From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why are there no Criticisms?[edit]

A google scholar search for "criticisms of socialism" returns 144,000 results. There is actually an entire wiki article dedicated to criticisms of socialism and it's not even mentioned in this article. What on earth is going on here? Fawby (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandwiching images in lead[edit]

As requested by CodeBadger, I'm bringing the discussion regarding these edits onto the talk page. MOS:SANDWICH is clear that it is not appropriate to sandwich text and I fail to see why this is an exceptional case, especially in the lead. Graham (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another." - Che Guevara
Thank you for your response Graham. Much appreciated. In Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means it states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” I believe we need to focus on what will improve a Wikipedia page, not let policies and guidelines which are meant to help us create good Wikipedia pages stop us improving them. I am not suggesting that you or other editors be ignored as decisions on how to change an article must be made by a consensus of editors roughly agreeing on an acceptable solution. I believe this quote by Che Guevara best sums up the essence and appeal of socialism, which is primarily about social justice, thus is rightly given prominence on the Socialism page along with an image of the author to maximize the importance of this quote. I would very much like to read what you and other editors have to say about this matter. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. CodeBadger (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi CodeBadger, prominence is not generally given to quotations in an encyclopedia, which is a document composed of prose. For quotations, we have Wikiquote.

I am not suggesting that you or other editors be ignored as decisions on how to change an article must be made by a consensus of editors roughly agreeing on an acceptable solution.

A consensus was reached, hence the current form of the MOS. Provided that this is not an exceptional case, and no evidence for that has been presented, WP:LOCALCON applies. You are entitled to disagree with the guidelines, but if you want them changed, you would be best to raise that at WT:MOS.
As an aside, I do love the quote, though – I actually don't recall having heard it before. Cheers, Graham (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and the info about WT:MOS, I'll raise the issue with them. I love the quote too, though perhaps my favorite Che quote is this one: "Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world." Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There are two problems with plonking this large image and quotation at the top of the page. Firstly, as noted, the aesthetic one: it does look bad to my eyes, as it squeezes the main text and dominates the top of the page, which is why MOS advises against it, presumably (sometimes there are good reasons for rules and guidelines). Secondly, socialism is a broad topic, and I'm not sure singling out Che Guevara (or indeed any one individual) and one quote of theirs as the key to defining socialism from the outset is a good idea. N-HH talk/edits 11:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't think the squeezing of the text at the top of the page is a problem so long as the image is not wider than 220px, while narrowing the text column near the top of the article makes it easier for people to get into reading it as it's easier to read narrow columns than wide columns. It seems to me that if they quote sums up the essence of the page then it's ok if it leads the article. Naturally the image/quote would have to be one that editors reached a consensus on, thus not necessarily the image/quote I currently prefer. We can limit the proposed sandwiching to the top of articles. Perhaps we could add the image/quote for a week and get other people to have a look and see what they think? CodeBadger (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, CodeBadger, there will not be any kind of a trial period for this. We can all see what it looks like already. N-HH and I have already opposed it in this discussion. You sought broader input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Sandwiching and were unanimously opposed by the seven editors who commented there. There does not appear to be anything resembling consensus for the changes you have proposed. Graham (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Graham. The consensus appears to be that the proposed sandwiching is not a good idea. CodeBadger (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Employee share/stock schemes[edit]

This addition to the lead was removed and then reinserted. It seems an obvious point to me, but given that it was put back, I'll bring it up here rather than just revert it out again. I agree with the stated reasons for removal: such programmes are not a type of socialism as commonly understood. Even if you could argue that they are, it's too much detail for the first paragraph of the lead. Indeed the whole sentence here – "Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, cooperative ownership or employee stock ownership program; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these" – is fairly convoluted and repetitive, and could probably be shortened further to simply say. more concisely and accurately, "Social ownership may refer to any form or combination of public, collective or cooperative ownership". N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As the editor who first removed this addition, I of course fully agree with N-HH. Without going into a long political or economic discussion, it is sufficient to state that employee share schemes are emphatically not socialist, but a tool for regulating capitalism. Without reference to a solidly reliable source, such a claim cannot be added to this article. RolandR (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What they are or aren't according to us is moot. The content should not be added unless sources are provided, and should not be added to the lead unless there is substantial treatment of the subject in the body of the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed (and I meant as commonly understood by authoritative sources as much as by me personally). Anyway, thanks for removing it again. It's always open to either of the two people who have added it to come up with a source suggesting such a connection and to expand on the material in the main body; although as I suggested, there's unlikely, surely, to be one that suggests it's such a key detail that it needs to be in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 15:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I follow a fairly draconian lead philosophy anyway. There are far too many people on here with a deep conviction that some detail is so vitally important that it must go into a lead, but lacking the motivation so include anything about that detail in the body. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with what has been said thus far and would add that if one were to attempt to make the argument that such programmes are socialistic (which is spurious to begin with), it would be hard (read: essentially impossible) to do so in such a way that they wouldn't already be covered under the phrase "cooperative ownership" already. (To be clear, I'm not meaning to suggest, however, that there is a reasonable argument to be made that such programmes are normally either socialistic or cooperative in nature.) Graham (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)