Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Marxism-Leninism vs. Marxist-Leninists

There seems to be confusion between Marxism-Leninism (the ideology) and Marxist-Leninists, the people who created Marxism-Leninism and claimed to practice it. Hence we have statements such as "Marxist-Leninists themselves have committed imperialism" and "it just states Marxist-Leninist ambitions stated by Marxist-Leninist leaders, but goes into no detail of the practice of Marxist-Leninists."

One editor has complained that "this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact." But that is the topic of the article. What Marxist-Leninists taught, not what they did in fact.

Thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of books were written by Communists explaining Marxism-Leninism. They were taught in schools throughout the Communist world and in party classes throughout the rest of the world. What was in those books? What did they say? How did they explain history, class, revolution, government, sexual equality, racial relations, the nature of the universe? That's the topic of this article.

One editor expressed the opinion that be explaining Marxism-Leninism, we are promoting Communism. In fact, it is possible to write about a range of belief systems without specifically endorsing them. I have edited articles about both liberalism and conservatism. It doesn't mean that I have multiple personality disorder and my liberal personality edits liberalism articles, while my conservative personality edits conservatism articles.

TFD (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In an article about fascism, the deeds committed by fascists are relevant and deserve high prominence, not just what they say in their books about "national purity" or whatever nonsense they talk about. Many, many sources tie fascist ideology to fascist deeds and ML ideology to ML deeds. Why would any political ideology be treated differently? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

First, the deeds committed by Fascists receive very little attention in the Fascism article. Mostly the article is about the ideology of Fascism. There's only passing reference to the Holocaust for example and no attempt to enumerate the number of Victims of Fascism. Secondly, the article Fascism is about both the ideology and the movement, while this article is only about the ideology. The article Communism is about both the ideology and movement. TFD (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, exactly. And we already have a bunch of articles, such as Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, which are already about and devoted to atrocities et al. This article should mainly be about ideology and the atrocities should not receive all the attention and the lead should not become a coatrack for atrocities and criticism (not even Fascism does that in the lead), as we already have plenty of articles dedicated to them, and they should only be addressed in the Analysis section, where some authors say they were the results of ideology while others disagree. Davide King (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of nasty things that are attributable to liberals and conservatives, considering that they were the only two ideologies that governed Europe and North America until the end of the First World War and put fascism into power. Slavery, colonialism, wars, famines were all justified on liberal principles. TFD (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, exactly. Only for communism do we do this. Even for fascism, we do not say how they were still capitalist regimes ("no true capitalism" or "fascists were really socialist and leftists"), how conservatives, liberals and centrists were pivotal in putting them in power in the first place, etc. This is systematic political bias supporting the equivalency between communism and Nazism as well as the double genocide theory, both of which are revisionist views, whereain not mentioning the atrocities is compared to Holocaust denial, even though we already have articles about them and this is about the ideology. Only communism has articles such as Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, even though the main topic is not clear and are full of original research and synthesis in positing a link between communism and the events, and now this article has become yet another coatrack about the atrocities and events, which no one denies, when this article should be about the ideology and the atrocities should only be mentioned in passing the same way we do for Fascism. One does not have to be a communist to see this double standard, which is in violation of our policies and guidelines. All these Communist-related articles act like the anti-communist scholars are the be-all end-all of scholarship, or as Newimpartial once wrote, "any summary of the revisionist debates as 'Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE' is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it." Davide King (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting how anti-Communist propaganda mirrors Stalinist propaganda. That's probably because most leading anti-Communists such as Stéphane Courtois began their careers as Stalinists. TFD (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, indeed. The problem is that Stalinist propaganda is rightly condemned but the same is not done for anti-communism, which is celebrated. This is justified on the theory that anti-communism is good in itself, which is in itself justified by the false equivalency between anti-communism and anti-fascism, which is similarly justified by the theory that Communism and Nazism were equal, which is where we always return to. Could you please, do an analysis of sources? Especially these general sources here. Are these sources about the topic of this article (the ideology), or really broadly about Communist states? Are these really the best sources we have on the topic? Which scholarly sources are we missing? Davide King (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all - I'm not very keen on English scholarship of communist studies. If I were to do a more complete list of sources, it would be mostly based on «foreign scholars».

List of sources

«O que é marxismo» - «What is marxism?» José Paulo Netto. This seems to be exactly one of the sources we need. It does a general analysis of the development of marxism as an ideology thorough history. «Мировоззренческая система марксизма-ленинизма» - «The Worldview of the System of Marxism-Leninism» Urals University Press (1987). This is directly taken from a Soviet University, which might be useful to complement some things afterwards. «Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism» Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1963 Other document which might fit perfectly in this article «Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought» marxists.org This is a study-work of György Lukács about Lenin.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, while I appreciate this effort, I do not think these are good or the best sources either, as they are too primary-oriented and it would be better to use secondary sources citing Kussinen; in addition, the first one more about Marxism and the last one about Leninism. We need better independent, secondary sources. A research on Google Scholar (marxism leninism ideology, marxism-leninism ideology and "marxism-leninism" ideology and "marxism-leninism") should provide us with them. Similarly, marxism-leninism shows us results about the ideology, discussing it in different states (The Demise of Marxism-Leninism in Russia, Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, Marxism-Leninism in the German Democratic Republic), but the primary topic is the ideology, our main topic too, not any action Communist states and leaders did, i.e. exactly the "Marxism-Leninism vs. Marxist-Leninists" The Four Deuces highlighted. These are sources to use. Davide King (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for appreciating the effort anyway. I still think the first source is salvageable - from page 48 to 61 the title of the chapter is «Marxism-Leninism» (until the 50s). The next one is post-50s, and is also, but not limited to, Marxism-Leninism. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I may have found a good source 1. What do you think, Davide King? We shall now find similar texts for other (Marxist-Leninist) countries. I think the best we have about Marxism-Leninism universally is the encyclopedia. The rest of the article could consist of Marxism-Leninism in different countries, since most books are «Marxism Leninism in X» and «Y Marxism-Leninism»BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll make a new list of sources.

List of sources
Marxism-Leninism as Discourse: The Politics of the Empty Signifier and the Double Bind The Demise of Marxism-Leninism in Russia

BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, do not ping selected people who have not previously been at the article, per WP:CANVASS. I also find it odd that you complain about atrocities getting mentioned both here and at articles like mass killings under Communist regimes, even while you and others try to get the latter article deleted or rewritten to be about a "narrative". So where can we cover it? More generally, as for how to compare the far-left and far-right (however defined), all that matters is what the due weight of reliable sources say. If those are seemingly biased toward liberalism or something else, then there's nothing we can do. We don't right great wrongs (or what some editors may see as wrongs, anyway). Worth noting, too, that humans are just as capable of evil "for the greater good" as they are for obviously selfish reasons. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently pinging a single user, the same way one would wikilink the author of a quote, when I think it is just good manner to ping when someone is speaking about another user, is canvassing. "So where can we cover it?" That is the whole issue, that we must cover it, even though most Communist historians and other experts do not actually group them together. By the way, we already cover them in each individual article; per policies, we cannot create articles that group unconnected events; we do not do it just on the base a regime is capitalist, Christian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever; we need to establish why these events are connected using reliable sources. Scholars simply do not do that, so we need not to engage in original research or synthesis and complaining where we can cover it, when we already have the individual articles about the events. Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology does not discuss the Great Purge or the Holodomor because it is mainly about the ideology, what should be the main topic of this article and what other language Wikipedias do. Davide King (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The obvious place to cover mass killings under Communist regimes is in the same way we do for other mass killings: under articles about the countries where they were committed or under stand alone articles. The least obvious place to cover them is in an article about ideology. The fact that some people see a pattern in Communist mass killings may be notable and deserve its own article. But per neutrality, that article should not state the perceived connection as a fact, since we are writing encyclopedic articles not anti-Communist propaganda. And you would do well to study propaganda as a topic, because the more assumptions it makes the less persuasive it is and you are just preaching to the choir.

They say the best encyclopedia articles are those where one cannot tell the viewpoint of the editors. So if an article comes across as written by someone who probably thinks Obama was born in Kenya, it's not a good article.

TFD (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by the Obama comment. You are aware that someone can be even stridently anti-communist while also being a center-left strong Obama supporter, right? When it comes to not being able to tell the political leanings of the writers, I agree to an extent, but if that means WP:UNDUE-ly minimizing reliable sources that are critical of an ideology just to create a certain look, then that is bad and a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I see trouble in that you are framing criticism of Communism as being "anti-Communist propaganda". Is criticism of Trump or the U.S. Republican Party "anti-Trump propaganda"? In any case, my position is indeed that "The fact that some people see a pattern in Communist mass killings [is] notable and deserve[s] its own article", and as I said, that that stuff gets mentioned here to the extent that reliable sources connect them to Marxism-Leninism. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, "[a]nd you would do well to study propaganda as a topic, because the more assumptions it makes the less persuasive it is and you are just preaching to the choir." This is interesting, that is why I hope to discuss this with you because you express yourself much more clearly and concisely. Anyway, the point is "saying that anti-communism is not right-wing [...] relies on an etymological fallacy. It doesn't just mean opposed to communism but extreme opposition, similarly as how anti-fascist doesn't mean just non-fascist." Anti-fascism and anti-communism are largely left-wing and right-wing movements, respectively. The fact there have been centre-left anti-Communists (who were really anti-Stalinists, which is conflated as anti-communism; opposition to the Soviet Union et al. on the left is not anti-communism but anti-Stalinism) or right-leaning anti-fascists does not suddenly make the movement big tent. As I just wrote, these centre-left or left-wing anti-communists were not anti-communists but anti-Communists, i.e. anti-Stalinists, and in some cases (Callaghan) they were from the right-wing of the party. I also find curious that you mention Obama, since Obama actually applied détente, not anti-communism, to Cuba.

Again, you conflate anti-Stalinism on the left and centre-left for anti-communism; ironically, it is the Stalinists who considered anti-Stalinism to be anti-communism, which takes us back to the point (right-wing) anti-communist propaganda (again, here I am using anti-communism as extreme opposition to communism, not just any leftist who opposed the Soviet Union et al.) has many things in common with Stalinist propaganda. The problem is that article discuss the events, which we already cover elsewhere, lump them together, rather than "a pattern in Communist mass killings [is] notable and deserve[s] its own article", which is what The Four Deuces and I actually advocate for in the form of concept/theory/narrative. "[T]hat stuff gets mentioned here to the extent that reliable sources connect them to Marxism-Leninism." The problem is only one side of historiography does that, so we cannot state it as fact, as is usually done in most Communist-related articles. Davide King (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a distinction between opposition to Communism, which by definition is shared by most non-Communists, and anti-Communism, which is extreme opposition to Communism, just as there is a difference between opposition to Islamist government and anti-Islamism (or Islamophobia), or opposition to Fascism and anti-Fascism. From the perspective of an anti-Communist, anti-Islamist, or anti-Fascism, the object of their opposition represents an existential threat and anyone who does not see that is a pawn (knowingly or otherwise) of the other side. Hence your comment, "I see trouble in that you are framing criticism of Communism as being "anti-Communist propaganda"." You are conflating not being an anti-Communist with being a Communist apologist.

Similarly, some of Trump's opponents portrayed him as a fascist who would cancel the 2020 elections and turn America into a Russian client state. To them, anyone who didn't agree with them was a Trump supporter. So to answer your question, there is a distinction between opposition to Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome, just as there is a distinction between opposition to Communism and anti-Communism. One is rational, the other isn't.

And yes there are anti-Communists who supported Obama, but that's because he was able to build a coalition broad enough to include some of them, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few Democrats involved in the VOC Memorial Foundation. But Zbig is generally seen as a right-winger.

In answer to your comment that some people connect ML and mass killings, that's true of any ideology. John Locke for example provides a clear justification for slavery, based on the jurisprudence of the liberal jurist Sir Edward Coke and incorporated into the Massachusetts constitution. Non-Christians taken in a just war can be enslaved and depriving people of their slaves is a violation of property rights. But the article on liberalism is not about slavery. Similarly, there is a clear link between Nazism and the Holocaust. Yet the Nazism article merely mentions the Holocaust in passing. That's as it should be because the article is about Nazi ideology, not Nazi actions. Of course if the article had been written by anti-Fascists, one would expect greater emphasis on the Holocaust. That's because to the anti-Communist, anti-islamist or anti-Fascist, it is more important to discredit evil than to explain their ideology.

The reference to Obama's birth certificate is that informed readers of MKuCR would see it as written from an extremist point of view and immediately discount it, just as someone who read an article criticizing Obama that claimed he was not an American citizen would question everything else the article said about him. So for someone who actually wanted to discredit Obama, this would be a failure.

TFD (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I presented sources earlier that show that the main objectives of anti-Communists are support of military aggression abroad and suppression of dissent at home. Hence land reform, nationalization and government spending on health, welfare and education in foreign countries are seen as Communist-backed conspiracies, as are support for civil rights and opposition to war at home. That's one reason the project is seen as right-wing, the other being that it is lead by the Right. TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on the rewriting that seems to be imminent from the course of this discussion.

The idea that Marxism-Leninism (ML) is just "Stalinism" or refers only or fundamentally to Soviet Marxism has two foundations: historical ignorance or dishonesty. Outside the USSR, still in the 1930s, several communists, like the Chinese, spoke of Marxism-Leninism with a different sense than the Soviets. With that same name, what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Soviets, Koreans, (and so on) called Marxism-Leninism was never the exact same thing. It is still necessary to point out that authors so different from each other, in different moments of life, such as Florestan Fernandes, Nicos Poulantzas, Louis Althusser, Agustin Cueva, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Thomas Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, Agostinho Neto, Samora Machel, Huey Newton, Fred Hampton, and so many others, have asserted themselves as Marxist-Leninists. If we admit Marxism-Leninism is only "Stalinism", then we will have the difficult task of affirming that all these revolutionaries - and thousands of others - were all "Stalinists". And, of course, this procedure is not serious.

I think a very beautiful article can be made on such an important topic that is Marxism-Leninism - undeniably the most prominent communist ideology on the communist movement of the 20th century. It could be divided into Marxist-Leninist thought in different continents, countries, etc. But first, the scope of the article must be the ideology and not Mass killings under communist regimes, nor History of communism (although imo the editors who wrote the «History» section did a pretty good job). This does not mean history must not be included - it should - but only when relevant to the ideology.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On the addition of extreme POV section on Soviet analysis

"In Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as an ideology, a science, a morality, a theory, a philosophy, a political practice, a sociology, an economics, a party line, and so on. This caused Western analysts, but especially foreign policy analysts, to conflate the words Marxism-Leninism, ideology and theory, labeling Soviet theories of war, deterrence, correlation of forces analysis" is completely POV pushing, this isn't an article on Soviet historiography, it reads like some other edits in which you claims Marxist-Leninism was a form science. this section is completely an ML POV. BunnyyHop I would advice you to stop reverting and go to talk. Des Vallee (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No problems there. It's properly attributed to Soviet discourse. Also, this is about Marxism-Leninism as a term, not Soviet Historiography. I wonder what «POV pushing» means to you, it just doesn't make sense. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing means a section which gives undue weight or gives a positive view of the group in question, giving undue weight. Something which this most certainly is. If you genuinely think this edit is neutral, I really don't know what you consider being biased. It means pushing somebody's POV, either by giving undue weight, improper attribution biased wording etc... It very clearly is biased, I mean for gods sake it describes Marxist-Leninism as a type of correct "science," Marxist-Leninism isn't a science. Des Vallee (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It is sourced to the British Journal of Political Science. Is that Marxist–Leninist propaganda too? I find it absurd that, as an anti-Stalinist, explaining what the ideology is, attributing it to what they believe and what books about the ideology say, is considered Marxist–Leninist propaganda. You would not want Marxist–Leninists to push their POVs at Anarchism, or American rightists to push their POVs at Socialism, or communists at Conservatism and Liberalism. Similarly, we would not want to use only "anti-communist" or "orthodox" scholarly sources here. The field of Communist history is one of the most politicised, conflictual and controversial fields in academia, so we must be even more careful in respecting NPOV. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "in Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as...a science" is not the same thing as saying ML is a science. If I say for example "Flat earthers say the earth is flat," I am not saying the earth is flat.

I find it hard to believe that the editor does not understand this distinction, which is a matter of basic reading comprehension, and ask that they stop making obviously disingenuous objections.

TFD (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces The issue is that the text is treated as fact something it isn't, we need to correctly only attribute Marxist-Leninists you stated you support this so we seem to be in agreement on this. We need to make sure we are only stating what official Marxist-Leninists believe, not that it is correct, and also need to use reliable sources to state if Marxists-Leninists did what they preached. I think therefor we can agree that we should attribute it more clearly and provide counter opinions. As it's not Marxist-Leninism isn't a science, despite what the official party lines of authoritarian governments like the Soviet Union.

Davide King I really don't get what you are stating. If a source stated "The revolution must require the liquidation of the hostile classes," should you go and put it in? What if a reliable citation stated "Fascism requires the removal of all undesirables and sub-humans" should that be added to? No, that argument makes no sense it genuinely is ridiculous. I can understand the logic of having pro-Marxist-Leninist sources, but this really has nothing to do with anything it is a straw man. When using text that is based off a biased source you can't use biased wording ever. Stating that Marxist-Leninists see themselves as "true scientists" although ridiculous is correct assuming we attribute it correctly, it doesn't mean we use biased terms however or give undue weight. Des Vallee (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear to readers with reasonable reading that we are explaining the ideology rather than endorsing it. Have no fear that just by reading the article that millions of Americans are going to register as Communist Party voters.

One of the major criticisms of liberalism is that it has not brought about the freedom that it promised. That is pointed out in some articles mostly when it explains the consequences: Tories were able to re-brand themselves as friends of the working man, socialists left liberal parties to start their own parties and "new liberals" revised classical liberalism to introduce welfare policies. But we don't dwell on slavery, genocide of indigenous people, the Irish and Bengal famines and liberal support of Adolf Hitler, all of which were justified on liberal principles.

TFD (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Des Vallee that we need to make sure we use WP:In-text attribution when required by policies and guidelines. This applies to all ideologies of course. Otherwise readers could be confused between what is just part of the ideology and what is the consensus of dispassionate scholars. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is we already do, starting literally as in "Soviet discourse." I do not know see what could be more direct than this. "This applies to all ideologies of course." Except it does not, because only for communism and communist-related ideologies do we do this (see TFD's comment above). What many users seem to miss is that scholars and genocide experts do not limit themselves on blaming it on communist ideology; they give other explanations and give more attention to the fact all these were backward regimes with no long-term tradition of democracy, free enterprise and individual rights. Most Communists came to power in backward countries, with little to none tradition of democracy, free enterprise and human rights; democracy, free enterprise and human rights in the West also did not exactly come peaceful in most cases; they took time, struggle and revolution in several notable cases. These are not the views of some "dispassionate scholars" but legitimate scholars and any scholar who is not hellbent on anti-communism. Davide King (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find where Des Vallee said that. Do you meant that instead of saying "Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism" we say "According to W. John Morgan, writing in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism?" How does that improve the article? TFD (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Apparently, Des Vallee just do not like what these sources say that do not reflect their own anarchism and self-admitted anti-communist POV. They even disagree Marxist–Leninists support the vanguard "on behalf on the proletariat" (quoted from given ref itself), even though we are simply stating this is what they claim, not that they really represent the proletariat. We already have plenty of criticism of this and other criticism in the body and whole sections dedicated to it.

Just compare it with Fascism, which says "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. A fascist state is led by a strong leader such as a dictator and a martial law government composed of the members of the governing fascist party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies."

Are we being fascist propagandists from stating what they think? I do not think so. The proposed wording is simply stating what was the Soviet discourse of Marxism–Leninism, not that this is a fact, and is properly sourced to an independent non-primary source, the peer-reviewed British Journal of Political Science, not the Soviet Encyclopedia. Davide King (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think their position is that every article related to communism should say "The Communists killed 100 million people." That's all the readers need to know or should know. ML was all lies anyway and no one believed or followed it, so why write about it? It detracts from the only thing worth knowing about Communism, that the Communists killed 100 million people. TFD (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my comment is being overthought or applied to something specific that was not intended. What I know is that there is a lot of active editing on the article and that some edits have confusingly stated ideology as fact. Text like "Marxism-Leninism holds that..." is of course fine. The text from Fascism that Davide King quotes is also well written. I stand by what I said about being clear when we are describing their ideology vs. when what is said is the consensus of impartial ("dispassionate") scholars. As for deeds or atrocities, let's just put as much weight on it as the sources do. I don't think mocking another editor like this is appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I see where the confusion came in. With the opening post of this section, there's the specific example of "In Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as an..." I would probably have said "was treated as" or the like, but this example wasn't that bad. There were worse sentences being proposed before which is more what I had in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Easter egg wikilink to Mass killings under communist regimes

Davide King,

as before, no consensus for moving see also.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

We do not need consensus for such obvious things as Easter egg (see WP:EASTEREGG). Ironically, I am giving more weight to that article as it is clearly visible in See also rather than buried in the body, wikilinked as "killing", which is a clear Easter egg. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree it would be an easteregg, and yes, you need consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

«killing political dissents» is not the same thing as «mass killings under communist regimes», despite both having the word «killing». --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, exactly. KIENGIR, why do you support violating our policies and guidelines and acting like you are the one holding consensus? That is a clear Easter egg, as it is not clear at all what it is wikilinking to. Killing, Mass killing, Politicide, etc. Again, I am actually giving the article more weight than burying it in an unclear linking in the body. Davide King (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, your aggregation is not necessarily akin to mine. Davide King, I disagree the way how you present the situation, I don't "support violation...", the scope (any) is related with each other.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

That is a clear Easter egg violation and it is more relevant as See also, which also give it more visibility than being buried in the body in an unclear wikilink. Davide King (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion, I don't think it would be a violation, as I said.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

That it is an Easter egg, it is not clear where it links and it would be much better served to be clearly linked as See also seems obvious. Czar, what do you think about this? Davide King (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• When starting a talk page discussion, please link the edit and use a more descriptive title than "Recent edit" for posterity. Assuming the edit in question is this, what makes it an "Easter egg" is that it only links the word "killing". Expand it to [[Mass killings under communist regimes|killing political dissidents and social classes]] and it's fine. Agreed that it's better to link within the article if possible than relegate to the See also section. The link is in context—it's clear that the killing is related to Communist states. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Davide King, please in the future let me to refactor my own contribution, per our rules. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Juche

Des Vallee, the columnist «Max Fisher» is not a reliable source, let alone more authoritative than «Michael J. Seth», which is specialized in «Korea» and has a research interest in «Modern Korea». I suggest you to look at the sources before reverting an edit, and WP:RELIABILITY. BunnyyHop (^talk) 09:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, can you explain why you think that newspaper columns are better sources than peer-reviewed academic literature? Are you planning to edit climate change and evolution articles? TFD (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Michael J. Seth is the very person we use for describing it as Ultranationalism. The source clearly describes Juche as ultra-nationalism "North Korea continued to call itself socialist and maintained many features reminiscent of Stalinist Russia. However its elaborate hierarchical structure based on family background, its Kim-family cult, is it's extreme ultranationalism and its Juche ideology." as well as on Page 138 also describes it as Ultranationalism. No source uses the term ethnic nationalism for anything relating to Juche.

Not once does the source (or any source) describes Juche as "ethnic nationalism" it only states "ethnic nationalism" once and it has nothing to do with Juche, all other citations also state this.

You added in the term "ethnic nationalism" not the source, you added in original research. Des Vallee (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two types of nationalism: ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. Which type do you think the source is describing or is it unclear? Extreme ultranationalism btw is not a different type of nationalism, but an very extreme form of usually ethnic nationalism. (Ultra means extreme.) TFD (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I'm confused. I replaced «ethnic nationalism» with «ultranationalism» diff, and you added «ethnic nationalism» on your revert, diff. Furthermore, in the edit summary you justify this exactly by quoting VOX «Synthesis VOX source and other sources clearly states [...] "race-based ultranationalism of a kind so extreme that only early-20th-century fascist states ever mastered thousands of North Koreans poured"». If you realized your revert is wrong, revert it back. BunnyyHop (^talk) 15:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You added a term which was never in the original source. Nowhere does any of the sources state ethnic nationalism as a form of Juche, in fact only one source even mentions "ethnic nationalism" and it has nothing to do with Juche. The source never once states anything on ethnic nationalism, (which you claim the source states). You added in your own position on North Korea (which appears to positive), based on original research and your position not on any sources. Des Vallee (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What type of nationalism is the source referring to - civic or ethnic? If you can't answer that question, then you shouldn't be adding the information. TFD (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I didn't add anything. I removed «Korean ethnic nationalism» and added «Korean ultranationalism», which anyone can see in this diff. You reverted this edit, adding the «ethnic nationalism» which now you're correctly arguing against, as evidenced by this diff. «which you claim the source states», no, you used VOX as a reliable source to revert my edit, justifying the addition of «ethnic nationalism» as I showed above (simply see the diff: «Synthesis VOX source and other sources clearly states»). Since it's clear «ethnic nationalism» is not what's stated in the sources, revert your revert. BunnyyHop (^talk) 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Vox does not mention "Marxism-Leninism." As noted by Seth, "Marxism-Leninism" was abandoned by North Korea between the 1950s and 1970s, so what are we even talking about? We really need to stop cherrypicking sources, or even using news sources, and follow the actual literature. Davide King (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and this conversation between Seth and a group of interviewers from a 2013 Juche conference may be a good source for this; it's not ideal because it's WP:PRIMARY, and publisher authenticity might be an issue, although if you follow the (hidden, white-on-white, Ctrl+A or mouse over to view them) links at the top of the page, there are more details about it, and appears legit as part of a large symposium or conference about Juche. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, according to scholarly sources ,

From adherence to Soviet ideological leadership in the 1940s and 50s, to declarations of ideological independence in the 1960s, to the emergence of Chuche philosophy in the 1970s and 80s, North Korea never severed its ties with the Marxist-Leninist tradition. On the contrary, this tradition constituted the basic and most fundamental raw material from which North Korean ideology was shaped and developed... even Chuche philosophy, the apex of North Korean ideological particularity during the Cold War, was hardly an idealism and instead quite reminiscent of a good old-fashioned Marxist-Leninist materialism.

So, yes, it does belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References