. A party election symbol is more important than the party's very own ideology? What are your claims based on? You are welcome to put the election symbol, but please do not remove the position of this party. About your CPN(UML)'s being far left, here is one for you: http://www.econ.utah.edu/~mli/Economies%205430-6430/Vanaik-The%20New%20Himalayan%20Republic.pdf (page: 48 2nd paragraph -"for the centre-left communist party CPN(UML)"). We can clearly see you can have as much relative views, so giving a reference as such is being naive. "Far-left simply means only that it occupies the left most position..", what does this even mean? We are talking about a whole party's ideology here. Not only a chart of the spectrum. The far left parties are clearly either militant or their manifesto clearly states they try to gain power through people's revolution. Please check other Maoist parties like India, Phillipines etc and you shall find lots of information about their position in the spectrum in the corresponding pages. I am requesting you again to please read both the manifestos before you come up with others' wordings in the references you present. Simply, they are unacceptable as I dismissed your Far left tag of the CPN (UML). And yes, please focus on one issue here. In fact I have to ask you, are you actually just trolling around? I am asking this, because your arguments do not point to anything. Only the partys' manifestos can decide this argument of their position, and they clearly identify what position this party has. I am sorry you have not convinced me a bit and most probably not to others at all. You think an encyclopedia should should be based on factual and verifiable information. And yet you come up with third party references rather than studying the partys very own manifesto? DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is another one(quite recent book) for you that clearly states CPN(M) as a far left party: http://books.google.com/books/about/Unified_Communist_Party_of_Nepal_Maoist.html?id=9NlgYgEACAAJ As you can see again, you can find many references like this. But, i do not judge a whole party based on that. You have to go through the manifestos. There is no other option. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, DBhuwanSurfer and I have removing the CPN(M) election symbol in our edit reverts. I do apologize for this and will put it back up. Gee totes (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but even when i put the symbol in my edits, it did not show up. May be the template required different words for the "electoral symbol". Please help with that. I looked at some other parties boxes and they did not show the symbols. If you can manage to put it, please do so. Well, most of the parties seem to have their electoral symbol where the flag of the UCPN(M) is currently in the article. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:Election symbol added per request. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'm going to put expanding the article on Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Prachanda_Path on my to-do list.Gee totes (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this discussion might be interested in the following excerpt from Himalayan Times:

KATHMANDU: Chairman of the CPN-UML Jhala Nath Khanal has accused the Maoist party of moving towards the rightist politics.

Speaking at a programme, organised by the UML Valley Special Coordination Committee at the party central office, Balkhu, he alleged that the Maoist party is banking towards the rightist course after joining the multiparty competition.

Khanal said the communist movement can only be taken ahead based on Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

link here: http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=UCPN-Maoist+moving+towards+rightist+course%3A+Khanal&NewsID=306571 --Soman (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. However, one should not base a party's ideology based on accusations by the leader of their own rival party, especially in Nepal.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it goes to show that these labels are always subjective. How is this claim different from the one made in the MR link? Also, it rebuffs the claim made above that CPN(UML) would be "clearly being inclined to socialism". --Soman (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are really understanding what I have been saying. We cannot put our own views or views of a leader of any party; or even base the party's ideology on them. I have been requesting you to read their manifestos from the very beginning. Any party will not run on a single leader's views or any newspaper views. If you find the CPN(M) and CPN(UML) identically same or if you find one party's inclination towards socialism and/or hardliner communism (in simple words- their political ideology and ultimately their position on the spectrum) same as the other in their manifestos, please let us all know. I will immediately withdraw my points. Let us not debate here, any single person who has read both manifestos would be crystal clear on the UCPN(M) and CPN(UML) as far as what their position is. Do not trust me but at least please go through their manifestos. Also, I have been watching many parties wiki pages of several countries across continents and all of them have their position stated. Why do you want to not keep it here? Ithink it makes it more clear with their position on the spectrum. Thanks! DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

June 2012 split

In June 2012, a group around VP Mohand Baidya announced the "vertical split" into the new Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) alias Communist Party Revolutionary Maoist. Suggest to rework the redirect with following sources: (AFP via Google News) (State Department) (Xinhua) (Telegraph Nepal) (Times of India)

Election symbol 2012

The election symbol of the new party CPN-M (with SN 6) is now the hammer and sickle on a circle. The election symbol of Communist Party of Nepal (Unified-Marxist- Leninist), SN 1, is the Sun. (Election Commission of Nepal) Wakari07 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't think this page can remain a "low" priority article withing WikiProject Nepal any more. After all, for a year they were the ruling party in the country. That suggests a much higher priority, especially considering people we be many time more likely to look at this page while the CPN(M) is in power compared to the myriad other parties in Nepal. Agree?

Last edited at 23:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Outdated

This article seems years out-of-date. What are their objectives now? What are recent happenings with the party now? 63.235.172.153 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist-Centre). 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/20060209105542/http://schema-root.org/region/asia/south_asia/nepal/maoists/ to http://schema-root.org/region/asia/south_asia/nepal/maoists/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/sep/sep10/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122021005/http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/apr/apr10/news04.php to http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/apr/apr10/news04.php

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) 13:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). UCPN (Maoist) has the same content as part of this page. UCPN (Maoist) was seen as a continuation of the CPN (Maoist) and not as a separate party. Also there's a weird gap for no reason, CPN (Maoist) and CPN (Maoist Centre) share the same page but UCPN (Maoist) does not. The page either needs to be split into three separate pages, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) or we need to have a single page for the Maoist party. @Soman, Vif12vf, Usedtobecool, and Yeti Dai: PenGear (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nepalese Civil War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Formal request has been received from Franked2004 either to merge Nepalese Civil War into Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) or to move the material on the Nepalese Civil War from the latter to the former page. Please discuss the proposal below.

Rationale as given by proposer: I don't see the use of article Nepalese Civil War in case the mother party has all related data in its history portion. Either the article on the mother party needs to be split or both articles need to be merged. Felix QW (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The material on the civil war in the Maoist Centre page contains mostly content related to Maoist activities during the period and there is no proper rationale to merge a significant event like the civil war into another page. PenGear (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, one concerns a political party that is still a significant part of government today, and the other concerns the civil war that ended monarchy. It does not necessarily follow that these articles should be combined just because this party was responsible for starting this war.Krishna Dahal (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, Though related, both cover completely different topics. One article is about the political party and another a civil war caused by the party. Merging such significant portion of Nepalese history to political party's page will be great problem. It would also heavily undermine RNA and Government's involvement in the civil war. PN27 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, unhelpful. Arguably there will be some overlap, but focus needs to be different, one article on the party (with coverage on its history, organization, positions) and one on the period of Nepalese history. --Soman (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.