Talk:Socialism/Archive 5

message: Earlier discussions: 
*Talk:Socialism/Archive 1
*Talk:Socialism/Archive 2
*Talk:Socialism/Socialism and Nazism -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- Jmabel 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Why was most of the information from the criticism section removed? TDC 17:48, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
You may want to see the archives.  I am unaware of any mass amounts of criticism being removed. Capone 00:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the deletion TDC may have been referring to.--Silverback 01:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms sEction

message: The last text dump added some utter POV gibberish.  Will someone deal with it? I don't have the energy to deal with the user that added it. 172 21:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The studies on the genocides of communism are real and careful. As are the other objections. May I suggest arguments, not censorship? Ultramarine 22:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: Marx was not the first person to define socialism - nor was he at all
Marx wrote about Communism not socialism
Sir Thomas More wrote the book "Utopia" in 1516 long before Marx
He is Considered the first to define and discuss socialism
:Newsflash:Jesus was a socialist. (He was an Essene. Look it up). Kinda predates More. Rd232 10:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Thomas More 

message: I beleive that the beginning of the article was very messy, with scattered points, not really forming a coherent whole.  So, I've attempted to clean it up a bit, most of those points are now in the "see also" section, and the article now begins a little more confidently.  If there's any problems, just post them here.  --Brendanfox 02:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to beginning of article 

message: It seems to me that this article should have a nice simple definition for socialism near the beginning of the article instead of forcing readers to wade trhough the entire article of history and analysis.  Phoenix Hacker 01:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. I had the same problem myself. You can read through the article for quite awhile without getting a clue about what is commonly meant by "socialism." RJII 02:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a definition

message: I must agree with some previous comments. This article is very hard to follow. I arrived here thinking it would be an article on the modern version of Socialism as practiced in many European countries, where you have tons of Socialist parties. It turns out that this article is not at all on that subject (which is apparently treated in Social Democracy, but no link in the lead points THAT out), but that it is mostly on the marxist idea of socialism. The note of usage should be put close to the top, in my opinion.
Secondly, pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the difference between communism and socialism (as it is treated here)? I personnally have no idea. But I guess that many people coming to wikipedia to look up Socialism and Communism would be interested in a paragraph comparing both. 
Third, in the remainder of the criticisms section, only extremist economists or "scholars" are listed. This is unfortunate, since it gives the (erroneaous) impression that socialism was only criticised by extremists. Luis rib 21:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Socialism?