Template talk:Communism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communism template. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
WikiProject Socialism | (Rated Template-class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Variants of variants of variants[edit]
@MarioGom: I don't think that we should list here all branches of Marxism. To do this templates Marxism, Leninism and related exist. For example, Trotskyism and Marxism–Leninism are variations of Leninism, Maoism is a variation of Marxism–Leninism, left communism is a variation of libertarian Marxism. Eurocommunism is an attempt to compromise between Marxism and social democracy. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир: They are not all of them, but the most notable. Eurocommunism is maybe borderline, given the rather limited time period and geographic relevance though. Including all variants would be adding Hoxhaism, Titoism, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo Thought, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Prachanda Path, etc. There are some variants (M-L, Maoism, Trotskyism) that are discussed in most sources discussing history of communism in depth. Their relevance reaches to present and in every continent, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You can just take some reputable reliable sources about history of communism, for example:
- Pons, Silvio; Smith, Stephen, eds. (2017). The Cambridge History of Communism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316137024. ISBN 9781316137024.
- Naimark, Norman; Pons, Silvio; Quinn-Judge, Sophie, eds. (2017-09-21). The Cambridge History of Communism (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316459850. ISBN 9781316459850.
- Furst, Juliane; Pons, Silvio; Selden, Mark, eds. (2017). The Cambridge History of Communism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316471821. ISBN 9781316471821.
- Smith, Stephen A., ed. (2013-12-16). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602056.001.0001. ISBN 9780199602056.
- And check the extent to which each variant is discussed. Marxism-Leninism is by far the most extensively covered, probably followed by Maoism and Leninism itself. Trotskyism follows, but quite far from M-L and Maoism. Mentions to others is scarce and usually limited to shorter historic periods or geographic regions. --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- MarioGom, to be precise, this is not the history of communism, but the history of Leninism. The history of non-Leninist currents of communism is practically not represented here. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир, Wikipedia has to follow what it defines as Wikipedia:Reliable sources about what to include under the term "communism". If it just followed the opinions of individual editors, no consensus would be possible on politically-charged topics like this one. I noticed that you again removed the same terms here that you had removed on the sidebar version before being reverted. There is no consensus for that change in the discussion here and you should not try to make that change prior to a consensus, per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, as we see, we don't have a consensus that we need to identify Leninism or Marxism–Leninism with communism. There are enough reliable sources that indicate that communism is a broader phenomenon than Leninism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- MarioGom presented four sources above that appear to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable and which treat the word "communism" the way it was treated in this template before your edits. That's enough to restore the links you removed. If you have other links you believe should also be included in the template and can justify them with similar sourcing, please do so. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, see, for example, the definition of communism from The Encyclopædia Britannica. This is a very reliable source. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир, from that britannica article: "In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin asserted that socialism corresponds to Marx’s first phase of communist society and communism proper to the second. Lenin and the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party reinforced this distinction in 1918, the year after they seized power in Russia, by taking the name All-Russian Communist Party. Since then, communism has been largely, if not exclusively, identified with the form of political and economic organization developed in the Soviet Union and adopted subsequently in the People’s Republic of China and other countries ruled by communist parties. For much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes." In other words, that article also supports how this template was organized before your changes. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, but this is template "Communism", not a template "Communism in 20th century". In the 19th century, when communism appeared, no one knew anything about the USSR and Marxism–Leninism. And now, in the 21st century, there are very few Marxist–Leninist states. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир, I understand, but we should not be excluding articles from this template that are clearly related to the term as it is used in reliable sources today. This is not to say that we can't also include a link to something like Pre-Marxist communism in the template (which is currently included), but very notable topics like Pol Pot and Mass killings under communist regimes should not be removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, these pages are included in a more relevant template {{Marxism–Leninism}}. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир Yes, you are insisting on us using {{Marxism–Leninism}} (a template you created a week ago) for these articles in place of this one, despite the common term used in reliable sources being "communism", not "Marxism-Leninism". That's the problem. If you read Wikipedia:Template namespace about template names, it directs us to the policy page for articles, Wikipedia:Article titles, which says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." This means we should be using "communism", not Marxism-Leninism". Your Marxism-Leninism template may be completely redundant or may have some specialized use, but should not be replacing the communism template and so you should not have made all those changes you made to this template. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, but template {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}} has been around for 8 years.
- The topics you are talking about are precisely the specific topics for Marxism–Leninism and Maoism. Pol Pot did not make a significant contribution to the theory of communism, and the article "Mass killings under Сommunist regimes" deals mainly with Marxist–Leninist regimes. So all the changes made by me to this template have a rationale.
- Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир, you created {{Marxism–Leninism}} a week ago, but yes, {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}} was created in 2011. Regardless, Wikipedia policies don't support your rationale for changing the way the communism template is being used or the edits you have made to its content. Please self-revert. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, there are many reliable sources that use the name Marxism–Leninism in relation to the regimes in question (see on jstor). Therefore, all my changes are justified. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир, there are very few there (8,693) compared to "communist regimes" (73,943). It's not close. And the source you provided earlier from Britannica stated this explicitly (that communist is "largely, if not exclusively" the term for these regimes, not Marxist-Leninist, not Stalinist, not Maoist, etc). These other terms certainly have their place in an encyclopedia, and even in templates, but insisting on replacing the term "communist" with them is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Please stop. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmateurEditor, it's not clear why you are against such a clarification. Wikipedia even has a special template {{Clarify}}. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Marxism-Leninism templates may include more links specific to M-L than Communism templates. But as I said before, there is no reason to exclude the most notable (according to reliable sources) variants and people from the Communism templates just because M-L templates exist. Some articles may include both. The direction where you are taking these templates to is quite paradoxical, since it is leading to exclusion of most notable items in favor of far less notable ones according to reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- MarioGom, please explain specifically what you mean by "most notable items". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Гармонический Мир: Most notable items are those that are discussed by reliable sources when dealing with "communism" as the main topic. Such as the ones I presented above. That is Wikipedia's main criteria for notability. I'll try to post a more comprehensive source analysis to this talk page. --MarioGom (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- MarioGom, typically, the most notable items in Wikipedia's templates are items that relate to a theory. For this template, these are Communist society; Class struggle; Common ownership; Free association; From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs; etc. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Гармонический Мир: we are discussing about the variants section. The articles you mention do not seem related to this discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity & Mass killings under "Communist" regimes[edit]
Articles Crimes against humanity and Mass killings under "Communist" regimes are primarily about Marxist–Leninist regimes. Therefore, templates {{Marxism–Leninism}} and {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}} are more appropriate for them and these articles are included in these templates. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Removal of custom colors[edit]
I have removed the custom colors from this template, as they serve no encyclopedic purpose. See also {{Nazism}} and {{Neo-Nazism}}, where similar color schemes have been removed. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021[edit]
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add an image of the hammer and sickle 151.188.25.146 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't see a need for a single symbol of communism to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
[edit]
I removed some of the related topic links, merely by investigating whether the template appears as a sidebar or at the footer section of the article. As a disclaimer, I regard templates transcluding links as nearly always OR, often misleading, pedagogical, or distracting, proposing a "series" of articles by this template's content deepens the potential to veer from NPOV. The exceptional example is a taxobox, which is not an arrangement contrived here but a verifiable representation of sourced content. ~ cygnis insignis 07:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)