Talk:Socialist state/Archive 6

message: guys, seriously. there are three articles on communism , the communisty party, communist state, and communism.
what you seriously need is a 'history of communism' article, which all three of these articles try to mishmash together in some god awful POV mess. then you need to figure   out that 'communism' 'communist state' and 'communist party' are .. what? different things? or the same? and the articles overlap so much, it is simply ridiculous.
: I've addressed a solution at Talk:Communist Ideologies. For more examples of the baffling array of Communist-related pages, see the communist template I made a while ago. There are actually links to lists of links.
:...actually that amuses me slightly, to tell you the truth...
: --Oceanhahn 03:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: mess of  wikipedia communism articles

message: I commented out the following pieces that fell out of context or . If someone cares, may resore it properly. Mikkalai 15:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pieces 

message: One of the innovations Lenin introduced into Marxism was the notion of the vanguard party taking the lead, analyzing working class interests, voicing them effectively and on the behalf of the working class, seizing power. While these conclusions are arguably implicit in Marxism they were never part of the thought of Marx, or Engels. Fred Bauder 15:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I second that. "M-L" is more precise in context of actual states or governments. Mikkalai 18:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leninism

message: I'm trying to reorganize the entire lot of communism and related pages, with some others, into some series that makes a little more sense. This is one of the pages we've cited for editing. Details are available at Talk:Communism and Talk:Communist Ideology.
This reorganization is still in a hypothetical stage, so no reorganization is likely to take place in the near future.
I'd appreciate input from anyone who'd like to participate in a constructive way.
-- Oceanhahn 22:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Please don't do this to articles with long history without reading talk archives and without discussion at least two weeks long. Mikkalai 07:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: The (NPOV) policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)
Shorne, in my humble opinion, you clearly violate the NPOV rules. You do not let another opinions be present. You just decide what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" (as you write in "summaries") and delete what you don't agree with instead of discussing it or editing the article so as to make it represent different sides of a dispute. Please stop behaving like this. I respect your opinion, but please don't impose it on others. If you don't stop violating NPOV, I'll opt for starting an appropriate procedure. Boraczek 00:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're most welcome to try another procedure. I'm confident that fair-minded people will agreed that I'm being as fair as possible, representing all sides of disputes as well as I can. It is you who are insisting on pushing a POV. Again, NPOV is not about "opinions"; there shouldn't be any opinions in any article. If you still don't understand this, please go and discuss it with the appropriate people. I'm afraid I really don't have any more time to spend in one-on-one discussions with you on this subject. Shorne 00:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Knock off the revert dueling, or this page will be protected from editing. Please make a serious effort to discuss differences here on the talk page. -- Infrogmation 06:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was writing up a compromise when I suddenly found I couldn't edit.  Oh well. VeryVerily 06:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you seriously think you can work up a viable compromise version, you can either post the relevent section here in talk or create a temporary subpage at, say, "Communist state/Temp". -- Infrogmation 06:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was basically going to take the form of a dispute notice on the section in question, with a reference to the talk page.  It doesn't matter now. VeryVerily 07:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your intervention in what is obviously an impossible situation. If you have any energy left for this sort of jejune behaviour, please see VeryVerily's command performances at Henry Kissinger, United States, and any of a dozen other articles at which he is doing the very same thing, true to form. His claims of "compromise" are transparent when he doesn't even discuss matters at the talk page when asked to do so. Shorne 06:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one opposing your whitewashing and POV-pushing on Wikipedia.  Look for instance at the page history of this article. VeryVerily 07:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you who are the whitewasher and POV-pusher. Look at this talk page. I can talk rationally with almost everyone. It is only you who are utterly impossible to deal with. Don't deny it. Everyone is onto your game. Shorne 08:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: What the hell have you been doing all day long, if not reverting changes and insisting on your POV? I have no use for you and VeryVerily. You're both completely impossible. Shorne 08:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: That's how Shorne is when Shorne has to simplify things for people who cannot or will not listen. Shorne is infinitely more amenable to discussion with people who will meet Shorne halfway. Shorne 09:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone should be "banned", Boraczek, that would be you. You insert statements which basically amount to "communism is evil evil evil evil", and then claim that whoever tries to moderate or remove them is inserting POV! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Bolshevism and Menshevism were also two early forms of communism-in-practice, advocated by Russian communists in the late 19th and early 20th century; the Mensheviks favored peaceful change, while Bolsheviks called for, and eventually organised, a revolution, putting power in the hands of the Soviets of workers and peasants.
:This is an obvious blunder. Bolshevism and menshevism were wings of RSDLP, not "communism in practice". Not to say that it was not bolsheviks who "organised" the first (February) revolution. And both wings were in favor of Soviets. The ignoramus phrase must be deleted ASAP. Mikkalai 07:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the deletion. Shorne 08:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early forms" section 

message: User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Shorne 12:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation requested 

message: Removed:
It should be noted that the term "communism" and ideology has a history that predates Marx, however, closely associated with libertarian socialism (also known as anarchism, though that term has come to be associated with other political philosophies).
: I seriously doubt in the correctness of the phrase. Direct references, please. I have recently repelled an attempt to assign Cabet as pretendent for "authorship", basing on vague secondary references. I took me two weeks of pain in the ass research to figure out that he didn't use this term (at least in written). Now the ball is on the other side. Since now on I will mercilessly remove similar claims without direct reference, or at least credible sources that make this direct claim to this end, rather than say something vague and indirect in passive voice.  Mikkalai 02:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say "you believe the sentence has factual basis". Believe me or not, but I believe this, too. And I will be looking for confirmation. But "as is" the phrase is uninformative. I can readily believe that the adjective applied to things of Paris Commune were called "communist", but this is hardly what we heed here, correct?  Mikkalai 16:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed. When I wrote "I believe this, too", it was about the first part, before the "however". I'd also add that the "and ideology" words are meaningless and confusing as well. Concluding, it is quite possible that ther term "communism" was used before Marx to denote some kind of conscious ideology,  differing from the usage in everyday, mundane, no-brainer senses, such as in reference to Paris Commune or to some communalist life, especially in translation from other languages. Such references would be extremely welcome to this article, since there is much confusion with words, especially since Marx's invention (is it his?) of the term "primitive communism". Mikkalai 20:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-marx term "communism" 

message: See Talk:Socialist republic. This current attempt to make a disambig page is hair splitting. Socialist state is the state that declares socialism in one way or another. The rest is the differences in interpretation of the term socialism. There are/were different kinds of socialist states, just as there are different kinds of monarchy or democracy or capitalist states. And the wording "hypothetical state that may be..." is below any criticism. The article must discuss things that are and were, not could or will be. mikka (t) 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just thought a disambig page was better than the confusing stub we had before. But I support your idea of a merger. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Good idea, Mikka. 172 | Talk 00:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. My argument is that Socialist republic was also the name of an administrative unit of the USSR and placing Socialist state in the same article automatically will cause confusion - Soviet Socialist Republics were never "states" by any means. Only the USSR as a whole was a state. Cmapm 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: However, after some doubts, I must agree, that Mikka's arguments against disambig page are strong enough. So, I'm now against both disambig and merge, but I would agree to revert it back to stub. After all, we have three terms which differs from each other in some way: "Socialist republic", "Socialist state" and "Communist state". And therefore, in my opinion, all three articles should be present.Cmapm 13:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they should be merged, but on a side note I think the 2nd category on this page that describes Communist states should not say "known in the West" or use the dismissive "so-called." While the USSR referred to itself as a socialist state, it is also accurately described as a Communist state, as in CPSU-run. J. Parker Stone 00:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree here too. "Communist state" is a term, and like any term, has its origin and area of usage, which must be clarified. Cmapm 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: these states were ruled by Communist parties, therefore they were Communist states. it's not some "so-called" Western invention. J. Parker Stone 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To this I should answer symmetrically: "They were Socialist states, because they were proclaimed as such. And "Communist Party" was just a name for the ruling body, which was Socialist in fact." To neutralize your POV I'll stick to this my POV,  in case you insist on your one further. Cmapm 13:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal