This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
I am not deeply familiar with the CPUSA. However, I am not convinced by the current citations that the CPUSA as it stands now is necessarily Marxist-Leninist. References in its constitution to Marx, Engels, and Lenin do not necessarily mean it is Marxist-Leninist, and there are other socialist ideologies like orthodox Marxism and Trotskyism that make similar references but do not identify with Marxism-Leninism.
I won't edit it due to my lack of familiarity with the organization and therefore a lack of knowledge of sources right now, but I will say that, for instance, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism emerged as a grouping within the CPUSA explicitly rejecting Leninism and its derivations entirely in favor of a non-Leninist form of democratic socialism, and the group still allows dual membership with the CPUSA today. The party constitution itself does not explicitly mention Marxism-Leninism, either. Anecdotally, I have also met some people in person and online part of the CPUSA who identify more closely with other labels such as syndicalism or democratic socialism.
Are you talking about the phrase "the combined effects of the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 "Secret Speech"" in the History section? I think we should just remove the mention of the "second Red Scare", since McCarthyism is probably the more common term, and a link to the general topic of Red Scare (which is what is currently in the piped link) doesn't help much. Any other thoughts? Liu1126 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed another instance of this repetition, this time in the third paragraph of the lead: "However, as Cold War hostility ensued, the party was restored but struggled to maintain its influence amidst the second Red Scare and McCarthyism." We could do the same thing for this one too. Liu1126 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone add a section on splinter parties, the Trotskyite ones and others? I, and perhaps others, came here hoping to see a bit, or links, to American Communist Parties generally, not just the mainstream one. editeur24 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is about the main party. Are there articles on the other parties? Are they significant (via coverage in mainstream publications) to have an article? Can you provide links to reliable sources that talk about them? If you want changes, it helps if you provide more information, like the name, a site, a reliable article on them, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People keep adding 20k members with only a primary source, whereas the secondary sources are saying 5,000. They removed the actual reliable source. I've tagged as dubious, and put in BOTH claims with sources. Watching the video to see if they actually mention the number, as the person who added it didn't bother to add a timestamp, the same as we would expect a page number for book cites. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the 5,000 membership and the source. The 20,000 claim was not found in the source given. There has been a couple of people, for years, trying to pump up the numbers to show 20k members using primary sources and claims, but without any reliable sources, and this fake claim seems to be part of that. You are free to watch the whole video (mind numbing as it is) and point to the time stamp if you want to dispute my claim that it doesn't exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What do you mean by fuse the links? GrayStormTalk Contributions 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree -- It is indeed redundant. But perhaps we should mention that it is also known as the "second Red Scare". I am unsure how. 
Done Changed both phrases. Liu1126 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)