Template talk:Communism sidebar/Archive 2

message: The brackets just look confusing. I urge their removal. --Soman 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove brackets 

message: Religious communism is another lousy umbrella term. If where puting religious communism in schools of thought, then we'd put Council Communism in with Left Communism, and the rest in with Marxism-Leninism. That's a really stupid idea. Besides, I don't think any religious communism is a school of thought. It's all based on interpretation of the scriptures.
(But that isn't my main point, so don't just respond to that). --Saboteur 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also sceptical to including it, and I'd wish a consensu be reached. IMHO, the template ought to be limited to the modern Marxian ideological tradition, and exclude pre-Marxian variations that might for some historical reason carry the same name. --Soman 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be heavily systemically biased towards Marx. Religious organisations, if not anarchist organisations (although anarchist communism is currently not listed as a school but that is tolerable), we are tracing the development of communism after all: and Marxism is just another fork, that spawns forks in itself, in communist ideology. Religious communism is a school of thought, because it asserts that certain religions in general (from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity) mix well with communist ideals. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouln't limit the template to Marxist schools, and I'm all for Communist Anarchism being included, but I still don't see Religious communism as a school of thought. In any event, the article itself isn't much. Considering that there are many schools that should be included but have been removed because of issues over the length of the template, the article should be substantially improved before it could be included anyway. --Saboteur 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main criteria for inclusion of a certain school is not the length and quality of the relevant article, but the historical importance of that school (if the Marxism article was really short and badly written, could we exclude Marxism? hardly). Religious communism is an important school - or current, or whatever you wish to call it - and therefore should be included. Historically speaking, it is in fact the original form of communism. By the way, the length of the template is not an issue here, because we're not talking about adding anything, we're just talking about moving stuff from related subjects to schools of communism. For the record, I'd support moving Left Communism and Anarchist Communism into the schools section too. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should change the word "schools" to something more along the lines of "branches" or "varieties"? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Communism 

message: Template:Communism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism sidebar. Thank you.
Nomination seems to be non-existent. Removing notice. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Template:Communism 

message: There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on on this template. May I ask what is being warred over? I'm trying to determine whether I should lock the template up and force people to talk, or whether there is already talk ongoing.
Also, a message above this says that this has been submitted to TfD, yet I see no entry on the TfD page. What is going on here? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things 

message: Template:Communism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism sidebar. Thank you.
:The template seems to have survived the TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16#Template:Communism sidebar --Alvin-cs ✉ 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Communism 

message: Stalinism is clearly not a school of communism. Anyone who has read and comprehended the Stalinism page would agree. So how about we start on that. --Saboteur 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-Communist, I cannot agree either that the page says that, or that it ought to. The CPSU certainly did, for some years, claim to be following  the teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin; and it is not Wikipedia's business to say that they were wrong. We must discuss under Communism everyone who claimed to be there, and not only those who (by someone's standards, even mine) ought to be there. Septentrionalis 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Saboteur, while I see your point I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia to judge that Stalinism is not a school of communism at all.  Remember that wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and so if there is a signficant portion of the world who would associate Stalinism as a branch of Communism then we have to respect that and describe Stalinism as thus.  Surely you may go edit the Stalinism page and point out its departure from Communism -- in a NPOV, it goes without saying -- but Stalinism shall remain on this template.  --Pkchan 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's a means of facilitating rational discussion on this topic, then perhaps RfC is what we should go for now.  Edit warring is one of the last things I'd like to have here.  --Pkchan 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stalinism]] 

message: I saw this on TfD and thought maybe I'd make a proposal (in any case I will be removing it soon since it is a good candidate for speedy keep with the overwhelming opinions there).  I believe we could cut down the size and the arguments by having pages like Schools of communism (Branches of communism if you'd prefer).  We could remove links to the individual schools from the template which make it needlessly large.  The same goes for parties.  On the main pages the prominent schools and parties will be listed first since there are obviously some of greater importance.  It would cut down size and maybe help quell some of the arguments. gren グレン ? 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a reasonable proposal, although it will drastically slow down the use of the template for navigation. I don't care that much, but others may. Septentrionalis 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Sorry for the caps, but this needed to be said and all users need to become aware of it. I'll even say it again: Size is no longer an issue. It was an issue many months ago when the template aimed to include every former Communist state and every communist thinker or leader, but those are long gone. Right now, the communism template is much shorter than several others. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SIZE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE

message: an ad box on Google. It seems to me that "communisim" ought to be listed as a related subject rather than highlighted as the apotheosis of historical materialism. If the word "change" is substituted for the word "progress," historical materialism makes a good deal of sense as a theory of understanding many but not all past human events. Its usefulness is limited to that of a tool for understanding the past. It is not a prescription for determining the future. Communism as it was experienced in the twentieth century and continues to be experienced in the twenty first is proof of that.
The Peoples Republic of China has been a capitalist nation since the death of Mao Zedong.
:I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything?. The template is on that page because historical materialism is a related subject of communism, not the other way around.
:Again, can we try being constructive and at least agree on Stalinism not being in the schools section? --Saboteur 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Communism Box on the Historical Materialism page looks like  

message: How comes there a link to ICC? Isn't there thousands of communist organizations with more political relevance than ICC? --Soman 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC? 

message: There isn't any real discussion or debate here, so why is the page still protected? At least downgrade it to semi-protect so established users can edit it. The Ungovernable Force 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any admin, please either somewhat unprotect or add zh:Template:Communism.--Jusjih 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: This section should be divided into two sections: Current and Defunct.
Under defunct could come all the former Communist republics affiliated to the Soviet Union.
Belarus could probably come under Current: they operate a Command economy, as much industry and commerce is state owned today as was in the Soviet Union times, and their leader Lukashenko is an open admirer of the USSR.
:Do not include Belarus. It's a Soviet-style regime for sure. But the country is not formally under Communist Party rule, so Belarus is not a Communist state in the technical sense. 172 | Talk 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist States 

message: Clearly we should add a link to New Communism. It is a seprit idea and believe to the other fare left schools of Communism because of it's Nationalist characteristics and ideas. I did put a link to the site in the box but it moved can you pleas tell me why. It should be put back because it is very diffrent. It is also clear why it is diffrent and called "New" Communsim. I my self is a New Communist. I have also wrote a article about the topic under Marxism --PETER THE GREAT 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Communsim 

message: Why is Stalin and Stalinism missing completley from this list? Stalin and Stalinism are quite notable in history, if not moreso then Trotskyism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.240.31.67 (talk • contribs).
:Stalinism is socialism, not communism. Note the practice of Socialism in One Country, emphasis on the word socialism, the presence of a state (which contradicts with the communist practice of statelessness), and the presence of a class system (where Stalin, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally) which contradicts with the communist practice of classlessness. Stalinism is quite notable in history, but it's not notable as being communist. Stalinism is far more accurately described as a socialist dictatorship verging on fascism. -NorsemanII 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trotskyism, Stalinism and Leninism are all movements inside the Communist Movement, and all of them are socialist regimes. If the presence of a state contradicts the Communist movement, then neither Trotsky nor Lenin are communists. Kim Il Sung was a socialist dictator with a Communist ideology. Pol Pot was a communist dictator with a post-Communist and ultra-maoist ideology. It's just an opinion that Stalin owned all the means of production personally. I can say "the presence of a class system (where Fidel Castro, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally". Then Fidel Castro is not a communist. What's the difference between Lenin and Stalin then? Why define Stalin like a super-capitalist and not like a super-feudalist? Capitalism works like a class system, but not any class system is capitalist. The marxism defines a class by the origin of his rent. In the case of the Soviet Union, everybody have the same origin for his rent: salary. There is no inequality based upon private accumulation of capital, and to enhance the production does not benefit the bureaucratic income. The Soviet Union (Leninist or Stalinist) was a socialist system, and their inequalities determined by the political power. If those inequalities are fair or unfair it doesn't matter. They don't determine the difference between socialism and communism. Joseph Stalin was a Communist like Lenin was a Communist. We're doomed as marxists if the communist or socialist condition of a regime depends on the volutarism of our judgement of the political manipulations of just one person (Stalin in this case). The proletarian dictatorship doesn't exist from the beginning and the historical materialism have no sense if the leader can use their political power in order to create an entire social class. Jouvenel 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stalin was actually nothing more than an fascist. There`s a clear difference in the way Soviet was run before and during Stalin´s regime. In this, in the murders and paranoia, we see who truly was the proper communist among the two (Donnald 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to agree with Jouvenel here. Stalin, regardless of whether you believe he represented the 'true ideals' of Marxism/communism/whatever, was an extremely prominent member of the Communist movement. If one discounted Stalin by the fact he was a dictator, one would also have to discount every Communist party who followed the line of the Comintern, and every Communist party that was a part of the the Third Period and Popular Front campaigns. It would be ludicrous to suggest that these parties were not members of the Communist movement, yet by the logic of some here, they are not, because the followed the line of Stalin. By stating that Stalin was not a communist, one is simply inserting POV into the template  -because you are determining (by your own biased standards), who is a 'true communist' and who is not. I would guess that to the vast majority of the population, Stalin is inextricably linked to Communism, not least because he was the leader of the Russian 'Communist Party'. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It’s not about denouncing Stalin because he was a dictator. Lenin was equally a dictator. Thats very much the idea behind dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s more about his ideals. The mass murders, the paranoia, and foremost the lack of democracy. He did not ask his workers and farmers to collectivism, he made them (Donnald 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But weren't those actions (forced collectivisation, etc.) carried out (at least publicly) in the name of 'communism'? Hence, regardless of whether or not Stalin's ideals truly followed the ideals of communism (if they even exist), doesn't the fact that he executed them under the name of communism make him a Communist leader - if not a particularly good one? Chairman S. Talk Contribs 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Furthermore, if one follows the logic that Stalin is not a communist because his ideals did not match those espoused by communism, couldn't the exact same argument be made to exclude Lenin, Trotsky, or Bordiga? I'm sure there would be many Council or Anarcho-communists who would see the ideals of Marxist-Leninism to be antithetical to those of Marx and Engels. Similarly, there would be many Marxist-Leninists disapproving of Bordiga and Pannekoek being considered prominent communists (as opposed to revisionists). Finally, I'm sure there are many advocates of Stalin who would oppose Trotsky being there. In the end, when there are so many opposing schools of Marxist and communist thought, a debate like this could continue endlessly. The fact is, during the reign of Stalin, the vast majority of international Communist parties worldwide supported him and his regime - the Communist Party of Russia. He must easily be the most prominent person to lead a Communist party (Time Magazine's Man of the Year? - how many other communist leaders have received that?) - consequently, he should be included on this template. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Stalin missing? 

message: As noted there are differences of opinion on which image to be used in the template. That the hammer & sickle ought to be used was settled long ago, but I prefer :Image:Hammernsickleredonwhite.PNG as opposed to :Image:Hammer and sickle.svg, primarily became since the template has a white background. Propose a poll here below. --Soman 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently someone keeps changing the image, lets get a vote or something, I personally believe that :Image:Sickle.gif should be the image since it reflects communism more. I also have been told that red/yellow are rather Soviet colors more so then communist. NBAwire:syxx 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Check out :User:Soman/Template:Communism sidebar. --Soman 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vehemently disagree, on the grounds that it slashes many important issues. I am not opposed to revamping the template, but we would do well to follow the examples set by other political ideology templates. -- Nikodemos 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, can we agree that at this point there is a need to limit the size of the template somewhat, and in accordance with my earlier posting balance its content? --Soman 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that template should be trimmed, however I also agree with Nikodemos that current design is better. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that balance is necessary. And, in accordance with my exclusionist beliefs, I propose to achieve this balance by removing some of the less significant schools and people from the template. -- Nikodemos 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for make-over of template 

message: Kolkhoznitsa is not a symbol image for communism, it's an irrelevant statue in the ex USSR. The picture should be some kind of a hammer and sickle. Internationalism, general strike, Communist revolution, World revolution, Workers Council and Dictatorship of the Proletariat are major concepts of communism. Ho Chi Minh is not a communist, he admits that what guided his "struggle" was nationalism all along. Stalin is not a communist; he is an advocate of "socialism in one country", so is Mao. Bakdash,
Mariátegui and Berlinguer have nothing original or extraordinary and there are hundreds of party leaders just like them. Pannekoek is a very important and respected communist from the second international, being the only real "scientist" of an organization which identifies itself as "scientific socialist". Bordiga is a very important and respected communist from the third international, and someone who also led a massive international communist tendency after the acceptance of "socialism in one country". Anarcho-communism is accepted as a branch of communism and Makhno is a prominent figure of this movement who should be represented here. The First International is not a necessarily all-communist organization.
:I agree with most of your points. Nevertheless, the First International was the international where Marx, Engels, Bakounine, etc, were active, and the politics of the 1st international was clearly communist. Plus, you deleted some of the "Schools of communism", and put 2 very small internationals that don't belong here. --Inbloom2 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something more : Gramsci is certainly more important than Bordiga. --Inbloom2 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome discussion on the subject. I think that the comments of both the anon user and Inbloom clarfies some problems at stake.
*"As for putting the ICC and the IBRP, those are not really small internationals, they are clearly communist and they are active, I can't see why they don't belong here." How many cadres does IBRP have worldwide? Any guess? Compare that guess with that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has over 800,000 primary members.
*"Leninism covers Stalinism, Maoism, Eurocommunism etc.". Not really. 'Leninism' in this case represents more than 99.99% of the international communist movement. The divisions in the main communist movement, i.e. Sino-Soviet split or the Eurocommunist rift are highly relevant in the template.
*"I thought, which are tendencies that belong to socialism rather than communism in my opinion." Can you understand that perhaps the problem here is that your POV differs to significantly from mainstream conception of communism that it will be impossible to reach a compromise
*Gramsci played a major role in the emergence of new left intellectualism and critical thinking. He is clearly more relevant than Bordiga, who is largely forgotten today.
*"Ho Chi Minh is not a communist, he admits that what guided his "struggle" was nationalism all along. Stalin is not a communist". Again a problem of POV. Wikipedia was no means to define who is a 'true communist'.
*"Bakdash, Mariátegui and Berlinguer ". For a person talking about internationalism, you seem to be bother very little about only giving prominence to Europeans. Bakdash was largely considered as the 'dean of Arab communism', and was highly influencial in shaping the communist movement in the Arab world. Mariátegui is largely credited as the most important developer of Marxist thought and practice according to Latin American conditions. Berlinguer is here taken as a representative of the Eurocommunist trend. --Soman 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Images is of course, largely an issue of taste. I personally find the other hammer n sickle both as a bit ugly and I have a problem that it seems cut-n-pasted out of the Soviet flag. The hammer n sickle should clearly be represented as the main symbol of communism, but it should necessarily be the Soviet flag design. The Kolkhoznitsa image has the hammer n sickle, but also illustrates other features of communist thought (Egiltarianism, vanguardism, progress). --Soman 10:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Not really, they called what they were socialism, they were head of (so-called) socialist states, their ideas revolved around "socialism in one country". They belong to socialism, or if you want, it is of course possible to open up a "Stalinism" template."
But by definition, doesn't every Marxist communist aim to achieve socialism as a precursor to communism. Hence aren't all the 'communists' you mentioned also socialists? Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems With the Current Template 

message: I don't know, but the watermelon red background and the dark blue text combination makes it difficult to read. Anyone else have thoughts on this matter?--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New colors for template? 

message: *Similar to Stalin, Mao is also remembered as a state leader. He didn't even call his regime socialist - it was a "People's Republic", a "New Democracy", he, like Stalin, he claimed to be completely following Marx and Lenin. Marx and Lenin were the guides of communism, he claimed to be the humble follower of the great road set by great "prominent communists". He doesn't belong on the template --Mayis
**From Britannica: "The most far-reaching innovation in Communist doctrine during the period 1953–70 was the Chinese interpretation of Marxism-Leninism known as Maoism." -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mao]]

message: *Ho Chi Minh himself admitted that he was a nationalist rather than a communist. He doesn't belong here and hell are we gonna add every party bureaucrat who managed to became a statesman under this topic? --Mayis
**Again from Britannica: "Ho [Chi Minh] was one of the prime movers of the post-World War II anticolonial movement in Asia and one of the most influential communist leaders of the 20th century." -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ho Chi Minh]]

message: *Pannekoek was one of the most respected leader of the Second International, he was arguably the most prominent figure of Council Communism which was a very influential movement in May 68, and his works even influenced Lenin on his "State and Revolution". Pannekoek should be in the template. --Mayis
::He seems like a reasonable choice, but could we have him without Karl Kautsky, who had a greater influence on the Second International and Lenin, despite then departing from communism? Warofdreams talk 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anton Pannekoek]]

message: *Gramsci was a minor figure in the Italian Communist Party who led the party for two years because he was Stalin's man, and then later was imprisoned, wrote his "notebooks" and then died. He belongs to "Western Philosophers" not "Prominent Communists". --Mayis
::On the contrary, Gramsci was an important figure in the Italian Communist Party and was less Stalin's man than Togliatti.  But it's a valid question as to whether he is best placed here, or left solely on the Marxism template, as is his better known for his writings than for his actions. Warofdreams talk 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Antonio Gramsci]]

message: *He was a party bureaucrat and there are hundreds of CP leaders like him, he is not prominent or original in any way. He absolutely should not be in the template. --Mayis
*Bakdash is refered to as the Dean of Arab Communism. He led the Syrian CP at its peak period, and largely defined the character of the Arab communist movement. --Soman 11:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Khalid Bakdash]]

message: *He was a party bureaucrat and there are hundreds of CP leaders like him, he is not prominent or original in any way. He absolutely should not be in the template. --Mayis
::Berlinguer seems a strange inclusion; he's hardly predominant even within eurocommunism, and hasn't done much of note. Warofdreams talk 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I though Eurocommunist should be represented amongst the personalities. One could argue that Santiago Carrillo should have been included instead, but that would be sligthly awkward as he denounced communist as a later stage. --Soman 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Enrico Berlinguer]]

message: *Bordiga was the founder of the Italian Communist Party, and later leader of a massive 'Bordigist' international, which was bigger than Trotsky's fourth international. There are still many big organizations in Italy claiming to be Bordigists. He absolutely should be in the template. --Mayis
::There is a strong case to include Bordiga; prominent but not uniquely so in the 1920s, he has since been the most enduring figure of left communism.  I wonder if, by the same token, we should include Mansoor Hekmat, who seems to have had quite a similar degree of influence? Warofdreams talk 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the 1.8 million was only in Italy as well. 'Pretty big' is well, your own description, as says very little about actual conditions. Lastly, note the wording 'largely forgotten', not 'completly forgotten'. There are groups upholding Bordiga's legacy, but on a global scale they are far smaller than say, those who uphold that of Enver Hoxha (whom I'm not nominating for inclusion in the template). --Soman 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Amadeo Bordiga]]

message: *Makhno is the most prominent and influential anarcho-communist, a school of communism, and he should be represented in the template. --Mayis
**He is by no means prominent; in communist movement he is nothing more than a footnote.-- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More prominent than Peter Kropotkin?  If we are to have an anarcho-communist, it should be him, not Makhno. Warofdreams talk 06:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So Mayis, why are you happy to include a figure "considered very important today by anarchists", yet unwilling to include Stalin and Mao, both of whom you assert were predominately important to movements other than communism? Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nestor Makhno]]

message: I can't understand why this page is protected in the Stalinist version where the most prominent person who keeps adding his version does not even mostly participate in the talk page.  —The preceding Mayis (talk • contribs) 11:27, January 10, 2007  (UTC)
:Please see m:The Wrong Version and Wikipedia's protection policy, which states that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version".  The template is protected because of the content dispute that doesn't look as though it'll end soon while everybody is able to edit the template freely and simply revert back to a revision they favour.  When a consensus has been reached here on the talk page in regards to what the template should look like, it'll be unprotected.  J Di 11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: Mode of production, Internationalism, Class consciousness, Class struggle, General Strike, Communist revolution, World revolution, Workers Council and Dictatorship of the Proletariat had been removed while giving no reason. Is it thought that those aren't basic concepts of communism or does the person who edited them out is trying to censor every concept which doesn't fit with his liking?
Besides, Leninism is a school of communism, not a basic concept. It is funny when the concepts listed above are not among basic concepts but Leninism and Communist Party is. --Mayis
: I agree. The "Basic Concepts" in the protected version are just a disgrace. --Inbloom2 12:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Concepts 

message: Luxemburgism, Council Communism and Anarcho Communism are removed where currents that claim to be Leninism, like Maoism and Eurocommunism are added. Why? --Mayis
:Left Communism (although this is broad concept) gets to represent that tendency as a whole. Luxemburgism never took of as a separate political tendency. Anarcho-Communism is rather a subtrend of anarchism than of communism. --Soman 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutly no reason to delete some communist schools, including Anarcho-communism, since it's a template:communism and not a template:marxism. So, Leninism - Trotskyism - Left communism - Council communism - Luxemburgism - Anarchist communism, must be under "Schools of communism". --Inbloom2 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools of Communism 

message: User:Inbloom2/Template --Inbloom2 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already several 'communist party' templates, such as Template:European communist parties, Template:Middle East communist parties, Template:Communist Parties of South America. --Soman 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's censoring what, Mayis?  You're the only one who seems to be trying to keep things OUT.  This is positively Orwellian. PubliusFL 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Everyone else wants to keep as much as possible in the template, whilst Mayis, you want to remove half the template in order to push your own POV. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comment on my proposal ? For the picture, I quite agree with RainyDayCrow. --Inbloom2 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to avoid POV disputes, this template should be as inclusive as possible—though not ridiculously long, of course.  In that respect, I like Inbloom2's version.  However, I do not approve of the white-on-red hammer and sickle.  As I've said before, the symbol of communism is specifically the hammer and sickle that appeared on the flag of the USSR, since the Bolsheviks were the people who  popularized the hammer and sickle in the first place.  Plus, I'm sure the yellow-on-red hammer and sickle is the most easily recognizeable among the non-communists who comprise the bulk of this encyclopedia. -- WGee 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a minority POV template. It suggests that Stalin, Mao and Ho are not prominent communists, and if we are to include some minor schools like Council communism, Stalinism and Maoism should definitely be included too. Also, I prefer Hammer and sickle.svg image. -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed: let's limit the list to Marx, Engels, and Lenin. -- WGee 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rosa Luxemburg is also absolutly legitimate. --Inbloom2 12:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Template should include all prominent communists or none at all. By naming just a few we would be suggesting that others are not prominent, and that's not true. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to who ? --Inbloom2 12:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to mainstream sources. -- Vision Thing -- 12:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who decides it's mainstream ? Who checks if it's true or not ? --Inbloom2 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that, for example, Britannica is not a mainstream source? -- Vision Thing -- 12:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We also had this kind of inclusion issue with the :template:ideology. We solved by laying down clear criteria for inclusion based on verifiable external sources for notability. See here I would advise you to do the same: use the index of a handbook on the history of communism to decide on which goes and what is included. C mon 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the template 

message: In order to try to settle the issue of prominent communists, I (Alain10 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To summarize the issue of prominent communists

message: Apparently the addition of Islamic communism to the template was serious, so I'm posting here to find out what explanation there is for it.  Bearing in mind that a large number of relevant topics are omitted for reason of space, I'm fascinated to here why we would ever want a link to a redirect on here!  This is leaving aside that the editor who added it completely failed to follow the instructions at the bottom of the template (" exists as an alternate version of this template. Any content changes made here should be made there as well.") Warofdreams talk 09:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You discuss now about it's place? If that is the problem then I can easily put it there as well. And you do not need to revert it, instead of that you could add it also in the sidebar of the Communism template.Runehelmet (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the main point which I make above.  Please give your reasons as to why this is such an important topic, despite not having an article, that it should be included in this template.  Although I've raised this both in my original edit summary and on this talk page, you have failed to give a single reason. Warofdreams talk 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: First of all I did not "fail" to give you a reason. If you had read the edit summary you should know that Socialism and Islam and Islam and Communism are the same. And because it contains a redirection it does not mean that it is insignificant.Runehelmet (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a reason for its inclusion.  Do you have one?  As I have said, not every topic related to communism can be included on this template - many are omitted.  Why should this one be added?  Also, I strongly suggest reading communism and socialism if you believe that they are the same thing. Warofdreams talk 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre addition