Talk:Communist state/archive 9

message: NPOV requires that all views should be presented. Therefore, there should at the very least be a link to the article about criticisms of communist regimes.Ultramarine 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that I have added a link in the see also section. The question is not the existence of the link (of course there should be one), but where to put the link. I endorse your idea of having a criticism section in the article to carry the link, Ultramarine. -- Nikodemos 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "state" is separate from the "regime." Please note the difference between the two, which has been explained to you thoroughly. -- WGee 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV requies the inclusion also of opposing views.Ultramarine 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. -- WGee 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempted sarcasm is not an appropriate answer. If "regime" is the correct description for these nations, then the article name should be changed. Done.Ultramarine 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You knew perfectly well that your name change was going to be vehemently opposed before making it, and you are fully aware of the difference between the concepts of regime and state, since it's been explained to you several times; nevertheless, you choose to change the name of the article without any discussion or reasoning just so you can include an article that favours your POV.  Keep this up and I'll report you to the administrators' noticeboard for disrupting this article to make a WP:POINT. -- WGee 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange duble standard. When criticzing these nations, they should be called regimes. When discussing them otherwise, they should be called states. Then they cannot be criticzed. Make up your mind, Which is the correct title for these nations? Ultramarine 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Should we create a separate article called Communist regimes that deals with the actual history and actions of these nations (including criticisms of these)? Then this article should deal only with purely theoretical Marxist concepts and everything else be moved to the other article (which obivously must be mentioned prominently here).Ultramarine 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God, the terms state, regime, and nation do mean different things! Look them up. WGee shouldn't have to be teaching elementary civics here! 172 | Talk 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare me. Again, which article should present the history of these nations? If in this article, then there should also be a section for this here. If one the other hand this is not the article for their history, then we should create another article.Ultramarine 12:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, be accurate when writing for an encyclopedia. Nation refers to the people, not to the rule of a state. Histories of nation-states is found in... believe it or not... articles about the histories of nation-states, such as 'history of the Soviet Union' and the 'history of the People's republic of China.' 172 | Talk 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I am intending to start  a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the counterpart to that article is one dealing with fields more broadly concerned with understanding communist rule. Articles on criticisms of particular subjects are articles on discourses. The subject of that article is the discourses of anticommunist writers such as Courtois, Rummel, Pipes, and Conquest. There is a large array of articles dealing with subjects concerned with understanding Communist rule, such as the article on Soviet and Communist studies. 172 | Talk 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am intending to start  a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Years ago I read that the term "communist" with a lower-case c was used to denote the original ideology and "Communist" with a large 'C' to denote the (then) modern Soviet system. More specifically large 'C' related to the "Communist Party" (of whatever country) much like, in say Canada and Australia you have small "l" "liberals" and large 'L' Liberals the latter being related to the Liberal Party of Canada or Liberal Party of Australia (which may or may not be "liberal" parties in ideology depending on your POV). If we use the large 'C' in this and other articles we are, in my view, being more NPOV by specifically denoting people, actions, parties, states etc related to this or that Communist Party rather than commenting on whether or not they are truly "communist". 
For evidence that this large C/small c distinction is widely held see Channel 4's glossary (under "communism, Communism") also 
Also see distinction between "large C" and "small c" conservativsm (in countries with Conservative Parties such as Britain) as well as the aforementioned large L and small l liberals. General Idea 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  communist vs Communst 

message: This is not true "Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government " communist state is name for english spoken, is not used in many others languages --Francomemoria 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  incipit 

message: Since none of the mentioned countries ever proclaimed to be communist, but they have proclaimed to be socialist, or change its name to "Countries ruled by communist parties". Why should the world learn to use wrong terms? Redstar1987
:See response below. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect it to Socialist countries

message: I think that a lot of wiki-editors rightly merge articles where one is named after a misnomer, and as 'socialist state' and 'communist state' essentially mean the same thing, I think it would be more accurate, helpful to readers trying to learn about these things, and better for wikipedia to merge these two articles. --Bayano 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, this misnomer has been--and continues to be--used by western political scientists and historians to refer to socialist states that have been--or continue to be--dominated by communist parties.  They do so to purposely disassociate the communist party run states from other (typically populist) versions of socialism (the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, modern Venezuela, etc).  Obviously, individuals who subscribe to communism have trouble with the term, for it does not "jive" with Marxist-Leninist or Maoist political theory.  However, those who are not strict followers of that tradition (from populist anti-communist socialists on the left to traditional conservatives on the right) have chosen not to operate within the Marxist-Leninist/Maoist theoretical boundaries (probably out of the fact that they do not believe that the socialist "communist state" will devolve into the predicted communist utopia).  The socialist state page regards all forms of socialist states.  As such, there is a brief section on Communist run socialist states on the socialist state page.  That section refers back to this page, for the readers who want to know more about this particular group of communist run socialist states. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The term Communist state does not refer to a state that is actually communist; that is an impossibility as with communism there is no state and in order to attain communism one must first have a world of socialist states/a single socialist global state (and no current states are socialist.) Rather, the term "Communist state" refers to a state in which the sole political party with any significant power subscribes to one of the Stalinist ideologies, as the article explains. That's very different from socialist state. 71.198.98.233 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge it with socialist state

message: In Moldova, President Voronin is a member of a Communist Party. However, the country is not classified as Communist even though is ruled by a communist. Communist countries are all one-party states while Moldova is not so could Moldova be a sole example of a Communist but democratic state?Abc85 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now explained in the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldova