Talk:Popular front

message: why isn't there a section here on the american popular front era with browder, the new deal, etc?
Do we have a proper article somewhere else on the 1930s Comintern efforts at popular front politics? It certainly merits more of an article than the brief discussion here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While the two names sound so similarly and were so close in time and space they describe very different political structures. 
"Popular front", as propagated before WWII, was coalition of made out of necessity, where the communist party did not necessarily need to have absolute power.
The term "National front" was invented later to signify it is coalition of the whole nation (to fight with the Germans). After communist parties took over all power they kept this term as it was convenient enough. For most of the time the "national front" actually meant single party rule with few other, puppet like parties orbiting around.
This is case of Czechoslovakia: a popular front ("Lidová fronta") was (unsuccessfully) proposed by the communist party after Nazi takeover of Germany, a national front ("Národní fronta") was established during the war, initially to include all parties resisting the occupation. After 1948 national front turned into something as an empty  shell. Official propaganda never mistook one term for another: "national front" (the "empty" variant) was step above of mere "popular front".
I am sorry I am nitpicking so much for one word but the disctinction was felt strong enough both officially and by people living in these countries. If no one will object I'll create a article on "national" fronts as post-WWII institution of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone attempting to resolve page's NPOV violation, please consider this distinction as well. Wingedserif (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular front versus National front 

message: i'm willing to sort out the citations in the article, but also want to raise a few issues. The article does not mention The Popular Front in refrerence to the Spanish Civil war, or the dimishing role of the Comintern post 1936. Is there a reason for this or just an oversight?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.55.122 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: The article focuses too much on Marxist-Leninist advocacy of popular fronts. Liberals and social democrats took part in popular fronts as well.--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point, I think I'll tag with NPOV. By so heavily sourcing for information about Communist influence on popular fronts, I think the article creates a misleading representation of the historical movements that it refers to. (As an example, I've added a sourced note in the article about how the US popular front was actually composed of leftists as a whole, and that Communist Party membership is overemphasized in the historical literature.) One problem with the article is its structure, by placing the subsections about every country's popular front movement under the heading of "Comintern policy". A careful restructuring would help, as would adding sources that discuss the leftist, socialist, liberal, and anarchist contributions to the popular front movements (as well as the political relationships between them). Wingedserif (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the rationale then why not say so in the article and provide support with proper references? Otherwise, it is unsupported editorializing and/or original research Mballen (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV violation: too much focus on Marxist-Leninist advocacy of popular fronts 

message: Shouldn't this be at capitalized Popular Front? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should. Its not a proper noun. Int21h (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Most the groups listed in this section do not appear to meet the definition of popular fronts featured in the opening paragraph, such the PFI, PFLB, the PFLO, the PFLP and the PFLP-GC which are not "broad coalitions of different political groupings".
The article even states;
Not all coalitions who use the term "popular front" meet the definition for "popular fronts", and not all popular fronts use the term "popular front" in their name. The same applies to "united fronts".
Charles Essie (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: The article claims that 
The strategy of creating or taking over organizations that would then claim to be expressions of popular will, and not manipulation by the Soviet Union or communist movement, was first suggested by Vladimir Lenin.
Where did Lenin suggest this? There is no citation here. 
In general, the discussion of the separate sense of the term "front ... as a facade 'used to mask'" etc. seems to just confuse what should be the main issue of the article, especially since it comes so early. 60.241.189.184 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin