Template talk:Socialism sidebar

message: Most socialist parties use that as the symbol. Don't worry about the copyright, I reckon its fitting for public use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.242.153 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most social democratic parties use that as a symbol. But it is not representative of all the branches of socialism. I would suggest a red flag. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, red can symbolize everything from Nazis, communists, socialists, and republicans. I like the red flower. Yaanch 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red flower

message: Is there a reason why Democratic socialism isn't included in the list?  This box appears on that article, and it seems to be topically related. Thesquire 10:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Omission? 

message: RJII seems to think that it should be included based on his definition of mixed economy which is a "mix of capitalism and socialism". What do other people think? My source is that none of the definitions in google define it as such with the exception of the Wikipedia article (which is now changed). For reference, the reason RJII seems to want to include this is so that he can put the socialism infobox on the mixed economy page. Perhaps he will let us know if this is not the case. - FrancisTyers 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "My" definition is the same as the definition you just put in the mixed economy article: "An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises" In socialism, the means of production are publicly owned --in capitalism they're privately owned. When you mix the two together  ..tada! A mixed economy! RJII 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, isn't a mixed economy just as capitalist as it is socialist? --AaronS 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It's, in the ideal, one half socialist and one half capitalist. Half of the means of production are privately owned and the other half are socially owned or controlled. "Mixed economy" is in the "liberalism" box (I'm the one that put it there, actually) so it should also be in the socialism box. RJII 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get "half and half"? "Part and part" doesn't mean half and half, since the size of each part is unspecified. You're just making the "ideal" up in your head. And just saying something is "part" socialism hardly merits inclusion here. Find an actual group of socialists that support a mixed economy, and maybe you'll have a case. Sarge Baldy 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in the Influences section. If a mixed economy is a mix (doesn't have to be "half and half" --i was just speaking in terms of the ideal) of socialism and capitalism, then obviously it's an influence. RJII 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should mixed economy be included

message: please discuss removals. Sam Spade 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert of additions 

message: I've temporarily removed the link to Revolutionary Socialism until it's clear that it is significant enough to be mentioned. The article unfortunately seems not to describe revolutionary socialism in general, but the opinion of a very small group. See its talk page (and please join the discussion there if you are knowledgeable in these matters). Qwertyus 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionary Socialism 

message: I have been creating a series of Irish political templates on issues like Irish Nationalism, Republicanism, Unionism, Monarchism. One thing that struck me as useful to link, but which is missing on this and other templates, is a link to cultural aspects. Socialism has strong cultural features which have been used to communicate messages and concepts. It can be found in everything from songs like The Red Flag to particular paradigm shift theatre (key plays in the early 20th century promoting the concept of the proletariat fighting the bosses, etc which fundamentally changed viewpoints), to key publications. It might be useful to have one or two such cultural links. Other areas like Christian Democracy or Social Democracy often hasn't had a cultural aspect, but socialism has had a particularly strong one, with socialist states often using strong cultural aspects (songs, images, stories) to communicate its message. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Aspects 

message: I've added Utopian socialism because it belongs in the template, either as a current of socialist thought, or at the very least as an influence. The ideas of Robert Owen (to whom we owe a lot of terms relating to socialism (and for whose ideas the term 'socialism' itself was coined, who helped organise one of the first British trade unions in the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, and who was one of the inspirations of the Rochdale Pioneers and the British Co-operative movement), Charles Fourier, and others were the intellectual leaders of the Pre-Marxian socialist movement, and (for example, in Robert Owen's "Report to the County of Lanark") laid the foundations for a number of ideas which were expanded upon later by Marx and Engels, and later Marxian Socialists. Similarly, the lessons learned in failed social experiments (like New Harmony) informed the Socialist theories and institutions that followed. Finally, if you read - for example - Beatrice Webb's "'The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain," you will note that the early Fabian socialists (and some of the later Fabians, like G.D.H. Cole) were famliar with, in the case of Webb claim an intellectual herritage which can be traced to, and borrow some ideas from, Owen. In turn, Fabian ideas have informed the ideas of various strains of social-democratic, labourite, and progressive thought in the English speaking world (and - in particular - in Britain).
Given these reasons and, in the words of G.D.H. Cole, prior to the 1840s, "The word 'Socialist... meant 'Owenite', and had hardly, in Great Britain, any other meaning," (Cole, G.D.H., “A Century of Co-Operation”, Oxford: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1944, p. 28.) it would be a huge oversight not to include Utopian socialism in the template. - AmishThrasher 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utopian Socialism 

message: Why is the politics portal being deleted? That's not redundant. As for the "list of socialist ideas"...well, that's a little difficult. Yes, the template is a "list of socialist ideas", but the article would, potentially, be more comprehensive. However, I don't think it's necessary to include, as the aritcle is more of a list of ideologies than a list of ideas. If that changed, maybe it could work. --Yossarian 30px| 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody supports your ridiculous assertion that a politics portal has nothing to do with one of the most influential political ideologies of modern histroy.  Thus, please stop this campaign of deletions. -- WGee—Preceding undated comment added at 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not campaigning against your edits "no matter their worthiness".  I'm sure you've made more constructive edits to other articles, but virtually all of your contributions to socialism-related articles have compromised their quality. -- WGee 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics portal & List of socialist ideas 

message: I disagree with this edit by User:172. For four reasons:
# It was a far going edit which was not discussed.
# It assumes that the template communism is a model to be strived at, while it is actually the result of a compromise and not an ideal template.
# It puts the template out of line with other political ideology templates :Template:Anarchism sidebar, :Template:Liberalism sidebar, :template:Christian Democracy sidebar, which are colourful and sometimes illustrated.
# The current version is just prettier.
- C mon 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating a visually appealing encyclopedia is part of growing our market share.  We don't have to strip everything down just because we're free.  Creativity and well layed-out pages are essential.  The template should not have been changed.  Indeed, since it wasn't discussed, it was a violation of Wikipedia policy to change it.  --Tjss(Talk) 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do colors have anything to do with legibility? No. YaanchSpeak! 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The current version look horrible.  Appropriate use of colour and sizing of text is very useful in making the purpose and hierarchy of a template legible. Warofdreams talk 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, old version was much better. -- Vision Thing -- 12:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to single me out. Xyzzy said it the best. Actually, I like [the new] version better. Legibility should have priority over kitsch. Bars of red distract too much, especially in a context more complex than this one. And speaking of the "purpose and hierarchy of a template," the categories of the old template ("influences," "key issues," "ideas," were conceptually incoherent). 172 | Talk 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I single you out is because you are the only person advocating the simpler version (other than Xyzzy, who is not here any more). As I said before, consistency is paramount in my thinking. I don't care very much how the template looks like as long as the same standard is applied to all political templates. So I have two choices: 1. Struggle to keep the old layout of this template. 2. Struggle to change the layout of all other templates. The first is obviously easier, so that is what I will do. I am sorry, but this is something I cannot compromise on, especially since I have the backing of the majority of editors (and, in matters of pure aesthetics, the majority should rule). -- Nikodemos 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem as if Xyzzy has left Wikipedia. He/she seems much more active than I have been recently.  The old version does not contribute to standardization, given the aesthetic differences in the "kitch" across political templates. Anyway, since you restored the new categories-- the important matter here, I no longer have much of an inclination to spend time on the issue. 172 | Talk 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the other templates, libertarianism and fascism seem the most legible. I suggest a new aesthetic design based on either of those two, rather than restoring the old one, which resembles some of the flasy graphics of leftwing youth league websites. 172 | Talk 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: From now on -- Vision Thing --, i recommend making a consensus before making large changes such as removing the image from the template.. YaanchSpeak! 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improving the encyclopedia comes before bureaucratic procedures on talk pages. VisionThing's citation of Encarta is accurate. It is very difficult to find iconography embraced by all major groups describing themselves as socialism. I support VisionThing's removal of the (cartoonish) red flag picture. 172 | Talk 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that his citation was correct, but I'm also sure if i googled the subject i could find supporters of the red flag for socialism! Im just saying that a general census would be recommended. If i found a citation saying that all templates are better off with colors and images, would that give me the right to change the template with out anybody's else's opinion? No. YaanchSpeak! 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Nikodemos, this template should have an image (just because that makes it look better) and the red flag is our best choice, as it is both representative of socialism and the image is free. Social-democratic symbols like the rose in fist, should be on the template social democracy (note that there is no free version of the rose in fist). C mon 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that your idea would work well, but of course i would have to see it first ;) YaanchSpeak! 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler version

message: Don't you think 'libertarian socialism' should be included in socialism template's current trends?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.253.87 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because Libertarian Socialism is actually a strand of . C mon 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user added it again to this template. I will delete it again. YaanchSpeak! 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll add it back again. Anarchism is a strand of socialism, so the fact that libertarian socialism overlaps with anarchism is no reason to keep it off this template. VoluntarySlave 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed my mind, for me Libertarian Socialism can be on this template, not because anarchism is a strand of socialism (that's just nonsense) but because libertarian socialism encompases some strands of anarchism and some of socialism. C mon 23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian socialism

message: what happened to the red flag on this template?--Crocadog 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is being discussed here C mon 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  red flag 

message: Why is "Utopian socialism" on this template twice? If no one knows why, or if no one defends it, i will delete one of the links.
Yaanch 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twice 

message: Since the most recent image was deleted i think we need to decide what image we want on this template; we should have one. Before, we had a red flag but i think red is to ambiguous because it can represent communism, republicans, Nazis, and soviets. I think the red rose in a fist is the best idea because that symbol is only socialist. Any ideas? YaanchSpeak! 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An image is not a requirement. Many templates do not have one. The rose is inappropriate because it is associated with the Socialist International, which is at odds with many groups describing themselves as socialist. 172 | Talk 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you are against ascetics in templates or anything that could take the reader away from the article. But personally i feel that images contribute to it. YaanchSpeak! 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Do we need room to discuss specific countries on this template, as in the In specific countries-subheader. I think that templates like  f.i. can better be used for this (when it comes to European countries), because the inclusion of these countries is just arbitrary: why the Netherlands or Canada, but not Germany (whose socialist tradition was arguably the most influential) or Sweden (whose welfare state is a model for many socialists and social-democrats) or the USSR which also claimed to be socialist. I don't see the use of this specific countries subheader, esp. seen the countries included. C mon 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Template:Liberalism sidebar and template:conservatism have sections dedicated to [ideology] by country. We should follow the same standard here (or else change the standard in those other templates). The countries included are simply the countries that have articles on their respective socialist movements. The reason Germany is not featured is because there is no Socialism in Germany article (though I agree with you that there should be one). The same goes for Socialism in Russia. -- Nikodemos 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On template liberalism this regionalization is not overly appreciated see here. I think we should start here and create a trend: no to this non-sensically regionalist perspective. For once let international socialism take the iniative! ;) C mon 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that discussion has been dead for 8 months... I'd still rather keep the national variants, if only because two of them (Britain and USA) are very good articles that deserve the attention. -- Nikodemos 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not disputing their quality. But I'm saying that the current inclusion of countries is arbitrary at best (just because they have articles...) and anglo-centric at worst (why canada? New Zealand? there are way more influential countries). But if no one feels so, I'll leave the matter. C mon 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to concur with C mon here- even if the discussion is old. The as-stated arbitrary choice of countries is certainly not a great way to do things. Either change it, or start Socialism in Germany and Socialism in Russia, I think.--EJFox 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note, on templates such as Template:Communism sidebar, Template:Libertarianism sidebar and Template:Social democracy sidebar there are no sections by country. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism by country

message: Hi guys,
Do others, like me, think that Eco-socialism should be added to the Currents of socialism on the template? It is a growing current within many socialist movements and I believe it should be recognised. I have been working to make the page a lot better and it is now substantially improved.
Aled Dilwyn Fisher 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think eco-socialism should indeed be included. Allixpeeke (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eco-socialism 

message: ...are gawdy.  They suggest the over-use of colour and graphics you'd expect on pop idol fansite designed by a 12-year old.  Please tone it down a little, eh? Kevlar67 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks great now. It gives some colour to the articles, and fit well in the wiki format. --Soman (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit with wiki format at all, though.  Compare it to ,, , .  It is out of step.  It clashes badly with those templates.  This is a dangerous trend.  Kevlar67 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  But it goes with , ,  Zazaban (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent visual changes... 

message: I see that libertarian socialism, despite being considered by some not to be a form of socialism (as it rejects state ownership of the means of production) is listed in this template.  I can only assume thus that this template aims to show a big-tent view of socialism, not merely limited to the statist forms thereof.Given that left-libertarian Brad Spangler has argued that anarcho-capitalism is misnamed, and that it ought to be more properly understood as a form of stigmergic form of socialism, I wondering if anyone here thinks we should include anarcho-capitalism on this template?  I won't add it myself, because I don't know how popular or unpopular the idea may be.  But I wanted to throw the idea out there, to sort of test the water and see what others here think.It might be worth noting that anarcho-capitalism is, more or less, what one comes up with when combining libertarian socialism and free-market socialism, both of which are already listed on this template.Cheers,Allixpeeke (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little over eight years have passed, and sadly, there seems to've been rather little in the way of discussing the idea of adding anarcho-capitalism to the list of forms of socialism.  I'm still interested in the idea that it might merit inclusion on the list, and would still like to hear what others think of this idea.Cheers,allixpeeke (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism

message: This template lacks links to real-socialism (topic not "processed" on en.wiki) and workers' self-management (autogestion, if you like it, it's shorter). A link to "list of socialists" could be a little clarified: we don't know are all these persons ideological leaders or promoters of socialism. It just says " list of self-identified socialists". We don't see which of them are the  theoreticians of socialism. I find it very useful, if a special article 'd be made (especially when speaking about theoreticians and scientists from Central and Eastern Europe). Kubura (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real-socialism 

message: First, let me start by saying that this template is SWEET. But, now let me complain that the [hide/show] link is really hard to see - blue on dark red isn't the best combination. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it is hard to see. I tried to rectify this when I wrote the new template, but could not find anywhere in the code to modify this color. It seems to be hard coded into the wiki, but my knowledge is limited so maybe someone else can rectify this. Thanks for the comments. Stevens757 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is hide/show? 

message: A user deleted Red flag reverted it.Please if you want to delete come to a consensus in the talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red flag 

message: I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. That's why I propose to return to the previuous version of the template, without "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable categories of this template. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Small or large

message: So, not completely related but.. Template:Islam by country could definitely use to be boxed by regions like this is by topic.  If someone more proficient could help implement that (using the basic code you use on that template) it would be greatly appreciated. gren グレン 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: I propose adding "Jewish Socialism" linking to Labor Zionism, since many people regard Labor Zionism as a Jewish Socialist movement.  Thoughts?  Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of including Jewish Socialism, but I'm not sure it should link to Labor Zionism - although Labor Zionism is a Jewish socialist movement, I don't believe the two are equivalent; certainly some Jewish socialists are not zionists. The Religious socialism article currently links "Jewish Socialism" to Jewish left; that's not ideal either, as Jewish left is conceptually broader than Jewish socialism, but might be a potential alternative.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Socialism 

message: I contend that we should include "Nationalization" under the related subjects section of the socialism portal, because nationalization is a key component of many socialist systems and ideologies. I think we should also include "Mixed Economies" under the key issues section, as most modern socialist proposals aim for the creation of a mixed economy as opposed to a completely planned or market economy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecry (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalization and Mixed Economy 

message: In the last two months, this template underwent to a massive amount of radical changes in its aesthetical appearance (, , , ), but I can see no sign of discussion about it. This template involves many WP pages, I think this sort of modifications should be discussed before. A blue template, or a red one, or a white one, are not the same. 82.50.182.107 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge revisitation of template's appearance? 

message: Hi
Recently there's been a bit of back-and-forth regarding the yellow star in the template.  I guess we can all agree that the template should be stable, so it would be good to find a compromise.
My preference is for an image instead of none.  However, I do understand the objections to the yellow star (it's perhaps more identified with a sub-section of Socialism (i.e. Communism)).
Could I therefore suggest an alternative or two?
* :File:Red flag waving.svg - this would be my preference, since the Red Flag is unequivocally a symbol of socialism, from the extreme left through to the right.
* :File:Red Rose (Socialism).svg - I'm less enamoured of the Red Rose, since it's primarily a Social Democratic symbol, but I note that there have apparently been objections to the Red Flag in the past (see above).
Thoughts? Are there any symbols I've missed that might also serve?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm well, one may argue that the red flag has become more a symbol of communism...  --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. So long as whatever's chosen isn't removed without explanation I'm not too bothered either way! What's your preference for? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star? 

message: The old flag was much more "stylish", in my opinion, why this one? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current one is supremely ugly. Why not :File:Red flag waving.svg? --YossarianComplaints 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UGLY FLAG :) 

message: Is Class Traitor a pertinent term to include in the Socialism sidebar? I think that it is essential to understand the relationship between socialist workers and strikers, picketers, and more importantly reactionary soldiers. MattW93 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Class Treason

message: Hi there. This sidebar is supported to be a formatting alternative to Template:Socialism, but the content seems to have diverged. I can see there's a lot of effort put into this sidebar, but I do invite people to compare and converge the two. I think one space where the main template has a big advantage to the sidebar is in the list of people. The main template has fewer people than the sidebar, which is supported to be a reduced version of the main template. I have brought that list over into this template. --Duncan (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worrying divergence from [[Template:Socialism]] 

message: Please remove all the unnecessary dots in the "People" section (the ones not between two names).
24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "unnecessary dots" (or more precisely, bullets). I only see them between names. Intelligentsium 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because I've already carried out the request, but forgot to untransclude the template afterwards! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 299° 31' 0" NET 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, where the lines break depends somewhat on what font your browser is using. Using my default font (Droid Sans), it's mostly fine, except that there's both a line break and a dot between William Thompson and Thomas Hodgskin. However, if I change the font to a wider font like Verdana, I get line breaks and dots after Hall, Thompson, Hess, Engels, and Morris. I'm not sure what to do about this. We could replace the use of Template:·, which allows line breaks after the dot, with  · , which doesn't. I've made this change in my user space, so you can look at it and see if it works.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 3 November 2010 

message: As said above, there are endless strategies for creating a socialist society. The section is pigeonholing them into narrow categories. The section is not useful.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The single most important conflict within the socialist movement is between reformists and revolutionaries. That needs to be expressed somehow in the template... although maybe not in the current way. I agree that things like Blanquism and Impossibilism are not important enough to be listed here. - Amerul (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Yes, there are endless potential strategies and theories for how a socialist society might emerge, but there are a few notable strategies that deserve to be listed (in particular, the ones which have Wikipedia pages). This makes it convenient for a user who is not familiar with the subject to quickly get a gist of the types of strategies that have been advanced for achieving socialism; it is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive one (none of the lists are exhaustive in the template), but still does an adequate job of giving users a general idea of the strategies, or at least, helps point them to subjects to direct their own research toward.-Battlecry (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "strategies" section should be removed - there are endless strategies for creating a socialist society 

message: R-41, you removed a majority of the concepts listed under the Ideas list supposedly because those concepts were not supported by all socialists. This is true even of the ideas you retained and added in the list. The fact is, socialists have very few common, concrete ideas and many major socialist ideas contradict the ideas of other socialists. The purpose of the list is to provide a quick reference for notable major ideas supported by various socialists, regardless of whether or not they are shared by all socialists or not. Economic planning in some form has historically been associated with socialism, and deserves to be listed alongside major ideas espoused by market socialists (such as the social dividend or basic income, which are schemes promoted by advocates of market socialism). -Battlecry 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent purging of topics in Ideas list 

message: Concerning a recent edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Socialism_sidebar&diff=541843428&oldid=541826026, there is this Edit summary:
:Don't forget: starts/ends of links mustn't be too close to template edges, otherwise they'll linewrap when shown in bold
What is stated there doubtless is so but irrelevant IMO, because none of links there is in bold and  there was room to spare at the edges and no line wrap before the above Edit.   So, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for unbalancing line lengths in the People section of the sidebar.  Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessarily unbalancing of text-lines in People section from recent Edit? 

message: Jawaharlal Nehru
175.101.18.131 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015 

message: Thorstein Veblen and Bertrand Russell should be included under the people section. Bernie Sanders might also belong in that section.
73.159.157.246 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  20:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016 

message: Jackiebiles (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, you probably also want to establish a consensus for the change. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016 

message: This is too long. Some of this needs to be in a collapsed state by default.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible 

message: What are our rules for inclusion in the People section? We don't want it to get too big, do we? Recently Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein have been added. Clearly this was done in good faith, as both do have connections to socialism, but neither was a key figure and both are principally known for other things. Russell was primarily a liberal so his inclusion could be confusing to readers. Should we slim the list down to remove these and any other similar entries? Should we also put a hidden comment in the source advising people only to add people who are primarily known for their socialism? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  People section getting too big? 

message: Given that the "people" subsection here at the Socialism sidebar is overpopulated, that the "people" subsection at the Communism sidebar is underpopulated and incomplete; and given that sufficiently populating the Communism sidebar will result in far too much overlap with the Socialism sidebar, thus rendering the Communist sidebar pointless and redundant; I recommend trimming this subsection of Communists. Please discuss. Erhik (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend removing Communists from "people" subsection due to overlap 

message: Given that the "people" subsection has become overpopulated compared to similar sidebars, I suggest trimming the list, in favour of authors and theorists, and at the expense of career politicians. For example, Bernie Sanders or Rafael Correa or Jeremy Corbyn self-identify as "socialist", are strongly associated with the word in the public's imagination, and probably fit most people's understanding of the word, but their contribution to socialist literature and theory is minimal at best. We could at least divide the subsection into authors and politicians. Please discuss. Erhik (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that career politicians who were also significant theorists of socialism (not necessarily of the very highest order but significant) should stay but I think most of the rest can go. Exceptions could be made for those played a decisive role in moving a country towards socialism but not for fairly normal politicians. I suggest to remove the obvious ones and leave the any which are borderline pending further discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I'll remove some of the more obvious ones, but I just don't know enough to make some of the more complicated decisions. Erhik (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend removing career politicians from "people" subsection 

message: I have removed contemporary career politicians who are either self-described socialists or whom the media labels "socialist" from this subsection. The sidebar should focus on theorists, scholars, or political leaders who contributed to the development of socialism as a system of ideas and not to career politicians belonging to nominally socialist parties or to any self-described socialist in politics, especially contemporary politicians such as Bernie Sanders. -Battlecry 05:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing career politicians from "people" subsection 

message: Remove Tony Blair 86.5.59.237 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019 

message: Why was this flag substituted with the current one? I also couldn't find any discussion concerning this change. I personally prefer the old one; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Beside, it's also consistent with flags of other colours used.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been used for years in Portal:Socialism. I proposed it for WP:SOCIALISM too and made the change since there were no objections (see WT:SOCIALISM#New project page). I probably went too broad by making the change to socialism templates, where it might make sense to keep consistency. --MarioGom (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   thanks for the explanation. It's just I was confused at first and couldn't find any discussion on the flag change. Anyway, your flag (or the plain red flag) could be used for the Communism Portal and sidebar since it became a symbol of communism ever since the Paris Commune of 1871, much earlier than the hammer sickle, which is mainly used by a specific communist current (Marxism–Leninism) and in reference to Communist states.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two different images for Socialist and Communist portals is very practical, and hammer and sickle is probably the most recognizable communist symbol, while still being distinctive of plain socialism. The red star has actually wider usage within different currents, so that would work too in my opinion, e.g. in Spanish Wikipedia we use a red star for WikiProject Marxism. --MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   The issues (which we're discussing here) is that the hammer and sickle was created in the Soviet Union and refers to a specific form of Marxist communsim. I propose to use the plain red flag because , much earlier than any hammer and sickle. It's not that I believe Marxism–Leninism is bad, it's simply that the red flag is a symbol used by all communists whereas the hammer and sickle is used by Marxist communists. Just because the red flag is also the symbol of socialism or has been used for socialism, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for communism too; that isn't a valid reason. If sources refers to the hammer and sickle as the most recognisable symbol of communism, we have exactly the same issues I'm raising; they're referring to Communist regimes and Marxist communism, not communism as a whole; because the common name for communism is the Communist regimes and not the  as actually stated in the communism lead and which include non-Marxist, religious and anarchist trends. Anyway, reply me there. I'm sorry for annoying you, but I would like to thank you for all these discussions; I'm enjoying my time here and learning things, so thank you.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Douglas' name is typoed in the template as Dougals.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basti Webmaster (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dougals typo 

message: I suggest replacing red waving flag with ordinary red flag (rectangle) because current world politics is democratic and not socialist (waving flags would be after establishing free system). Some mean solution can be :File:Red_flag_II.svg (less waving and with darker parts). --5.43.83.177 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag choice logic 

message: I see that Red Rosa is already here, but why is Karl Liebknecht not included under the 'people' section in the template? I dare say he was a more influential Socialist than, say, Bertrand Russell, who was known primarily for his philosophy and not his politics.171.61.231.35 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Liebknecht 

message: Hello all! 
I had attempted to add some further representation into the "people" section of this template, however some of this seems to have gone now. 
Most of the people present in this section are predominately white men ... which does not represent the vast contribution from the rest of humanity within socialism! 
Just wondering if there was a way to better diversify this list more? Jamzze (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other than white men  

message: Add National Socialism (nazism) to the series on socialism seeing as it is a branch of socialism that follows the definition of plain socialism to the Variants of socialism sections 2601:646:8101:BF20:39C3:B9E3:8669:7070 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This appears to, historically, be a contentious discussion per the above sections. While they are old, I would want a consensus to verify this for inclusion.  —Sirdog (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 

message: Add criticism list to sidebar, like for Template:Capitalism_sidebar. 2601:547:500:4C80:A0CF:8C62:2B3A:5898 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add criticism 

message: only influential thinkers and activists pls Thatjakelad (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely although I also think influential politicians also merit inclusion. Charles Essie (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

text: What we probably need is a criteria for inclusion. Charles Essie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  people section needs trimming 

message: I wonder if Tony Benn should be added to the people section. His major published works included books arguing for socialism and what socialism was about such as Arguments for Socialism and Why America Needs Democratic Socialism and he was a major figure in the history of modern democratic socialism in the UK. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Benn