Talk:Browderism/GA1

general comments

ok! done my first read-through. this is a really interesting and engaging article! thank you for devoting your time to improving it!! you should be proud of this, and for a first-time effort at gan it's impressive. please let me know if you have any questions or pushback. lead, copyright, and link dispenser at the end.

• comments 1st round, references from this version.
• comments 2nd round, references from this version.

hello Grettoonist, hope all is well! any progression on these points so far?--Plifal (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Plifal, I've addressed most of the feedback from all sections, except for the references section, which I'm still working on. I'll be using WP:SFN as you suggested. This feedback has been really useful, and so far, the changes made based on them have definitely helped to improve the article. To address a couple of key pointers which I haven't been able to incorporate, in part or in full:

• "Orthodox Marxism–Leninism" doesn't denote a specific variant or subcategory of the ideology in my experience. As I've seen in the articles on Marxism–Leninism and Gus Hall, I've seen it more as a descriptive term, and I determined it would be suitable for this article as well.
• I haven't been able to find non-communist critiques of Browderism, even in the case of Browder's interactions with McCarthy. Beyond historical and contemporary examples originate from communist circles.

As for other pointers, I'm working through them as I go, along with expanding the scope of the article where possible.

Kind regards, Grettoonist (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

hi Grettoonist, thanks for the response! i would still encourage you to gloss orthodox marxism-leninism, since it won't be immediately apparent for our readers as to what that means. thank you for searching for more sources. i'll review my comments this week upcoming and cross off those i think have been satisfied before i continue with my review.--Plifal (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Plifal, I'll be sure to gloss over the orthodox stances and beliefs associated with Marxism–Leninism which Browderism deviated from in the lead section. Given how "orthodox Marxism–Leninism" isn't an established academic term and not common to sources, I'll also change the descriptor to "ideological orthodoxy" for the CPUSA legacy subsection discussing Gus Hall. I'll also be sure to revamp the references section with the WP:SFN template for your review.

Kind regards, Grettoonist (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Grettoonist, excellent work! we're very nearly done i think. just sort out a few references and it's easily ga worthy. well done so far!!--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Grettoonist, i've left the sources un-striked for legibility reasons for other reviewers if you decide you want to continue working on this project, but by striking the sub-title i acknowledge a difference in content and agf on the changes made. i've gone through and tidied a few things up, including adding the foster source to the further reading list and the engvar template to the talk page.

there still remains a source with a page range that's too wide, and any other comments left unstriked are things that need to be worked on (i think only providing sources for image captions), but there's nothing here that's preventing this from good article status now, so i'm passing it. really good job, well done!!!

if you would like to submit it to did you know please do so! again well done on a first ga!! if you have any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to message me on my talk page.--Plifal (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

lead

• article should use american english variety. there are instances of breng spelling "popularise", "sympathise". also use the 'American English|date=October 2025' tag on the talk page.
• change the "revise" linked next to "Marxism" per WP:SEAOFBLUE.
• "this involved incorporating Americanism and its nationalist values into the party's message, shifting away from the revolutionary socialism previously touted by the CPUSA" this doesn't really connect. it would make more sense to focus on the party's ambivalent relationship to proletarian internationalism in the second half of the sentence.
• the duclos letter is dropped without any context. maybe some additional focus in the lead on the party's history and international influence during browderism's ascendence would be warranted.

history

• introduce earl browder by his full name and link him in his first appearance in the article body.
• comma after "CPUSA in 1930" prior to reference 2.
• "leadership, coinciding with the Great Depression and presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which" > "leadership—coinciding with the Great Depression and presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt—which"
• did his leadership just inform the development of the ideology, or did it, itself, develop it? basically, what do the sources say on this? as it currently reads it implies that the development of browderism as an ideology occurred mostly after his time as the leader.
• the characterisation of browderism as being similarly ideologically disposed to the idea of social fascism (and the quote about the party's comparison of roosevelt and hitler) needs in-text attribution.
• "shifting to the left" shifting what to the left?
• in general i'm not a fan of mid-sentence references, it would be better to just find the source which describes browder's prior membership of the socialist party and put both ref [6] and that source at the end of the sentence.
• again, "including the American League Against War and Fascism[9] in 1933" should probably be "including the American League Against War and Fascism in 1933,[9]" forgive me but i find it a little difficult to believe that source [10] mentions the date but not the organisation ;)
• likewise, citation needed after 1935.
• link Marxism as it's the first appearance of the term in the body.

• not done.--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• "an appeal to American patriotism in order to appeal to" repeated use of appeal is a bit clunky.
• de-link New York per MOS:OVERLINK.
• "Communism in the Americanism of the twentieth century."" should that be, "Communism is the Americanism [...] "? i'm finding it a little difficult to parse.
• since the acronym CPA is used later, i suggest writing "Communist Political Association (CPA)" after its introduction.
• "This decision from Browder, though receiving [...] there was bitter opposition [...] " > "This decision from Browder, though receiving [...] caused bitter opposition [...] "
• my understanding of peaceful coexistence is that it wasn't really a formalised concept among marxist-leninist states until at least khrushchev, and our article here on wikipedia seems to support this. do the sources also use this term to describe browder's hope about the geopolitical state of the world during the war?
• "having considered to have breached party discipline" this is ungrammatical.
• "By the time Browder died in June 1973[22] while the Communist Party USA was under the leadership of Gus Hall, Browderism was fully removed from the party platform, as the party remained committed to orthodox Marxism–Leninism." > "Browder died in June 1973.[22] At this point, the Communist Party USA was under the leadership of Gus Hall, and Browderism had been removed from the party platform, as the party remained committed to orthodox Marxism–Leninism."
• might be worth it to gloss "orthodox Marxism–Leninism", and also link it since it's the first appearance of it in the body.

• sticking with this "Marxism–Leninism"/"ideological orthodoxy", i don't mind so much about the orthodox element as the marxism–leninism element. the phrase, ideally, should at least be linked when it appears in the body and lead.--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• there are a few too many quotes in the legacy section such that i have some copyvio concerns. please rephrase most of these in your own words. on this, it'd be nice to tie in a little more (or excise some of the slightly less relevant parts of) the difference between browder and hall in the cpusa.

components

• unless i misunderstood the intended meaning: "despite orders from Moscow in September 1939 to oppose Roosevelt leading to conflict within the CPUSA." > "despite orders from Moscow in September 1939 to oppose Roosevelt, leading to conflict within the CPUSA."
• you've repeated the "communism is the americanism of the 20th century" quote here, excise one, and maybe format this as a blockquote for emphasis since it seems to be cited a few times and serves as a statement of one of the ideology's core tenets.
• "according to American historian Wendy L. Wall in her 2008 book Inventing the "American Way"." should ideally come at the start of the sentence.
• is Wendy L. Wall notable enough for a redlink here?

• i suppose not lol--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• there isn't much on class conflict/collaboration here (which is somewhat surprising considering the subject is communist ideology—maybe a referenced sentence about orthodox marxism–leninism on this subject is due?). if no more information can be found, i recommend putting this together with information on the popular front.
• i would like to see more ideological content in general, if it can be found, of course.

international influence

• rephrase this quote from Manuel Caballero in your own words. the article is already quote-heavy, for secondary sources it's better practice to rephrase them.
• "they formerly considered to be "somewhat of an insult"" it's worth expanding on this. why was it considered an insult?

• the quotation needs in-text attribution. also don't feel as though this has been clarified.--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Alongside the PCC, the PSP censured Duclos in the Venezuelan communist newspaper ¡Aquí Está!, claiming that Latin America's underdeveloped conditions legitimated their communist movements' collaboration with the national bourgeoisie as an "anti-imperialist alliance" which didn't apply to the U.S." this sentence may be a bit too difficult to parse for a general audience. i only properly understood what was being said after re-reading it.

• i also don't think this is clear for a general audience.

• "a Stalinist similar to Foster" i'm not sure that mentioning foster aids in understanding here. just "—a Stalinist—" is probably ok

criticism

• gloss anti-revisionists.
• "viewing the circumstances of class struggle and conflict with the bourgeosie as not applying to the United States" a reader could be forgiven for thinking the anti-revisionists thought this, rather than it being their criticism of browderism.
• just curious: what was the decision behind including the information about cpusa criticisms of browderism in this section and not in the prior subsection devoted to browderism's legacy within the cpusa?
• are there any non-communist criticisms of browderism? for example, from democrats, or mccarthyites? similarly, are there any appraisals?

images

• File:Browder-Earl-R-1939.jpg is properly used, licensed, and captioned.
• File:Communist Party USA, Workers' Bookshop, New York.jpg is properly used and licensed. the caption needs a citation. use MOS:UPRIGHT for picture scaling, not px.
• File:William_Z._Foster,_cropped.PNG is properly used and licensed. the caption needs a citation.
• File:DennisEugene.jpg is properly used and licensed. the caption needs a citation.
• File:37-howard-this4thofjuly.jpg is properly used, licensed, and captioned. a citation for this caption would be preferred, but i think it's ok as-is since it's descriptive.
• File:Juan Bautista Fuenmayor (cropped).jpg is properly used, licensed, and captioned. use MOS:UPRIGHT for picture scaling, not px.
• all pictures would benefit from added alt text.

references

• the first thing i notice about the references is that they're inconsistent. i recommend using the WP:SFN template, but the way you think is best to format them is your choice i suppose. check through MOS:REFERENCES and WP:CITEVAR.
• there are still quite a few publications in the further reading section. i think the article is fine as it is currently, but adding a couple more wouldn't hurt.

• closing this question because it seems like you've gone through the article dilligently, but did you know of William Z. Foster's History of the Communist Party of the United States (1952)? seems like it'd be worth citing somewhere, even in the further reading section.--Plifal (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Plifal, I believe that my most recent edit accounted for the review's feedback to the best of my ability, with the exception of this suggestion. I have tried to add Foster's book to the further reading section, but with each URL link and revision to the cite book template, it comes up with a red error, though it isn't visible what the issue is. Despite wanting to add this, I am wary of leaving it in. Hope this makes sense, and if you have any suggestions for this, I'd much appreciate it! I've looked at Help:CS1 errors, but am still unsure about the issue.

Thanks, Grettoonist (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• source accuracy and WP:CLOP review, from this revision :
  • earwig reports 28.1% similarity, indicating violation unlikely. the article with highest similarity is flagging terms and political parties, so i have no issues there.
  • random spot-check:
    • source 2, accurately describes the information, quote used but cited correctly. no close paraphrasing or copyright concerns.
    • source 5, the page range is too wide, the source is WP:PRIMARY and is used for analysis, it is not cited to a print copy, the majority of this information can be found in warren 1992. i would recommend excising the use of this source, or if you really want to keep it, to put it at the end of the sentence or include it in a further reading section.
    • source 6, the quote can and should be rephrased in original wording, but otherwise all good.
    • source 11, the page range is too wide.
    • source 18, the page range is too wide.
    • source 19, accurately describes the information, no close paraphrasing or copyright concerns.
    • source 25, accurately describes the information, no close paraphrasing or copyright concerns.
    • source 26, the information doesn't appear in the archive link, current bare link seems to be dead.
    • source 28, not a proper attribution: ryan doesn't mention liberals and progressives on this page.
    • source 35, accurately describes the information, no close paraphrasing or copyright concerns. there may be something more to say somewhere about how his embrace of roosevelt at a time when the u.s. was in a recession and the president's popularity with the left was at a low contributed to factionalism/ill-will etc.? you will know better than me on this though.
    • source 44, accurately describes the information, quote used but cited correctly. no close paraphrasing or copyright concerns. however, the source to pollitt is a bit bare-bones; if you can, it would be nice to see more information in the long reference.
    • source 54, the quote can and should be rephrased in original wording, but otherwise all good.
• source review, from this revision :
  • link dispenser indicates some links may have issues, but the only dead link is archived (issue brought up in source accuracy check above) and the down links are to academic websites like jstor, indicating a misidentification from the software's recognition process.
  • source 4 cites a page range that's far too large. where possible, it would be preferable to find a copy of the actual book rather than citing to marxists.org.
  • source 12 (Ottanelli) has no first name, publisher, date, isbn etc. attached to the reference.
  • source 24 is there a better source than a c-span video? it meets the criterion for reliability, but this is citing quite a big claim about gus hall. written sources are preferred as they are still traceable even when the link degrades (and this source has no archive link either).
  • source 28 i would personally use title case. it's personal preference but i really don't like the non-capitalisation of popular and then the third-word capitalisation of european.
  • source 30 use title case.
  • source 33 i can't see where the long form of this source is?
  • source 39 does this article have a traceable doi?
  • source 45 requires a page number and ideally additional publishing information since the pdf seems to be taken from a book.
  • source 52 same as above
  • source 53 should be dated, with a page number, and cited to:

Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (March 31, 1964). The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchov's Revisionism: Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (VIII). Peking: Foreign Languages Press.

find the original publication here on internet archive.

• source 55 does this article also have a doi?
• source 56 the information this source is being used for should alert the reader that it's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE from a cpusa article. at the moment the information written in wiki-voice implies it's from a secondary source of academic or journalistic quality.