From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
|
::::https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/assembly-elections-2011/west-bengal/suci-miffed-with-didis-unilateral-list-announcement/articleshow/7767937.cms |
::::https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/assembly-elections-2011/west-bengal/suci-miffed-with-didis-unilateral-list-announcement/articleshow/7767937.cms |
||
|
::::CPIM and other left parties formed United front in 2024 in WB, which included ISF, which is an Islamic party.. [[User:Nagendra nagaraju 04|Nagendra nagaraju 04]] ([[User talk:Nagendra nagaraju 04|talk]]) 14:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
::::CPIM and other left parties formed United front in 2024 in WB, which included ISF, which is an Islamic party.. [[User:Nagendra nagaraju 04|Nagendra nagaraju 04]] ([[User talk:Nagendra nagaraju 04|talk]]) 14:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
:::::@[[User:Nagendra nagaraju 04|Nagendra nagaraju 04]] From where Left Front, CPIM is coming here? SUCI is nowhere semi-fascistic. TMC is mentioned. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC) |
:::::@[[User:Nagendra nagaraju 04|Nagendra nagaraju 04]] From where Left Front, CPIM is coming here? SUCI is nowhere semi-fascistic. TMC is mentioned. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706|talk]]) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 28 October 2025
|
||||||
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@XYZ 250706 Thanks for draftifying this article. I also believe it needs a lot of work before it is returned to the mainspace again. Let’s discuss how we can improve the article here — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh sorry. I am seeing this message now. I have already published the article. It is quite good now. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- @XYZ 250706 Oh, no worries! I still believe the article has a lot of work to be done though, especially due to a lack of sourcing. For instance, entire paragraphs, such as the first para of the criticism section which calls the party fascistic is without a source. In the ideology section, the first paragraph calls the party socially conservative but the single source given for the entire paragraph does not even mention conservatism or the term conservative. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- @EarthDude SUCI is nowhere called fascistic. TMC which is former ally of SUCI, is called semi-fascistic. Besides SUCI calls homosexuality a sign of “mental deformity and morbidity” and it supports “stringent punishment like life-term” of homosexual people. It is also in staunch opposition to the introduction of sex education in schools. These features are definitely part of social conservatism. This may look like original research, but this is just common sense and matches with social conservatism. They are also against co-education. But I have no reliable source for this. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- The LF govt of West Bengal ordered firing on protesting farmers. The CPIM sided with a MNC like Salim group. How opposing this govt makes SUCI C fascitic? How joining this movement makes it Syncretic? The same CPIM opposes such land acquisitions in other states. It’s the misrule of LF for 34 years in WB lead to this, isn’t it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandigram_violence
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/14-years-on-justice-still-eludes-nandigram-rape-survivors-965368.html
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/assembly-elections-2011/west-bengal/suci-miffed-with-didis-unilateral-list-announcement/articleshow/7767937.cms
- CPIM and other left parties formed United front in 2024 in WB, which included ISF, which is an Islamic party.. Nagendra nagaraju 04 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nagendra nagaraju 04 From where Left Front, CPIM is coming here? SUCI is nowhere mentioned as semi-fascistic. TMC is mentioned. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- @EarthDude SUCI is nowhere called fascistic. TMC which is former ally of SUCI, is called semi-fascistic. Besides SUCI calls homosexuality a sign of “mental deformity and morbidity” and it supports “stringent punishment like life-term” of homosexual people. It is also in staunch opposition to the introduction of sex education in schools. These features are definitely part of social conservatism. This may look like original research, but this is just common sense and matches with social conservatism. They are also against co-education. But I have no reliable source for this. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- @XYZ 250706 Oh, no worries! I still believe the article has a lot of work to be done though, especially due to a lack of sourcing. For instance, entire paragraphs, such as the first para of the criticism section which calls the party fascistic is without a source. In the ideology section, the first paragraph calls the party socially conservative but the single source given for the entire paragraph does not even mention conservatism or the term conservative. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

