Talk:History of communism/Archive 1

noname
I think that this material is pretty well covered in many other articles. This articel appreas to be an essay (without the references), does it need to be kept or should it be deleted --nixie 06:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Council of Europe about the Communism
http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/Eres1481.htm Xx236 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

from (September 28, 1939).
What does it mean? Xx236 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger and redirecting?
The material in this article is covered far better in History of socialism, and both the Communism and Communist state articles have extensive history sections. I suggest moving all useful material to other articles (if it isn't already covered there) and making this a redirect to history of socialism. -- Nikodemos 01:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WCM
There is a discussion at Articles for deletion/World Communist Movement about deleting that article, and incorporating material in this one. --Soman 15:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

rewrite
i put up the rewrite-tag. At the moment the majority of contents in the article belongs in History of the Soviet Union rather than here. --Soman 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the Portuguese Communist Party
I wrote that article myself. You may find useful content in it. I'd like to help you, however, due to my non native English speaking, I prefer not doing it. But if you have any questions or requests, just say. Cheers! Mário 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are the chineese in this "history of communism?" North Korea?Laos? Vietnam? Cuba? The soviet union is indeed history but there needs to be more on all of theese nations too. Zhukov 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Shifting material over here
See comment at Talk:Communist party. --Soman 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

international communist conspiracy
Perhaps I am not searching correctly. But was looking for information on what was known in the US by some paranoids as the international communist conspiracy. The notion that anything and everything was a communist plot out to conquer the world and destroy the United States. This theory also held that the Soviet Union was out to conqueror the world and place all of humanity under one global communist dictatorship headed in Moscow. I know this wouldn't necessarily be under "History of communism", but I've thus far come to a dead end as far as wikipedia is concerned. It is remarkable the number of people who make fun of conspiracy theories but who accepted without question the existence of an International Communist Conspiracy. writes author and former US State Department employee William Blum. http://killinghope.org/aer43.htm 67.53.78.15 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit
I recently made a major edit on the article. --Soman 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the intro, 'akin to' is a bit to contextually dependent, the line on shadow governments a bit odd. If the article focuses on the communist movement, then that per se includes both legal and illegal communist groups.
 * Communist party is a term that emerges at the time of the October Revolution, in opposition to the social democratic mainstream. Reworded formulation on First International.
 * "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union debate surged on the "collapse" or "death" of communism and the consolidation of Chinese economic reform. One by one, the major communist resistance worldwide has either been crushed or been subsumed under a wider capitalist-oriented framework as effectively loyal opposition. But active resistance-based communism as a political ideology today is still very strong when taken in an international context. All of Europe, Scandinavia, and Asia have extremely strong communist movements of various types, often prone to violent clashes with police and other law enforcement, and often in leadership and/or influential in a wide swath of Europe's labor movement — a situation which stands in direct contrast to most of the Americas and especially to the United States, where communism is and always has been markedly weaker." is just so incorrect that it has to be removed, and replaced by a completly different text. Extremly strong, violent prone communist movement in Scandinavia?
 * "Communist revolutionaries also take credit for many of the major semi-permanent social-policy upheavals that fall short of outright revolution; for example, they and their brethren in the worldwide labor movements often make the argument that were it not for the leadership of communist activists to counterbalance capitalist exploitation, social welfare and the welfare state would not exist as extensively as they do today. Thus, a case is made that even without revolution in the near term, communist agitation is necessary as an effective opposition force to help make governments afraid of their people (as opposed to the other way around), and to maintain that new power balance by any and all means." Commentary style, OR?
 * "However, today as in the past, revolutionaries who may cast themselves as righteous communist liberators in a given resistance struggle against capitalism and imperialism, will often "sell out" this struggle once they gain state power (for major examples of this, see "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", doi moi, and "peaceful coexistence"). This, in turn, disappoints and demoralizes other communists around the world who may have gone out of their way to support these revolutionaries. This happened, of course, the most markedly with the alleged sell-outs of the Soviet Union and Mao Tse-Tung, but it has also been the case with many who had supported the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, various communist-leaning republics in Africa, and/or the Iranian communist movement before 1979, only to have the hopes and dreams promised by these movements allegedly betrayed." Commentary style, highly unencyclopediatic. Sell-out in Iran pre-1979? Hardly npov.
 * "Today, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which formerly led an armed insurrection in Nepal, has joined the country's new unity government, which many communists allege is yet another example of a "sell out". However, communist guerrillas are still actively fighting the governments of the Philippines (which is also fighting an Islamist insurgency at the same time) and Colombia (which simultaneously has to deal with almost uncontrollably rampant drug trafficking and human trafficking) and Peru (though the Shining Path is not now any longer a threat to Peru's government). Notably, there is a strong, cohesive communist opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Worker-Communist Party of Iran and its offshoot, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran-Hekmatist, which is descended from the original Iranian communist movement that had originally shared power with the Ayatollah before he kicked the communists out of the unity government in which he had assured them they would share. Both the WCPI and the WCPI(h) groups claim that they continue the path of Mansoor Hekmat, famous Iranian communist and founder of the worker-communist parties of Iran and Iraq. Despite being sidelined after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, these parties are still trying to overthrow the leadership of the country." Commentary on Nepal highly pov, passages on Philippines, Peru and Colombia written from a state-centric perspective (and largely covered below in the text), Hekmat marginal feature in the world communist movement as a whole.
 * "but the revolutions in Germany, Hungary and Finland were crushed, leading to Socialism in One Country", incorrect. Socialism in one country was a political positioning, result of political debates. not all communists were convinced of this analysis.
 * CPI(M) is not part of the Indian government.
 * CPN(Maoist) has resigned from the government.

Undue 2009, Globalise 2009
The current article is fixated on the Soviet Union. It gives undue weight to Soviet perspectives, particularly pre-war ones, and gives undue weight to the official Soviet historiography of Marxism, creating an improper equation of Communism is Marxism. The major headings I have added with their expansion requests indicate what the article should contain in addition to the current (rather good) content. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maoism needs significant expansion, both in and out of power
 * The Korean revolution is inadequately dealt with
 * The South East Asian revolutions are inadequately dealt with
 * The First International is glossed over, the Second Internationals do not appear
 * Communist dissent does not appear in the Comintern or Post-war period
 * Western communist movements and post-war movements do not appear
 * South America is cursorially dealt with.
 * I agree fully. I also think some mention of anarchist communism should be made, as well as more on pre-marx communism. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As well as Libertarian Marxism, which proved very popular during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought anarchist communism could be subsumed under:
 * Second ("Black") International in the Internationals seciont
 * Interwar dissident communism
 * Post war cliques section
 * Obviously requiring its own paragraphs
 * Libertarian Marxism probably suits the post war western section the best. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Marxist Communism should be a separate article
Pre-Marxist Communism should be a separate article, it doesn't get much coverage here. --Gary123 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a large prominently link at the moment to Pre-Marxist Communism at the top of the first section. Does this work for you? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section is grossly inappropriate, as it doesn't include any information on the negative history of communism, including dictatorship, totalitarianism, human rights abuses, and genocides/mass killings/massive crimes against humanity, i.e. characterizing aspects of the history of communism.


 * This sentence is POV: "Communism is a political movement that focuses on the equalization of all members of a society. "
 * This sounds like an exaggeration to me: "The political movement of communism has been a worldwide social movement for centuries."
 * This sentence is inappropriate: "Communism is a highly debated movement." Would we describe National Socialism as a "highly debated movement"? Virgil Lasis (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

communism in America
is it not known that america is following some of the blatant outlines set out in the Communist manifesto by Karl Marx?

I think there should be a section on that Nordikrage (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Communist rules
Under the Communist system of government, the people did not truly choose those who governed them. The people had no opportunity to vote for anyone who opposed the Communists. They had very little chance to hear any ideas discussed except those approved by the communists. The government censored, or controlled,newspapers, magazines, and radio and television broadcasts.

censor(n): control the media.

42.115.18.213 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Rasagemia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112000000/http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/233404.html to http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/233404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170131191812/http://www.hupay.fr/ to http://www.hupay.fr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110142928/http://www.chethams.org.uk/treasures/treasures_marx.html to http://www.chethams.org.uk/treasures/treasures_marx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Muh 60 million
Guys, I know english wiki is rife with pro establishment lobbies posting their own version of history, but using one WSJ article to support an amazing claim as "communism killed 60 million" is just dumb and entirely one sided attacked. You never see anything like that even remotely alleged against any other ideology or religion or system in the first few paragraphs in any other wiki. At least add more sources.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.121.213 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam
No mention of Ho Chi Minh. no mention of American invasion in Vietnam? Shouldn't the Vietnam war be counted in this article as a Communist win over imperialism and as something credible in the history of communism?
 * Yes, it is barely covered and is definitely an important part of history of communism in the 20th century. --MarioGom (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism called communism
What's wrong with my edit? Just because the title of a book or the source itself may use Communism doesn't mean it's referring to communism as the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Because when sources describe Communist states, they're describing Marxist–Leninist states; they just call it Communist states because ever since the Cold War Communism basically means Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. If the sources describe Marxist–Leninist states and Marxism–Leninism, but they actually use Communism because it's the WP:COMMONNAME, I believe that this accuracy is "worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness". It's not even WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the simple fact that sources talking about Communist states basically describe what other reliable sources describe as Marxist–Leninist ideology; they simply use the term Communism for the reasons I just stated above. This would be like if a source describing Nazism actually use the word National Socialism. Does that mean the source is talking about a nationalist socialism rather than Nazism, or is it simply using a different word? What matters isn't the word itself, but what it means; in most sources communism or Communism is used to refer to Marxist–Leninist states and Marxism–Leninism, therefore if the source is clearly referring to and describing Marxism–Leninism, then the text should reflect this and not conflating communism as whole with Marxism–Leninism, which is just one specific model or variant. Beside talking about its origins, this page isn't even talking the history of communism, but rather the history of Marxism–Leninism. No mention of libertarian communism, no mention of 1968, the New Left, the Vietnam War and no mention of all the antagonism and criticism between Marxists–Leninists and other communists, etc. Even in the so-called Contemporany communism section there's no mention of communism but Marxistm–Leninism and its variants such as Maoism. Either way, by the same logic of WP:COMMONNAME, communism should be capitalised since many sources do that exactly to distinquish communism from models such as Marxism–Leninism. It's just better and simpler to refer to it as Marxism–Leninism when it's actually referring to Marxism–Leninism and that this accuracy would be worth any loss in "recognizability/naturalness".--87.17.95.218 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please stop just writing that and actually reply to me and my objections? If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to do so. For one, I would like to see the sources used to justify it; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. Either way, I'm not even disputing that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME; then again by the same logic it should be capitalised since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you and other users disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections and do it with sources.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Jack90s15, but I'll take a shot at listing some aspects of your diff that I find at least potentially problematic.

I'm far from a subject matter expert on this, but one issue I see is that your edit seems to create some anachronism. It seems that the concept of Marxism-Leninism originated with the rule of Stalin. But your changes result in applying that label to earlier periods (in the "Periodisation of the international Marxist–Leninist communism" section).

I don't think your changes to the section structure were helpful, particularly turning "Periodisation of the international [Marxist–Leninist] communism" from a small standalone section, to one that encompassed 75% of the article's content, increasing the indentation of all the content that followed.

But that's just kind of nitpicking on the periphery. The core issue is the mass replacement of "communism" with "Marxism-Leninism". Given that the article is called "History of communism", it's confusing to the reader if it reads like a "History of Marxism-Leninism". I'm also dubious that all of the changes were justifiable given the existing sources used to support the surrounding text. For example, just to take the very first change... it originally claimed that the history of international communism can be divided into periods A, B, C, D etc. It cited sources like "Communism: A History". Would a careful reading of those sources reveal that they were using "communism" in a way that was interchangeable with "Marxism-Lenininism" in that context? Did you check?

The "Marxist-Leninist" wording also sometimes disagrees with related articles, including ones which are linked from this article via hatnotes. e.g. the section you renamed "Collapse of the Marxist-Leninist powers" links to Revolutions of 1989 in a "main article" hatnote. The first sentence of that article describes the revolutions as "part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond."

Again, I'm not an expert here, so I'm just throwing out a bunch of things that strike me as red flags, to see if any resonate with you. (I've never actually reverted your changes, because they merely struck me as worrying, but I wasn't confident they were actually incorrect or unhelpful.) Colin M (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your reply and time. That's all I asked for. I also would like to apologise if I may have been disruptive; it's not my intention, I'm just very passionate and I want to learn. I have also stated that I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, provided it's based on what reliable sources say. I just wish there's a more thorough discussion and sources sharing. As I have stated elsewhere, I would be the first one to add sources to back my arguments and objections, but I'm not an expert and I don't know how and where to find them, or even how to start and how to make sure that the source is actually reliable, because finding a source may be easy but find a source that is realiable is another thing; I found out about Google Scholar only now.
 * You're right in saying that [my] changes result[ed] in applying that label to earlier periods (in the "Periodisation of the international Marxist–Leninist communism" section), but the thing is that it was Stalin (not Lenin) and Marxism–Leninism to create this periodisation and that's why it also include early periods; just look at the Third Period. The core issue is the mass replacement of "communism" with "Marxism-Leninism". Given that the article is called "History of communism", it's confusing to the reader if it reads like a "History of Marxism-Leninism". I agree and that's why I also put back then the missing information template; I could have add it myself, but I didn't want to just copy and past and sections from History of socialism which include them. Why shouldn't we also using communism when referring to left communism, libertarian communism or libertarian Marxism? Why does only Marxism–Leninism get to be referred to as communism when it's just one variant? And why shouldn't Marxism–Leninism, left communism, libertarian communism and libertarian Marxism also be referred to as such when it's clearly talking about them? I apologise for having to repeat myself: "Just because the title of a book or the source itself may use Communism doesn't mean it's referring to communism as the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Because when sources describe Communist states, they're describing Marxist–Leninist states; they just call it Communist states because ever since the Cold War Communism basically means Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. If the sources describe Marxist–Leninist states and Marxism–Leninism, but they actually use Communism because it's the WP:COMMONNAME, I believe that this accuracy is 'worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness'. It's not even WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the simple fact that sources talking about Communist states basically describe what other reliable sources describe as Marxist–Leninist ideology; they simply use the term Communism for the reasons I just stated above. This would be like if a source describing Nazism actually use the word National Socialism. Does that mean the source is talking about a nationalist socialism rather than Nazism, or is it simply using a different word? What matters isn't the word itself, but what it means; in most sources communism or Communism is used to refer to Marxist–Leninist states and Marxism–Leninism, therefore if the source is clearly referring to and describing Marxism–Leninism, then the text should reflect this and not conflating communism as whole with Marxism–Leninism, which is just one specific model or variant. Beside talking about its origins, this page isn't even talking the history of communism, but rather the history of Marxism–Leninism. No mention of libertarian communism, no mention of 1968, the New Left, the Vietnam War and no mention of all the antagonism and criticism between Marxists–Leninists and other communists, etc. Even in the so-called Contemporany communism section there's no mention of communism but Marxistm–Leninism and its variants such as Maoism. Either way, by the same logic of WP:COMMONNAME, communism should be capitalised since many sources do that exactly to distinquish communism from models such as Marxism–Leninism. It's just better and simpler to refer to it as Marxism–Leninism when it's actually referring to Marxism–Leninism and that this accuracy would be worth any loss in 'recognizability/naturalness'."
 * I haven't checked all sources, but the ones I did check were all referring to what is known as Marxism–Leninism. As I have stated elsewhere: "Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism; it's basically like National Socialism which is far-right, German fascism and not socialism in any way; I mean in the sense of the ideology being missnamed since it isn't actually what it claims or name itself to be. Marxism–Leninism was developed and codified by Stalin and as a result it's basically Stalinism (theory); and what is referred as Stalinism is nothing but Marxism–Leninism in practice or simply Stalin's policies (practice). Thus, all so-called Communist regimes were Marxist–Leninist but not all were necessarily Stalinist; see Yugoslavia, which mainted many Marxist–Leninist precepts (one-party state, socialism in one country, etc.) but didn't have exactly the same economic policies of orthodox Marxism–Leninism (this was justified in that Titoism, just like Maoism and all other -isms are simply Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respectve countries cultures and material conditions). North Korea officially stopped being Marxism–Leninism (then again, it could be argued that it never stopped, that Juche and Songun are simply policies that were adopted due to changing material conditions; Marxism–Leninism could basically be used to justified anything and any policy, really) in the 1990s, although it could be argued it stopped in the 1970s with the first adoption of Juche and that Juche itself isn't overwhelming considered communist. Either way, [...] when sources describe these Communist regimes, they're describing Marxist–Leninist regimes; they just call it Communism because ever since the Cold War Communism basically meant Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. Hell, there was a 1950s propaganda in the United States to describe itself as a 'classless society of prospering workers versus societies of 'slaves' in the Soviet Union and China'. Finally, I believe this to be a more accurate and neutral name and that this accuracy is 'worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness'."
 * Thank you for your time and attention; and forgive me for the length of my reply, but I needed to explain myself clearly. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove so, especially with reliable sources.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No reply yet, seriously? what do you think? I have seen I'm not the only one to have noticed this and that you too seems to agree with me on certain points, like the conflation of Marxism–Leninism with communism as a whole; I also personally agree with using the Marxism–Leninism sidebar in pages such as Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule, Mass killings under communist regimes, etc. since it's more appropriate, but we need to reach a consensus first. Anyway, what I simply ask is to refer to Marxism–Leninism as Marxism–Leninism and all other tendencies with their respective names, as simples as that. However, I admit this isn't so easy and it's something beyond our control because I, myself, recognise that Communism is the most common name; what matters, however, is what it actually means. Just like National Socialism actually means German fascism and not a nationalist socialism, Communism in that case overwhelmingly used to refer to what is called and referred to as Marxism–Leninism, according to political science [...] the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, of the parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation and the ideology of Stalinist political parties (per Cook, Chris (1998). Dictionary of Historical Terms (2nd ed.). pp. 221–222, 305). I have respected the decision not to move pages, but as far as I can tell no one actually told me that my objections are necessarily wrong, just that Communism was the most common name, even if they're synonymous, or am I wrong? I believe accuracy in this specific case should triumph; maybe it wasn't enough to move the page, but what about in cases like these? Should the word communism or Communism used in this page even when it's clearly referring to Marxism–Leninism and the sources itself clarify this, but Communism remains the common name because ever since the Cold War it was used as a synonymous for that? Why not just calling Marxism–Leninism Marxism–Leninism?--79.52.17.197 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying earlier. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove so, especially with reliable sources. Maybe, but the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating the verifiability of material is on the editor who wants to add it. If your reasons for wanting to do a mass-replacement of "communism" with "Marxism-Leninism" in the body of the article are the same as your reasons for wanting to make the same change to the titles of various articles (which is what your self-quotations above seem to suggest), I think it's likely that the strong community consensus against the latter will extend to the former, for the same reasons. Colin M (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * first of all, thank you for your reply, it's always me; also check this talk. I don't think that's the same because as far as I'm aware no one actually stated I'm necessarely wrong and my impression was just that Communism was the common name in the title and so the move was rejected. As I have explained elshewhere, I would have put the sources myself and done so after every paragraphs like I would when editing a Wikipedia page, but I'm not an expert with sources and I don't know how to start or where to search for. I have invited many users to help me, but only Cinadon36 actually did it on Talk:Anarchism. Also, couldn't you and other users either help me where to start and what to search, or do it for me? No one seems to have done that. I would prefer you or other users help me with this exactly because me myself want to avoid cherry picking or any confirmation bias. Anyway, this is probably something that should be discussed in Portal:Communism which I plan to do because it's not just about moving some pages. There were a few other users who were oppossed like me, but they would propose other solutions; and also seems to agree with me, therefore I believe a whole discussion about this in the Communist Portal is warranted.
 * To me, the use of Communism instead of Marxism–Leninism is like certain right-wing people arguing that National Socialism is socialist and left-wing; it's an unnecessary conflation of communist tendencies opposed to Marxism–Leninism and of communism itself being conflated as a whole with Marxism–Leninism; and the fact is that sources themselves know it, that's why they capitalise the word to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism, but I believe in this case we should simply use the word Marxism–Leninism because, honestly, this capitalisation is confusing and unnecessary, even according to our own WP:Manual of Style. They're all talking and referring to Communist regimes governed by a communist party committed to Marxism–Leninism, which in many cases was even specifically stated in their own state constitutions. That's why the Marxism–Leninism sidebar is more appropriated (even if the title of the page is Communism) than the communism sidebar; it would be like adding the socialism sidebar to the Nazism page just because there's the word socialism instead of the fascist sidebar, i.e. what the word actually means. I already explained myself above and in other talk pages, so I don't want to repeat myself, but I hope you got my message and reasons.
 * Finally, I propose to talk about this on a new discussion on Portal:Communism and talk here about ways to improve the page, first of all in adding the history of anarchist communism, left communism, libertarian communism/Marxism, etc. because otherwise this page should be move to History of Marxism–Leninism since that's what it mostly talk about.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I fully support the use of the more precise term Marxism–Leninism instead of the unreasonable use of the broader and vague term communism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To the IP editor: you already opened requests to change communist with Marxism–Leninism in other articles with similar reasoning and they were rejected. Repeating the same points all over in different venues is disruptive. But to your point on this article, it covers Pre-Marxist communism, Primitive communism, Religious communism, Eurocommunism, etc. So no, it is not just about Marxism-Leninism. Of course Marxism-Leninism constitutes an extremely important part of communism during XX century. And trying to dissociate both does not seem to make any sense. And no, trying to argue that sources read X but they actually mean Y is not going anywhere. --MarioGom (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have stated, I thought it was different; that was about moving the page and I accepted that, this is about referring to Marxism–Leninism as such in the text. Either way, seems to agree with me and I believe it warrants a discussion on Portal:Communism which I opened and which is where I should have started since the beginning. Anyway, there's still no mention of anarchist communism, left communism, or libertarian communism/Marxism. Okay then, by this logic every source that uses the word national socialism must refer to a nationalist form of socialism and not to German fascism, even if it's made clear in the textbook, title, or lede that it's talking about/referring to Nazism as German fascism.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of missing things in the article. That happens quite often. Instead of trying to rename articles and sections, you could start contributing on expanding the actual substance of the article to cover the missing topics. That's just a suggestion, but I personally think it would be much more constructive. After all, your initial concern was that some topics were missing here, right? Alternatively, you could suggest here some reliable sources for these omissions. --MarioGom (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I would want/like to do and wished/wanted to do. The problem is that I'm not an expert; I'm more of someone who is better in making edit requests and proposals. I also wish there was a way that you or somebody else would actually do the reliable sources consensus reasearch/verfication for me (both because I'm not an expert with sources researching and so as to avoid any cherry picking or confirmation bias on my part) so as to verify whether my requests and proposals are supported by reliable sources (indeed, all this could have been avoided if someone would have actually helped me and showed me this, because I know how Wikipedia works and I accept what reliable sources say; I just don't know how to find them, because it's easier to find any source, it's much harder for me to find one which would be considered relable, etc.). I could have also just added sections from History of socialism which is much more complete, but I didn't want to do just copy and past. Anyway, thank you so much for your patience and sorry again.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposing a move to illustrate a point (WP:POINT) about your edits may be considered disruptive editing.
 * Edit requests, move requests or requests for comments are not a way to get other editors to find sources to back your claims. You are expected to check sources yourself beforehand and open these requests only if you can back them by reliable sources. Also, writing very long texts with what you think is not a good way to be successful with these requests. A thoughtful and concise request backed by reliable sources is what will make them succeed.
 * You cannot possibly know what reliable sources say if you cannot find them. You can start with less controversial topics and less impacting edits and learn how to find references along the way.
 * If you need help or you don't know how to do something, you can ask at the Teahouse. Registering an account will actually help you to get help and engage with other users in a more meaningful way. --MarioGom (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and patience, I understood; I'm always the same IP, but from now on I will use my account, now that I have got it back, to avoid further confusions and follow your advices.
 * "Communist regimes" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist regimes Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist state" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist state Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist states" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist states Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist state" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist state Communism" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist states" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist states Communism" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist regimes" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist regimes Communism" on JSTOR.
 * "Real socialism" on JSTOR.
 * "Real socialism Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.
 * "Really existing socialism" on JSTOR.
 * "Really existing socialism Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.
 * Well, here are some sources. Aren't they all referencing to the same thing by different names, i.e. what is described in Marxism–Leninism? Or did I read them wrong?--Davide King (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, here are some sources. Aren't they all referencing to the same thing by different names, i.e. what is described in Marxism–Leninism? Or did I read them wrong?--Davide King (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion listed at WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Socialism. --MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that the user who opened this discussion is now blocked. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)