Talk:List of socialist states/Archive 2

North Korea
To start, I apologize for any mistakes made regarding this comment. I am unfamiliar with the proper commenting guidelines of Wikipedia. I was hoping somebody could help me understand why North Korea is listed as a former socialist state. Before reading this, I was under the belief that North Korea is currently a socialist state. Is the placement of North Korea as a former socialist state a mistake, or is there a reason it is no longer considered socialist? If the latter, why is this? Any answers are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.224.174 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct. However, certain Wikipedia editors have axes to grind and they are experts at expressing there POVs whilst simultaneously pretending to a neutral POV and accusing others of displaying a non-neutral POV. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stupidity. North Korea is in the list as a non-Marxist-Leninist socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anarchist Spain
Why are there no examples listed of Anarcho-syndicalist or Anarchist Communist groups? For instance, Anarchism in Spain - In large parts of Spain around the time of the Spanish Civil War, a few relatively successful/prosperous Anarchist communes were created - They eventually fell not due to any faults in their "system", but due to the combined forces of the fascists and the soviets (who had something to gain in suppressing a TRUE, working form of Communism). Of course, Anarchists seek to dissolve the state, thus I don't know if you could consider it an "Anarchist Country", but that said, Spain did still exist as an entity while vast chunks of it were under Anarchist "rule" (for obvious reasons, I use the term "rule" loosely) 135.23.104.168 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article lists states who were officially socialist.. Spain was also communist in certain places during this period, but it is not listed here because Spain was still, officially, a liberal democracy.. To make this article as neutral, and fact based as possible, we only list countries who were officially socialist, in some form or another. --TIAYN (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

South Africa
I'm kind of shocked that South Africa is mentioned nowhere in the article, and nowhere even here in the talk section. Look at the Wikipedia page for the ANC. It has a history with Communism, and certainly is still associated with Socialism at the very least. The only proof I can find (without delving too far into it), is that the ANC is a member of Socialist International. Socialist International has a Wikipedia page, and I haven't studied whether it deviates much from this page. But, surely if a country is a multi-party democracy, in which a party that is a member of Socialist International rules the country, then it should be included on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.209.174 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Solution to reader confusion?
It seems clear from both the reader feedback and a lot of the Talk page comments that readers are often confused about the reason why some countries are listed but others are not, especially since some of the not-listed countries are very commonly believed to be more socialist than some of the listed countries. I know we clearly explain in the introduction that self-identification is the only criterion we use on this list, but, for whatever reason, that does not seem to be enough to clear the confusion. Perhaps a lot of readers skip the introduction and go directly to the list? In any case, it is my belief that Wikipedia exists for its readers, and if we notice something that is confusing (even when we think there is no good reason for it to be confusing), we should try to fix it. So I've added a section at the top of this Talk page trying to address the commonly asked questions about why some countries are included and others aren't. But if the introduction isn't sufficient to avoid confusion, I doubt this section will be.

So, here's an idea: How about renaming the article to List of self-declared socialist countries? Putting the term "self-declared" directly in the title should make it impossible for anyone not to notice it. KS79 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help either that people in China, Sweden and the United States have a different conception of what socialism is... In Norway it is welfare state, in China its the Communist Party and the goal of reaching Communism, and in the United States, well I don't know (but most people seems to either define it as Soviet socialism or egalitarianism)... In other words, I agree with the move proposal. --TIAYN (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * support This looks like a reasonable clarification.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as can be seen below, there was another recent example of a reader being confused by the name of this article. In this case the reader also proceeded to make well-intentioned edits as a result of the misunderstanding. The edits had to be reverted, and the reasons for the revert had to be explained. If they were not properly explained, the misunderstanding could have easily led to an edit war. It's entirely possible that a similar situation could take place in the future, with participants who have a shorter temper or less time to write explanations, and the result would be hostility and edit warring. So I take this as even more evidence that the name of the article must be changed to include "self-declared" or some other similar term. As such, and seeing that other editors are sympathetic or neutral to the idea, I will go ahead and make the move myself. KS79 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. The discussion became a bit muddled since the article moved over the course of the discussion, but there appears to be consensus for changing "countries" to "states," which also results in a title consistent with the parent article Socialist state. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of socialist countries → List of socialist states – Socialist state is the more widely used term --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not oppose this suggestion, but I had earlier proposed renaming the article to List of self-declared socialist countries, and the discussion about that proposal is still open (see section above). We should wait for a decision on the previous renaming proposal before we start talking about a new one. Or, alternatively, would you consider amending your proposal to suggest a move to List of self-declared socialist states? That would incorporate both our ideas, and I would support it. KS79 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

weak oppose List of socialist states isn't a bad name, but I think the current title is fine. What moves me from neutral to oppose is that "country" is both the more common term for "nation", "state" etc. and less ambiguous; "state" could mean a province of the USA, the government of a country, or the state of being of a country. Enough evidence that "socialist state" is the more common term and that as such it refers to countries which declare socialism in their constitutions could sway me the other way, but I don't know that the former is true, and I doubt that the latter is true. (BTW, why the criterion that socialism must be declared in the constitution? Surely a single party state or a dictatorship, in which the party or the dictator declares itself or the country to be socialist, should be on the list of "self declared" socialist countries, regardless of what the constitution says.)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Countries in which have leaders which state their country is socialist are included in the article.. But as you may understand, countries which call themselves socialist do, 100 percent of time, state they are socialist in the constitution in one way or another. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As TIAYN pointed out, the criterion that socialism must be declared in the constitution is not limited to those constitutions that explicitly say "our country is socialist", but also includes indirect statements, such as those declaring the country a "people's democracy" or a "state of workers and peasants", or defining the communist party of that country as its "leading political force" or something similar.


 * Regarding statements by heads of state or ruling parties, they do count, but they have to be official in some way - if not part of the constitution, then at least part of some important legal document, or otherwise made in the name of the state. Even in a one-party state, the ruling party and the state remain separate legal entities, and it is possible for one to be officially socialist while the other is not. This is especially relevant for short-lived one-party states. For us to list a country as socialist while it does not officially call itself socialist would mean taking a POV stance (which may be entirely correct, but still POV). KS79 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And, again, I'd like to point out that adding the term "self-declared" to the article name would remove ambiguity about what countries should or shouldn't be listed. KS79 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I copied the discussion on inclusion criteria into it's own section. Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the move proposal.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know any instances of that, (the only case I do know is Cambodia, but everyone else are officially socialist):--TIAYN (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose [vote withdrawn, due to revert] Since the previously-suggested title change has been enacted, this current proposal, as it stands, would roll back that change. Therefore I am now opposed to it. However, I would be indifferent to a proposal to change the word "countries" to "states" in the current title (I could be persuaded by either side, if I find the arguments compelling). KS79 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have reverted the move to List of self-declared socialist countries. Despite the conversation above, this move was carried out without a formal WP:RM discussion, and hence was not valid unless it could be shown that the move was uncontroversial (which I don't think it is, given this has already been the subject of several moves and requests). That is not to say the "self-declared" version is incorrect, just that it confuses the discussion completely if a separate out-of-process move is made in the middle of this one. I will relist this discussion and suggest that all interested parties (including, , , restate exactly which form you prefer the title to be, i.e. with or without "self-declared", and whether you prefer "countries" or "states" and the closer can then form a decision based on that.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the move did appear uncontroversial at the time when I proposed it, and it does not actually conflict with the intended purpose of this second requested move, which was proposed some time after. The question of whether to add "self-declared" is entirely separate from the question of whether to change "countries" to "states". It is only by a procedural accident (a second move being proposed before the first one was completed) that any conflict appeared. Regardless of which order we carry them out in, the two questions should still be the subject of separate move requests. Trying to decide on two separate issues at once will only make it harder to achieve consensus. So, now that you've reverted, and since Charles Essie's request was formally listed as a RM, I think we should decide on "countries" versus "states" and close this discussion before we go back to the question of "self-declared". It is better to delay my proposal than to cause any more confusion. KS79 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So, having said that, on the question of "countries" versus "states", my vote has now become weak support for the move to "states". Although both "states" and "countries" are equally good names for the same concept in this case, google results do seem to favor "states", and the name of the Wikipedia article dealing with this concept is "socialist state". Wikimedes brought up the important concern that the word "state" can sometimes refer to a subdivision of a sovereign entity, but the word "country" can refer to that as well, so, upon further consideration, I do not think the move to "states" would reduce clarity. KS79 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support "self-declared" as a good addition to either title. Weak oppose "states" (prefer "countries") for reasons stated above.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support moving it to "socialist states" (if you search google, "Socialist states" have more hits than "socialist countries")... Self-declared or not (I don't like it, but I'm neutral..) --TIAYN (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support "states" per nom, oppose "self-declared" as overly precise. As is the case now, use "self-declared" in no uncertain terms in the intro instead.  —  AjaxSmack   05:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, to avoid any problems and make it easier to achieve consensus on the two separate questions, I strongly believe we should decide on them separately. This is in keeping with normal procedure anyway, and in any case this RM is strictly about "countries" versus "states". I think we should focus the discussion on that, and deal with the "self-declared" issue later. The arguments for my "self-declared" proposal are not even stated in this section, but in the one above - namely, that the Talk page archives and reader feedback clearly show the readers are still confused about the reasons why some countries and not others are selected to be listed here, despite those reasons being stated in the intro. We get many feedback comments asking why country X or Y wasn't included (for example, just in the last month, we got a question about Denmark and one about Nepal, and the previous month we got a question about Sweden, Denmark and Norway, despite the fact that the intro clearly gives Sweden as an example of a country that wasn't included and explains why). This shows that stating the self-declared criteria in the intro is not enough - perhaps there are many readers who do not read the intro and skip directly to the list - and so we need to do more to clear up reader confusion. KS79 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the lead is the best option we have (the second best option is including constitutional references...) While this article should be improved, its hard to see exactly how. --TIAYN (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support for "states" instead of "countries". The concept of a country unifies far more qualities and quantities than are even theoretically affected by the way its state is set up -- be it socialist, capitalist, or any other form of organisation. To label a country like that is inevitably inaccurate and misleading. KS79's concerns about confusion in the readership are also justified, however imho the list shouldn't be so narrowly confined as to exclude states that are commonly referred to as "socialist". Carefully defining and explaining the various inclusion criteria (e.g. self-declared socialist vs. commonly labeled thus etc.) in the lead is clearly preferable. --85.197.19.31 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criteria for "self-declared"
(copying above tangent into its own section)

(BTW, why the criterion that socialism must be declared in the constitution? Surely a single party state or a dictatorship, in which the party or the dictator declares itself or the country to be socialist, should be on the list of "self declared" socialist countries, regardless of what the constitution says.)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Countries in which have leaders which state their country is socialist are included in the article.. But as you may understand, countries which call themselves socialist do, 100 percent of time, state they are socialist in the constitution in one way or another. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As TIAYN pointed out, the criterion that socialism must be declared in the constitution is not limited to those constitutions that explicitly say "our country is socialist", but also includes indirect statements, such as those declaring the country a "people's democracy" or a "state of workers and peasants", or defining the communist party of that country as its "leading political force" or something similar.


 * Regarding statements by heads of state or ruling parties, they do count, but they have to be official in some way - if not part of the constitution, then at least part of some important legal document, or otherwise made in the name of the state. Even in a one-party state, the ruling party and the state remain separate legal entities, and it is possible for one to be officially socialist while the other is not. This is especially relevant for short-lived one-party states. For us to list a country as socialist while it does not officially call itself socialist would mean taking a POV stance (which may be entirely correct, but still POV). KS79 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so why is the regime of the National Socialist German Worker's Party not on the list? It was a totalitarian single party state, and the party declared itself to be socialist, at least in the party's name (it does go deeper than the name).  To say in this case that the party's self-declaration of socialism is different from the state's self-declaration of socialism looks like an attempt to spllit a hair where no real split exists.  (I know this has been discussed before, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer.)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not on the list because the state never declared itself to be socialist. Yes, it was a one-party state with a ruling party that had the word "socialist" in its name, but there are many other such states which are also not on the list, for the same reason: because the ruling party and the government are separate legal entities, even in a one-party state.


 * Other single-party states that did not declare themselves socialist despite being ruled by a party that called itself socialist include: Syria right now (the article lists Syria as a self-declared socialist state only up to 2012, because that is when the state stopped calling itself socialist, although the ruling party still calls itself socialist), the Republic of China 1912-1986 (the Kuomintang officially included "Chinese socialism" as one of its ideologies!), Tunisia 1963-1981, Mali 1960-1991, Zimbabwe 1987-2008, Grenada 1979-1983, etc. - and those are just the ones I could think of at a moment's notice.


 * Suffice it to say, if we decided to allow single-party states ruled by self-declared socialist parties on this list, that would involve a major expansion of the list. And it would be a blatant violation of the NPOV policy. Because the fact is, if we are going to include single-party states ruled by self-declared socialist parties, we have no reason to exclude multi-party states which are also ruled by socialist parties. To include single-party states but exclude multi-party states would mean taking the extremely POV stance that somehow single-party socialism is "true" socialism. On what grounds can we claim that a "socialist" party ruling a single-party state for 12 years makes that country socialist, but a "socialist" party ruling a multi-party state for 50 years (as in Sweden) somehow does not make that country socialist? Either they should both be on the list or they should both be excluded from the list.


 * So the only NPOV options are to either keep the criteria as they are now, or include all countries, both single- and multi-party, that were ruled by self-described socialist parties. That latter option would be NPOV, but it would also expand the list to an absurd length, far beyond the point of meaninglessness.


 * The list is inclusive enough as it is. We don't need to stretch the definition of a "socialist state" to the absolute most extreme limit. KS79 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your definition of Socialist states suck. North Korea is "Nationalist" country just like NAZI Germany. Scandinavian countries, like Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, etc. are mostly Socialist states. --Ne0 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, national socialism is not socialism, but fascism, and that's something entirely different. Second, I know of only case where a regime, committed to socialism, has not stated it officially, and that's Kampuchea under Pol Pot (but that one is included in the article, since the last communist regime called themselves communists)... But honestly, if we're talking about Nazi Germany, no they wern't socialist.. The only countries where this is a discussion is in the US and the UK.. If you go to Germany, they would all call you edits - the Nazies killed social democrats, communists all forms of socialists, but many in the conservative elites survived they didn't oppose them.
 * Honestly, in a multi-party democracy, you're only socialist if you state you're socialist .. A socialist elected government does not wish to establish a socialist state, and hence, can't be included in the article. Second, Zimbabwe never called their state a socialist state (and it doesn't really seem to be their goal either)... Grenada, I didn't remove Grenada.. Tunisia was never socialist (from what I've read at least).. Again, was the regime of Habib Bourguiba committed to the notion that Tunisia was a socialist state or did they believe that Tunisia was on its way to develop socialism? ... And really, Moussa Traoré? Come on, he's like every other military dictator (but he was left-wing, instead of right-wing...).. Secondly, not many sources refer to Mali as socialist Mali and he never called his country or his ruling party socialist in the sense described above.... Honestly, the Ba'ath Party in Syria is officially committed to Ba'athism, but is not in reality (I can say that, since they now talk about the greatness of the Syrian people over that of the Arabs), and Ba'athism and socialism aren't really identical. --TIAYN (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we don't even need to worry about that argument. As I mentioned above, the list already excludes countries that were ruled by self-described socialist parties but where the state does not officially call itself socialist. And it should continue to exclude them, because otherwise we'd have to expand it to take account of every social democratic government in history. State =/= ruling party. As long as this is a list of socialist countries, not countries ruled by socialist parties, we don't have to worry about whether ruling party X or Y is or isn't really socialist. KS79 (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * but this is were I disagree, a social democratic government does not seek to establish a socialist state, and hence have no reason to be included at all.. See, this is why i oppose moving this article to self-declared; no other lists are called self-declared, official, etc etc - but they do only follow what reliable sources say on it, (good lists at leasts) but when it comes to reliably sorting here it becomes more controversial (one of the times I read an American paper this last month, a Washington Post columnists called Obama's America a socialist state, and it didn't seem rhetorical, secondly there are some right-wingers who want to label Nazi Germany a socialist state (why, I don't know), and there seems to be a miss conception that Norway (where I live) and Sweden are socialist states, which they are don't.. These are just examples, by stating that a state has to officially call itself socialist, or officially give the ruling party supreme power isn't that controversial.... It does become controversial if you try to push the same agenda on the "Ephemeral" section.. --TIAYN (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is no agreement among reliable sources on what a "socialist state" is, so there can be no agreement on who does or does not seek to establish one. As you just mentioned, even reliable sources like the Washington Post use the term "socialist state" to refer to all sorts of things. To my knowledge, scholars have not even attempted to reach any consensus on the meaning of the term "socialist state" - each reliable source feels free to use that term any way it sees fit.
 * In any case, it seems we are in agreement about which countries should be included on this list, so the discussion is purely academic... By the way, since all the states in the "Ephemeral" section have the words "socialist" or "Soviet" or something similar in their name, they do meet the criteria for self-declared. So I'm certainly not suggesting any change to that section (or any other). KS79 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In summary, just to clarify: It seems we disagree on the criteria for inclusion, but since both of our criteria lead to the same result, there is no conflict. KS79 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true, that is why people still believe rightly or wrongly that North Korea is a socialist state, while believing that China is not.. Anyhow, I get you're point, but self-declaration is I believe the closest thing we have (its a bad solution, but the best we've got, I think at least). The List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation is facing the same problem, but what can you do? --TIAYN (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've both made up your mind, but I did want to dissent on a few points. 1) "somehow single-party socialism is "true" socialism".  This is not the point of my argument at all.  I take no stance on what true socialism is, and nor should Wikipedia.  2) "State =/= ruling party".  My contention is that in a single party state, especially a totalitarian one, party does equal state on matters of governmental philosophy.  3)  "national socialism is not socialism".  This is a No true Scotsman argument.  The inclusion criteria for this list is "self-declared".  If the national socialists called themselves socialist, they belong on the list regardless of what you, I, or any number of reliable secondary sources say about whether they were really socialist.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I will respond to your first two arguments, since they were directed at me: 1) I did not say that you personally believed single-party socialism to be "true" socialism, I said that Wikipedia would be de facto endorsing this POV if we gave preferential treatment to single-party socialist states, as you suggest. 2) That is certainly one point of view, but it is still a point of view. It is not an uncontroversial statement of fact, so it cannot form the basis of a NPOV list-making policy. Furthermore, I would contend that in cases where a self-declared socialist party has ruled a multi-party state for several decades, the argument that "party does equal state" is just as strong as in the case of a single-party state. But, again, the point is that this is an argument, not a neutral statement. Your proposal would essentially amount to giving editors of this article a free pass to include or exclude countries based on their personal opinions about whether "party does equal state" in cases X or Y.
 * In addition, as I pointed out before, I do not understand why you focus on the NSDAP regime as if it was unfairly singled out for exclusion. It wasn't. It is one of many regimes excluded for the same reasons. There are other single-party states with nationalist ruling parties that described themselves as "socialist" in a highly unconventional sense, and they are also excluded. For example, the Republic of China under the Kuomintang. TIAYN and myself have slightly different inclusion criteria, but we both agree that regimes such as those of the NSDAP or Kuomintang do not belong on the list. KS79 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If the national socialists called themselves socialist, they belong on the list regardless of what you, I, or any number of reliable secondary sources say about whether they were really socialist -- With particular regard to Nazi Germany being labeled "socialist" because the party called itself "national socialist" ... would you guys also include the German Democratic Republic on a list of "democratic" countries because it called itself "democratic"? --85.197.19.31 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for this list is "self-declared". -- That is imho a uniquely bad idea which should be abandoned. No state should be included in the list without careful discussion of its particular inclusion, including notable differing viewpoints. E.g. many scholars share the view that China is not in fact "socialist", let alone communist, but instead state capitalism with rapidly fading residual elements of socialism, at most. Very similar discussions are taking place about e.g. the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and where applicable, academic discussion regarding this should definitely be included in the list for every entry.


 * While that sounds like a good suggestion in principle, in practice it is not possible to compose a stable list based on it. For nearly every state that has existed in recent history, you will certainly be able to find at least two or three reliable sources that refer to it as "socialist" or "socialistic" or "pursuing socialist policies". As you probably know, for example, there is a significant group of conservatives who label the United States of America under the presidency of Barack Obama a "socialist state". A list of every state that has been called "socialist" by a reliable source would be a list of every state that has existed in the last 100-150 years.
 * Meanwhile, a list of states that are considered "socialist" by a consensus of reliable sources would include no states at all. This is because there are several reliable sources which use the word "socialism" to refer to an ideal that has never been realized, so they argue that no socialist states have existed. Some anarchist philosophers even say that the phrase "socialist state" is a contradiction in terms (since, according to them, socialism is by definition stateless).
 * So basically the problem is this: for every state that has existed in recent history, it is possible to find some sources that say it is socialist and some sources that say it's not socialist. This situation makes it impossible to compose a list based on your suggestion. We could have a regular article - not a list - that covers the various differing viewpoints on the meaning of the phrase "socialist state". That article already exists: socialist state. That is the place to include debates between sources about what is or is not a socialist state. KS79 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * for example, there is a significant group of conservatives who label the United States of America under the presidency of Barack Obama a "socialist state". -- If we're going to go by the varying and often conflicting definitions of socialism as offered in the main article, then we should include the simple fact that e.g. the US have been labeled as socialist, backed up with sources of course, into the list. If a significant minority uses that label for the US, then that simple fact should be included. By contrast, if you're going to include and exclude states on the sole criterion of self-declaration, you would have to offer a reason why. "Otherwise this list doesn't work" is not a reason to limit the list in this arbitrary way, if anything, it's a perfect reason for why this list shouldn't exist in the first place. --85.197.57.70 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's not just the US. Like I said, almost every country has been called "socialist" by at least a few sources. Those same conservative American sources that refer to the US under Obama as socialist also typically refer to Europe - yes, the entire continent - as socialist. Example: (and this is Forbes magazine, not some random blog). So if we were to include every country that has been labeled as socialist by a few sources, then we would have to include almost every country on Earth.
 * By the way, you are beginning to persuade me that the list shouldn't exist in the first place. But, as you can see at the top of this page, it has already been nominated for deletion three times in the past, and survived all three votes. As far as I can tell, it's extremely hard to get an article deleted from Wikipedia.
 * P.S. You should register and get a username. It will make it easier to participate in things like formal votes. If I'm not mistaken, votes by anonymous IPs are often disregarded. KS79 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So if we were to include every country that has been labeled as socialist by a few sources, then we would have to include almost every country on Earth. -- LOL, we're in circular agreement here, it seems. For the list to have actual encyclopedic purpose, we shouldn't include any country without carefully evaluating and qualifying its inclusion. Alternatively, a country's exclusion should be likewise qualified if --as in the case of European or North American countries-- a substantial (non-governmental) minority has labeled that country as socialist. But such a list, valuable as it would be if properly written and maintained is virtually impossible to create and keep up.
 * On the other hand, I share your doubts as to the current list's purpose and usefulness, but also whether a deletion request would go through. This looks like a classical RfC situation, maybe with the initial three-way proposal of either (1) maintaining a list of self-declared socialist states, with that title, or (2) changing the list to a list/article hybrid with careful evaluation of each nation's inclusion or exclusion, or (3) getting rid of the list altogether since option 1 is has no discernible encyclopedic value and option 2 is virtually impossible to create and maintain.
 * You should register -- Wikipedia discussions are not votes, and all input is to be measured on its own merits, on the strength of the arguments provided, not based on who makes the argument or their clout within the community. It's actually a very good reason to not register. If valid arguments are ignored because "some IP pawn" brought them up instead of a "proper" registered member, then the project clearly doesn't merit the effort. Imho nobody should be registered. --85.197.57.70 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, it occurs to me that this list is the only one on Wikipedia that attempts to group countries based on an ideological label. There is no list of capitalist countries or list of democratic countries or list of fascist countries or list of liberal countries or list of conservative countries. There is no "list of _____-ist countries" (or "states") except for this one. And for good reason: any "_____-ist" label is inherently controversial, and there is basically no way to compose a NPOV list of countries that fall under it. I am beginning to think that the creation of this list was a mistake... But in any case, the fact that the label "socialist" was used in self-description by a good number of countries, thus allowing us to make a neutral list of self-declared socialist countries, is the only thing saving this article from becoming an eternal POV battleground. KS79 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're actually going to arbitrarily limit the list to self-declared "socialist" countries and exclude any other definition discussed in the main article, then this is really not a "list of socialist states" but a "list of self-declared socialist states", and in that case it should accurately and neutrally be called that and not pretend in its title that it's something we systematically exclude in the content, because that would imho amount to clearcut OR and POV. --85.197.57.70 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , {[replyto|KS79}} Honestly, I can only think of one country which was considered socialist (but never officially called themselves that, and that was Pol Pot's Kampuchea).. All "socialist states" have called themselves socialist states.. Of course, then there are the more controversial movements, such as the Kuomintang. But they are generally portrayed as being right-wing (at least under Chiang) ... The Wikipedia article says "	Single-party state, military dictatorship, parliamentary democracy". While WP is not a source in its self, socialism is not what is used to describe them (probably because even more radical socialists succeeded them in power".. Of course, parliamentary democracy is utterly wrong... While there have been socialist dictatorships or socialist-elected leaders, these are not socialist in the legal sense (in the legal sense they are either liberal democracies or they have rejected constitutionalism).. And no, it doesn't matter if a reliable sources call Obama a socialist, or the USA a socialist state (because far more sources would call it the opposite, just think of the mainland European press who have actually lived under socialist governments...) When it comes to this article's deletion, I'd support it, but I doubt it would succeed.. Similar lists, the List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation, Left-wing parties, List of political ideologies etc etc --TIAYN (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the history of this page, it has always been, in practice, a list of self-declared socialist countries. The countries on the list have always been the Marxist-Leninist states plus a few others that officially adopted some form of "socialism" as their state ideology. Countries that are labeled as "socialist" by people outside their own governments - even when those people are reliable sources - have never been included on the list. Does this mean that the term "self-declared" should be included in the title, so that the article would be "List of self-declared socialist countries" or "List of self-declared socialist states"? Yes, absolutely! In fact, I have proposed precisely this change to the title. Currently we are voting on a different proposal (switching "countries" to "states"), but after that is settled I hope we can add "self-declared" to the title. Thank you for providing further evidence that the article is unclear without this title change. KS79 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, with one small exception: I don't think the lists you mentioned are a good comparison with this one (because they are not lists of countries or states; and in fact, this is the only list of "___-ist countries/states" on Wikipedia - this is the only attempt to have a list of sovereign entities by political ideology - so this list is a unique case to a certain extent). I'm also close to supporting this article's deletion, but, like you said, I doubt it would succeed. KS79 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

National Socialism was NOT Socialism. End of discussion.80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
I've undone some vandal edits that had been moved to the talk page archive, including one where an IP edited a comment to change its meaning. Some of the comments appear to have been posted randomly in the page, so are in the wrong order, which I haven't fixed, and I didn't check all edits, so there may be more vandalism there. Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Current states that only abolished Marxism-Leninism
My recent edit to the page which suggested creating a new section for socialist states who abolished Marxism-Leninism but still remained in power was reverted, so rather than pursue a large edit war I shall put forward my case here instead:

As it stands the page currently divides the list of socialist states into two sections: those that disbanded during the Revolutions of 1989 and those that did not. The problem with this is that it largely oversimplifies the entire issue, as no distinction at all is made between the states in the second category. On the one hand you have the Baltic states who have entirely outlawed Marxism-Leninism, whereas on the other hand states such as North Korea and Cambodia would be considered by some to still be socialist states. The article currently just groups all of these states together which in my opinion is unhelpful. In these five states (Angola, Cambodia, Congo, North Korea, Mozambique) there was no revolution, no deposition of the ruling party, merely a slight change in ideology then possibly a rigged election shortly afterwards.

Case in point, North Korea – occasionally edit wars have sprung up regarding whether North Korea should be categorized as Socialist. Yes, Marxism-Leninism was abandoned in 1992, but was this change really that significant? The article at present seems to imply that some radical transformation happened in North Korea in 1992 when the fact is the country has politically remained unaltered for half a century. If the Worker's Party of Korea had been overthrown then the article's description would be accurate, but as the party has retained power without ever truly changing ideology, claiming that North Korea is as Marxist-Leninist as Lithuania is flat out wrong.

A third category would eliminate this issue as it gives provisions for countries who have de jure abolished Marxism-Leninism but still retain many socialist principles. By making this distinction it is possible to accurately categorize North Korea and Cambodia whom many would argue are still Socialist states. As long as former Marxist-Leninist parties are still in power I would say that the state as never truly stopped being socialist. The article itself makes the distinction between Socialism and Marxism-Leninism by stating “The majority of self-declared socialist countries have been Marxist-Leninist states” i.e.. most, but not all. Assuming that an abolition of Marxism-Leninism automatically equates an abolition of Socialism is incorrect.

But anyway, please add your thoughts and criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.58.164 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have a misunderstanding about the purpose and scope of this page. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we cannot take sides in the debate about whether country X or Y is "really" or "truly" or "de facto" socialist. This page simply lists states that consider themselves socialist. Of course there are some people who would call present-day Cambodia socialist. There are also people who call Sweden and Norway socialist. But this is not a list of states that some people consider to be socialist. Such a list would include almost every country in the world, because for each country there are always some people who call it "socialist". There are even a few people who call the United States socialist!


 * And on the other hand, there are also many people who call present-day China and Vietnam capitalist. Should they be removed from the list for that reason? No, because they continue to declare themselves socialist, so they remain on the list even if the outside world considers them capitalist.


 * So this is the system that we have in place for this page. The first section on this talk page explains it in more detail. Of course it is not perfect - in fact it's very flawed - because many countries that call themselves socialist may in fact be mostly capitalist, and some countries that DON'T call themselves socialist may actually have a socialist economic system. But the problem is, people (and scholars) do not agree on what counts as a "socialist country" and what doesn't. There are ongoing debates about whether countries like Cambodia or China should be considered socialist. So how can we, on Wikipedia, make a list of "socialist states" while remaining neutral in those debates? The solution we have found is the one I described. It's the closest thing to neutrality that we could think of.


 * Regarding the specific issues you brought up, I'd like to make a few more points:


 * The page does not divide the list of socialist states based on the revolutions of 1989 at all. It divides the list based on countries that currently claim to be socialist and countries that do not make such a claim any more.


 * North Korea is listed as a socialist state from 1992 to the present, in the Non-Marxist-Leninist section. As you correctly pointed out, not all self-declared socialist states were/are Marxist-Leninist. That is why we have a Non-Marxist-Leninist section. The article does not assume that an abolition of Marxism-Leninism automatically equates to an abolition of socialism.


 * A third category would violate our neutrality policy, because the question of which countries "retain many socialist principles" is a matter of opinion and debate. You said, "As long as former Marxist-Leninist parties are still in power I would say that the state as never truly stopped being socialist." That is your opinion, but others disagree. Most importantly, the states in question themselves disagree, and who are we to decide whether or not they are lying? Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial reporter of information, not an authority to make decisions about who is telling the truth and who is lying in controversial topics.


 * Finally, let me just say that I sympathize with your intentions. You saw that this list is flawed and wanted to improve it. I understand that. But, unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to improve it without violating our neutrality policy. KS79 (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North Korea is mentioned in Non-Marxist-Leninist section, Cambodia is one of the most right-wing countries on earth (no dominant role for the state in the economy, and loaded amount of foreign direct investments... this is in contrast too Laos, China and Vietnam...) .. Point being, if they say they're not socialists, they're not. Alas, I don't the majority of the people in Africa were real socialists; as I read about Mozambique and Cambodia, when a foreign scholar actually asked them about Marx too many members actually responded "who is Marx?" .. Communism was seen as an alternative method to modernize, therefore these regimes sought after practical measures (and didn't really care for ideological reasons).. Of course, this can be disputed. --TIAYN (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus, keep current title. — JFG talk 00:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

List of socialist states → List of self-declared socialist states – Just because a country has "Socialist/Communist" in its title doesn't mean it's really socialist (worker-control of the means of production). I think "self-declared" is a better description of what's listed. Socialistguy (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 21:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the nominator's statement, but isn't that better said in the intro than in the title as it is now? —  AjaxSmack   01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I know the intro says it, but the title should, too. A country being socialist and a country that's self-declared socialist can be different. Socialistguy (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The proposal is a slightly awkward title, but it reflects what the contents of the article actually are. A review of the talk page above suggests that there is an actual running issue with the conflict between the title and contents. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What about nominally-socialist states? Socialistguy (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion is in regards to the best title for a page with the actually-existing inclusion criteria, not it regards to what those inclusion criteria should be or how they should change. I will say that any such criteria need to be objectively verifiable, which is surely how the current criteria arose in the first place. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Which is why I no longer oppose the move which I did in the 2013 discussion. —  AjaxSmack  00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article should list states that meet the definition in our socialist state article: "any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism". Mere declaration would seem sufficient. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:PRECISE, as it is more accurate with regard to the actual article scope and content. Whether it's perfectly pithy is irrelevant, since this this is a WP-invented WP:DESCRIPTDIS title, not a term pulled as a WP:COMMONNAME from sources. Srnec's comment above, "Mere declaration would seem sufficient", actually serves as an argument in favor of the rename, though he opposes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Mere declaration would seem sufficient" is not an argument in favor of non-neutral argumentation in the title, which is a major problem with the current one. I know we all three agree about moving away from this title, but the point should still be made. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "socialist state" should not be decomposed and analysed. It is a term of art that means, as its page says, a state dedicated to establishing a socialist society. It does not mean a state in which socialism is already perfectly instituted. Of course, the "mere declarations" we're talking about are constitutions and there's nothing really "mere" about them. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'll play a devil's advocate: which countries were "really socialist" as opposed to mere "self-declared socialist" to actually make the difference? I'd agree with Srnec that a self-declaration seems sufficient, and that WP:CONCISE here beats WP:PRECISE, because no additional precision is actually achieved. To put it in another way: to argue whether a country was really socialist is akin to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No such user (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose As many others have said, if a country is either self-declared socialist or has been labeled as such by consensus of political scientists and or economists, then it should be on this list. Iazyges (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Contrary to above opposition, precision is achieved by including the term "self-described." Otherwise ambiguity persists, which may confuse our readers. A reader could ask "How is socialism defined?" in a "List of socialist states." The phrasing "List of self-described socialist states," on the other hand, clears up some of that uncertainty: the "burden of definition" now rests on the governments themselves and does not need to be argued by WP editors. A "list of self-described socialist states" can be fairly easily checked off "yes" or "no" (and with general agreement) on a list of countries; however, a "list of socialist states" would be much harder to identify and much more open to interpretation and debate. To use a ridiculous example (but that demonstrates the semantic distinction), we would all admit that there would be a big difference between an article called "List of traitors" and one called "List of self-described traitors." Especially since "socialism" can have so many connotations (derogatory, celebratory, neutral, etc.), the extra qualifier here is a very good idea for countries that can more or less objectively be included. Wolfdog (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nobody is confused by the claims of pseudo-socialist states, any more than by pseudo-democratic states. But what this RM highlights is that socialist is a rather rubbery term (just follow the link to the relevant article). Better we do not try to fix English ourselves, just leave the title simple and our criteria wide. Andrewa (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Socialist States
The introduction says it all: "Past and present states that have declared themselves socialist or in the process of building socialism" State socialism is easily definable and objective requirements of a state following states socialism or in the process, as it always is, of building as socialist state are apparent (eg. nationalisation, radical land seizure, predatory taxes, government role expanded to control most of the national economy, emergence of an police state etc.). Observe WP:OR ,WP:SOAP, WP:V, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCATE. So let's not go into the business of discussing if Stalin was a real communist or not etc....because Marx said that... and that's why all those horrible people where not communist or socialist etc. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Socialism and Social democracy are not equivalent - Sweden should not be mentioned! Sweden is a Monarchy with mostly free enterprise, although it has high taxes and Welfare policies, but this does not mean socialism. Totally out of order and misleading to mention Sweden in this context. If there is an interest in Socialist movements in Sweden, then please look at Left Party (Sweden), Socialist Party (Sweden, 1929). RudiLefkowitz (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sweden is mentioned in the introduction specifically as an example of a country that is not on the list, to make the point that merely having a government run by a socialist party (or a party calling itself socialist) does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this list.
 * With regard to your first point, state socialism is, in fact, not easily definable. Take your proposed definition for example: That definition basically describes Marxist-Leninist states. If we were to follow your definition, we would have to remove the entire non-Marxist-Leninist category, plus most of the unrecognized and ephemeral states, which means about half of the list as it currently stands. In other words, you are proposing to radically narrow the scope of the article. Such a proposal could be considered for discussion, but you would have to make a much stronger case for it. -- KS79 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany should be on the list, clearly a socialist regime as the country controled means of production, public works, and obviously by name "National Socialist German Workers' Party". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.252 (talk) at 15:08, 16 December 2016‎


 * No, it is not clear at all. The government of France at the moment is also run by a Socialist Party (and one that is widely acknowledged as being socialist, unlike the NSDAP, whose status is contested). Does that make France a socialist state? Meanwhile, the government of Saudi Arabia also controls major means of production (namely the oil industry, the country's main source of revenue) and is responsible for public works. As is the government of the United States, to a lesser but still significant degree. Yet none of these countries are on the list. Because this is not a list of countries run by socialist parties or a list of countries that have significant state-run enterprises.


 * A list of countries run by parties with "socialist" in the name, or countries whose governments control significant sectors of the economy, would include practically every country in the world during some parts of their history. That is absolutely not the scope of this article. -- KS79 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic?
Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic never published that they are socialist states. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, you are correct. They never declared themselves to be socialist states. But this seems to be a wider problem with the "unrecognized" section. There are no constitutional or other references provided for any of those unrecognized states to verify that they claim to be socialist. It seems that the "unrecognized" section was originally modeled after the "ephemeral" section, which lacks references for the perfectly justifiable reason that it contains states which only existed for a few weeks or months, and did not have time to establish a formal status, but adopted a name, flag, or other symbols that make clear references to socialism. The unrecognized states, on the other hand, are long-lasting, so we should hold them to the same standards as the long-lasting recognized states in the sections before them: they need to have made constitutional references to socialism in order to be included here. -- KS79 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Belarus also has a socialist heraldry in emblem, it does not mean that it is a socialist state. Peoples in DPR and LPR "dream about great Soviet Union".--Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous user 95.227.151.73
I am opening a discussion regarding a series of recent edits (examples: 1 2 3) by anonymous user 95.227.151.73. The anonymous user has been making these similar edits over a period of about a month, without providing any justification, even though they remove sourced material. Most of the content of the edits has been repeatedly reverted by a number of users, including myself, with edit summaries that ask the anon to provide reasons for these edits. I also just noticed that other editors have posted on anon's talk page. However, anon has not responded. The content of the edits has consisted of the following: Dear anonymous user, I am sorry that I have to repeatedly revert your edits, but they appear to reduce rather than improve the quality of the article. I can assume that you are trying to dispute the current listing of North Korea, but since you have said nothing about it in your edit summaries and provided no sources, I do not know what your arguments are. As to the other parts of your edits, I do not understand why you are making them (particularly the removal of information from the table of current ML states). Please discuss your ideas here. KS79 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Additions to the introduction to mention that several former socialist countries have current references to their socialist past in their constitutions. I don't see how this is relevant, since those countries are already listed in this article for the periods when they were socialist, so it's redundant and pointless to mention that, in addition to being socialist in the past, these countries also say in the present that they were socialist in the past. But since the anon user is so insistent on including this information, I suppose it doesn't really hurt. In my latest edits I have accepted this addition.
 * 2) Changes to the list of current Marxist-Leninist states to insert irrelevant technicalities (such as mentioning that Hong Kong and Macau are not included in the definition of "China" used here, which may not even be accurate - I don't personally know their exact constitutional status and anon provided no sources).
 * 3) Changes to the list of current Marxist-Leninist states to remove information about their duration and their heads of state, party and government, for no apparent reason.
 * 4) Inserting North Korea into the list of current Marxist-Leninist states and removing it from the two places where it is listed now (former Marxist-Leninist states and current non-ML states), and deleting the source that supports North Korea's current listing as a non-ML single-party socialist state.


 * Anonymous user, I think I am starting to see what your argument in favour of moving North Korea may be. But I shouldn't have to guess what you are trying to do. Please discuss your ideas here. I know you have read this, based on your most recent edits. So why are you not saying anything? KS79 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued
I have just restored a lot of information that was removed by the anonymous user in August and September. As you can see from my old comments above, this was part of a pattern, and I wish I had noticed his last deletions sooner, but I edit so rarely that I only noticed them now. Over the past summer (which was the last time I was active), I repeatedly tried to engage him both on this talk page (see above) and on his user talk page, but to no avail. He never responded, and simply continued to delete information from the article despite being reverted by several users, including myself (examples: 1 2 3 4 5), until eventually one of his attempts wasn't reverted.

As far as I can tell, it appears he was determined to remove information that he considered to be unnecessary, and didn't feel the need to explain himself. I don't even disagree with all his changes, necessarily (for example I don't think we have to mention heads of state and party leaders in the Current section for the M-L states), but when faced with someone who removes absolutely uncontroversial information without debate (such as how long a state has existed, or who its head of state is), my instinct is to put that information back. Maybe an argument can be made for removing it, and I'm completely open to being persuaded, but as long as no argument is actually made, I think the only reasonable course of action is to put the information back. KS79 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian opposed to Non-Marxist-Leninist?
Maybe changing the section into “communist” would make more sense. (AyustimGniyrc (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)) AyustimGniyrc (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the word authoritarian. North Korea for instance obviously isn't commmunist, but it is authoritarian/totalitarian. --TIAYN (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but there are other authoritarian countries contained in the section of "other countries" which confuses the readers and the meaning of "authoritarian". Thus, I propose that the section name should change into "States that has ever declared Communist", which would include NK. (AyustimGniyrc (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

Is "Authoritarian" a non-neutral term?
Since the other main category is "Non-Marxist-Leninist", it makes sense to just say "Marxist-Leninist" instead of "Authoritarian". O0lemonlime0o (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of socialist states. 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/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421001106/http://www.judiciary.go.tz/downloads/constitution.pdf to http://www.judiciary.go.tz/downloads/constitution.pdf

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) 13:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of socialist states. 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/20111202002806/http://www.so.undp.org/docs/Constitution%201979%20-%20in%20Somali.pdf to http://www.so.undp.org/docs/Constitution%201979%20-%20in%20Somali.pdf

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) 18:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)