Template talk:Communism/Archive 1

Bizarre addition
Apparently the addition of Islamic communism to the template was serious, so I'm posting here to find out what explanation there is for it. Bearing in mind that a large number of relevant topics are omitted for reason of space, I'm fascinated to here why we would ever want a link to a redirect on here! This is leaving aside that the editor who added it completely failed to follow the instructions at the bottom of the template ("Communism sidebar exists as an alternate version of this template. Any content changes made here should be made there as well.") Warofdreams talk 09:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You discuss now about it's place? If that is the problem then I can easily put it there as well. And you do not need to revert it, instead of that you could add it also in the sidebar of the Communism template.Runehelmet (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the main point which I make above. Please give your reasons as to why this is such an important topic, despite not having an article, that it should be included in this template.  Although I've raised this both in my original edit summary and on this talk page, you have failed to give a single reason. Warofdreams talk 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all I did not "fail" to give you a reason. If you had read the edit summary you should know that Socialism and Islam and Islam and Communism are the same. And because it contains a redirection it does not mean that it is insignificant.Runehelmet (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason for its inclusion. Do you have one?  As I have said, not every topic related to communism can be included on this template - many are omitted.  Why should this one be added?  Also, I strongly suggest reading communism and socialism if you believe that they are the same thing. Warofdreams talk 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Symbol necessary?
In view of the occasion, do we really need a symbol here at all? Honestly, I am quite sceptical about the use of such highly ideological symbols as "decoration" for templates etc. on Wikipedia. But I'm sure there have probably been already several general discussions on that issue before…--Siebi (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Village pump (proposals)#Extremist symbols in templates. If you want to comment here, please ping me, as I will have taken this page off my watchlist.--Siebi (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The symbol is fine. It's a perfectly recognizable, neutral representation of the concept. -- Jayron 32 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Same discussion going on at Template talk:Communism sidebar. --MarioGom (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Red star with hammer and sickle
If you want red star with hammer and sickle to stay here, you need to find reliable sources that would state that it's a COMMON symbol of communism (not only symbol of the USSR and its proxies). Otherwise, it cannot stand here. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the wiki page Communist symbolism: "The hammer and sickle have become the pan-communist symbol, appearing on the flags of most communist parties around the world." Not only that, but the image you seek to remove has been long standing, meaning there is a consensus to keep the hammer and sickle rather than replacing it with just the red star. The onus on finding consensus for this change lies with you I believe.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. And this talk page shows that there is NO consensus that the hammer and sickle is a common symbol of communism. It doesn't represent the non-Leninist currents of communism, such as anarcho-communism and classical Marxism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Some do not use it, but most do, it is by far the most famous and common symbol of Communism, this is very obvious, and your rethoric of "Leninism" seems to indicate that you only want to remove it for political reasons, presumably to disassociate Communism from the atrocities committed by Communist regimes.
 * , it's just your opinion, not a reliable source. Here must be a symbol COMMON to all currents of communism. For specific currents, such as Leninism, "Marxism–Leninism", Stalinism etc., special templates exist. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, and it is common knowledge that the Hammer and Sickle is the most famous and common Communist symbol, there is no point in arguing about that, and even with this logic, Anarcho-communists don't use the red star, once again this whole "branch" thing is clearly politically motivated, not a valid reason to remove the hammer and sickle. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , this talk page shows that we have NO consensus that the hammer and sickle is a common symbol of communism. And the red star is used, for example, by neozapatists. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The hammer and sickle was on the sidebar for a long time, the hammer and sickle is on the legal disclaimer for banned Communist symbols, etc, so definitely there is consensus for it, there is no consesus for removing it. -- Pedro8790 05:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. And it's template "Communism sidebar", not a template "Banned communist symbols". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only a few communist countries on the planet and they all use the star alone (China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea). The hammer and sickle is largely a remnant of the soviet era. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think using a slightly more detailed(3d-ey) red star (such as the one i edited onto the sidebar) would work the best on the sidebar, as it is not specific to a specific school of communist thought(as the use of a soviet badge is), but also implies the history of past communist movements, with it being similar to badges and logos used by many communist organizations
 * (ie: the logo of the Party of COmmunists in Hungary, badges used by the Viet Cong(abeheit in gold), et-cetera) It also looks a bit better than a simple glyph when at that size IMHO. --Thespündragon 18:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Thespündragon
 * The symbol you suggest is also not appropriate, as it is strong associated with Kremlin star (localism). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, it does not matter what they use in their flags, flags of countries are not symbols of ideologies, besides, the Communist Parties of Vietnam and China both use the hammer and sickle, and the symbol is also used by Communist Parties who were not aligned with the Soviets during the Cold War. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , party form of organization is not required for communism. For example, anarcho-communists reject it (and they don't use hammer and sickle as a symbol). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your comment above about using the original red star that you provided. I would support you changing it from the current "3-D" red star that is currently in use. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * to be completely honest, i was only changing the star as i personally dislike having that general of a geometric shape. so i dont really have much issue with returning to the simple star. but maybe it should be smaller, like with the Anarchism sidebar? Thespündragon 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. I am open to making the star smaller. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed star sizing to upright=0.3 --- is this okay? I think it looks good. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the red star can also be used to represent socialism (with no communist influence or connection). Since there is disagreement for what symbol to use I have removed the image for the sake of neutrality. I would argue for the sake of agreement it would be better not to include an image, its obviously ambiguous as to what to use and it is not necessary anyway. Helper201 (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Per our own article on the subject, the red star is a communist symbol. Must we remove the red flag from the socialism sidebar for its usage in the Ottoman Empire? The red star is a universal symbol of communism. We shouldnt have to not use it due to it also being used by similar subjects. Thespündragon 23:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is it is also used commonly by socialist groups that are not communist. Communism and socialism get conflated enough already without using a symbol that still today can be applied to either, even when a socialist group may have no communist ideology. Helper201 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This can be seen in the Use by socialist or revolutionary organizations, Use by military organizations, Use by modern-day parties, and Uses without socialist symbolism sections of that page. Helper201 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * All of the parties in Use by socialist or revolutionary organizations are communist or heavily influenced by communism, the organizations in Use by military organizations are all either of a current socialist state ruled by a communist party or a former one, and in Use by modern-day parties, only the communist party has an actual red star. The Uses without socialist symbolism section doesnt seem to be relevant to its usage as a political symbol. Thespündragon 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither the Dutch Socialist Party, nor Syriza are communist. Your claims that they are 'heavily influenced by communism' is original research and besides the point anyway, if they aren't communist, they aren't communist. What people will see when they see the image on this template is a star, many will not distinguish the fact that it is a red star means it has any different meaning to any other star. This could lead to confusion and assumptions around a star in general representing communism. I don't see the issue with not having an image for the sake of neutrality and to avoid ambiguity. It is not a necessity to have an image here. Helper201 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither of them use the red star.Thespündragon 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but please read past my first two sentences.


 * Also, on a seperate note (but a more specific example) the Workers' Party (Brazil) uses a red star as its logo, but it is not a communist party. Helper201 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am adding a caption to address your concerns on ambiguity. I would like to invite Гармонический Мир,, and Somedifferentstuff to return to this discussion to discuss the new issue of whether there should be a symbol in the infobox. Thespündragon 03:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I continue to support the use of the red star (without hammer and sickle) as well as Thespündragon's newly added caption. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I continue to support the red star with the hammer and sickle, the hammer and sickle is the most famous symbol of Communism, and, as noted by Helper201, groups and parties that are not Communist also use the red star, but only Communist groups and parties use the hammer and sickle. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Pedro8790's reasoning.


 * Since there is no consensus of opinion on what image to use, for the sake of neutrality I don't see why we don't just leave the image section blank. It would mean neither side has any problem with the image. It is not a necessity to have an image and no one has proposed any reason why we don't just leave it out. Helper201 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus is in favor of there being an image, there not being a clear consensus as to what specific image to use does not mean that there should not be an image at all. --Thespündragon 00:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems, however, that the red star is mostly associated with the Soviet Union like the hammer and sickle. The star's origins as a symbol of communist mass movements dates from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian Civil War, but the precise first use remains unknown. On the other hand one account of the symbol's origin traces its roots to the Moscow troop garrison toward the end of World War I. At this time, many troops were fleeing from the Austrian and German fronts, joining the local Moscow garrison upon their arrival in the city. To distinguish the Moscow troops from the influx of retreating front-liners, officers gave out tin stars to the Moscow garrison soldiers to wear on their hats. When those troops joined the Red Army and the Bolsheviks they painted their tin stars red, the color of socialism, thus creating the original red star. Thus, I propose just the or, both of which aren't necessarely associated with Marxism–Leninism; and swap them between the communism and socialism templates. Socialists adopted the symbol during the Revolutions of 1848 and it became a symbol of communism as a result of its use by the Paris Commune of 1871.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The hammer and sickle was popularized by the Bolsheviks (some sources at Hammer and sickle) but it is widely adopted by major communist parties today, even by those that are not self-described as Marxist-Leninist anymore. Note that since the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s, it would be inaccurate to associate the hammer and sickle exclusively to the Soviet Union.
 * For major parties using hammer and sickle see (just to name some of the most notable from List of communist parties): Workers Party of Bangladesh (M-L), Communist Party of Belarus (M-L), Communist Party of Brazil (M-L), Communist Party of Chile (M-L), Communist Party of China (M-L), Communist Party of Greece (M-L), Communist Party of India (M-L), Communist Party of India (Marxist) (M-L), Lao People's Revolutionary Party (M-L), Nepal Communist Party (M-L), Portuguese Communist Party (M-L), Communist Party (Serbia) (M-L/Titoism), South African Communist Party (M-L), Communist Party of Spain (Eurocommunism for the last decades until it adopted M-L again last year), Communist Party of Sri Lanka (M-L), Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash) (M-L), Syrian Communist Party (Unified) (??), Communist Party of Uruguay (M-L), Communist Party of Venezuela, Communist Party of Vietnam (M-L). The ideology description might not be fully accurate with variants, since it's taken from Wikipedia itself and not all of them are properly sourced.
 * As well as minor organizations: Revolutionary Workers' Party (Turkey) (Trotskyist)
 * The red star has probably wider usage, being used by most of the above in addition to the hammer and sickle, but also: Communist Party of Cuba, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine,Workers' Party of Korea / North Korea (Juche), Tupamaro (Venezuela) (Marxist, non-M-L), Socialist Struggle Movement (Trotskyist)
 * Also red star has quite wide adoption by Trotskyites: Anticapitalistas
 * There are significant exceptions with respect both symbols, of course: French Communist Party, which changed the hammer and sickle for a red star, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Partido por la Victoria del Pueblo (Marxist of anarcho-syndicalist tradition), People's Progressive Party (Guyana) (Marxist)
 * As far as I can tell, while the Hammer and sickle is very widely adopted by communist organizations, not just Soviet-affine (also China-affine and neutral) and not just Marxist-Leninist (also Trotskyists), the Red star has somewhat wider usage, shared both by organizations that also use the hammer and sickle, but adopted by others that don't, and go from M-L to Trotskyites, to libertarian strands of Marxism.
 * Note that we cannot chose any image at all that is universally adopted, there isn't, not even the red banner. But we should choose something that is widely adopted, recognizable and representative of the topic. --MarioGom (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you showed me is simply that the hammer and sickle is exactly the symbol used by Leninist communism, which I don't dispute; left communists or libertarian Marxists do not use that exactly because it's associated with something they oppose; likewise, anarchist and religious communists don't use it either. Beside, the hammer and sickle was used for the Leninist template, which is more accurate. This isn't the Leninist communism template, but the communism template. Except the red flag is universally adopted by all communists and that's why it's preferable.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , first, the parties that use hammer and sickle as a symbol usually have Leninism or it's variations at their cores. Secondly, the party form of organization is not necessary for communism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to what said, anarchist and religious communists generally oppose the party form of organisation; and even left communists oppose the Leninist party form of organisation as commonly understood, either opposing it completely or preferring organic centralism (using the communist party as a propaganda machine, not as part of the parliamentary, bourgeois state institution) like in the case of the Italian left communists and Bordigists.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Image
I repeat what I have stated above and open a new discussion since no one actually replied yet. "It seems, however, that the red star is mostly associated with the Soviet Union like the hammer and sickle. The star's origins as a symbol of communist mass movements dates from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian Civil War, but the precise first use remains unknown. On the other hand one account of the symbol's origin traces its roots to the Moscow troop garrison toward the end of World War I. At this time, many troops were fleeing from the Austrian and German fronts, joining the local Moscow garrison upon their arrival in the city. To distinguish the Moscow troops from the influx of retreating front-liners, officers gave out tin stars to the Moscow garrison soldiers to wear on their hats. When those troops joined the Red Army and the Bolsheviks they painted their tin stars red, the color of socialism, thus creating the original red star. Thus, I propose just the plain red flag or this one, both of which aren't necessarely associated with Marxism–Leninism; and swap them between the communism and socialism templates. Socialists adopted the symbol during the Revolutions of 1848 and it became a symbol of communism as a result of its use by the Paris Commune of 1871." Now, I haven't read all comments and discussions, but wasn't the thought of as the obvious choice? Here  told me that We can not use the same symbol as Socialism (red flag), why is that? As I have shown above, the red flag has been the symbol of both communism and socialism ever since the mid to late 19th century, much earlier than any hammer and sickle, rose, or red star; and the fact is that it still is! Either way, why shouldn't we use the same symbol when it's the symbol of both? Especially if the flag's red colour isn't the same but of different shades of red and the image isn't even the same. Then he said but more importantly there is not consensus for the use of any specific image, so unless that changes, the image/infobox needs to be left blank yet the last message left by  states that Consensus is in favor of there being an image, there not being a clear consensus as to what specific image to use does not mean that there should not be an image at all. I fully agree with this and I'm here to fix this.

How about this? I think it looks really neat and is perfect because it looks like there is no image and is part of the template itself. It also solves any neutrality issue that may arise since, as I have shown above, the hammer and sickle and the red star both date back to the Russian Revolution and thus are symbols of a specific form of communism, whereas the red flag is synonym of communism as a whole and not just one tendency. I mean, to me this is a no brainer, isn't it?--82.63.72.187 (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the red flag is a normal solution. We can use an image other than that is used in the template Socialism sidebar. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The red flag is a common symbol for many Leftist movements, the hammer and sickle is the symbol of the Communist movement, it is unique, frankly I don't even understand the point of removing it. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hammer and sickle is a symbol of the "Soviet socialism" (actually state capitalism), not a symbol of the communism. Communism is a classless society in which workers and peasants cannot exist. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The red flag is often used by major social democratic and socialist movements that are not ideologically communist and have no connection with communism e.g. The Red Flag is the song of the UK Labour Party. Socialism and communism get inaccurately conflated already, without unnecessarily mixing socialist symbolism with communist symbolism. I absolutely object to using the red flag here. Helper201 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , communism and socialism (without quotation marks) are related movements, therefore it's not surprising that they use the same symbolism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many political parties and movements that are socialist or social democratic without being communist or having any communist influence, such as the UK Labour Party. This is completely unnecessary conflation. It can make many social democratic and socialist movements appear communist at a glance of this symbolism, when they in no way are. Helper201 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If such different movements as anarcho-communism and "anarcho"-capitalism use the same symbol of anarchy, why can't we use a red flag as a symbol of the left-wing movements (communism and socialism)? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to anarcho-communism and "anarcho"-capitalism I have not been involved in those pages so I cannot comment. However, just because something is done elsewhere (possible rightly, possibly wrongly) does not affect what is going on here. Two to one is not a consensus. Not to mention there are still other editors skeptical about your removal of the hammer and sickle e.g. Pedro8790. I stand by either not having an image for the sake of neutrality or finding one that does not overlap with other ideologies. Helper201 (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very simple, just use the plain red flag which is a different image from the socialist sidebar flag or another red flag. What's wrong with that? It's actually perfect because it's a symbol of all communism and not one specific model which is arguably anti-communism in itself. My version also looks cool in that it looks like it's part of the template and not an image, so problem solved.--79.47.28.7 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the red flag is associated with social democratic and socialist parties and movements that are not in any way communist. The UK Labour Party has the red flag as a prominent symbol and The Red Flag as its song, the party is in no way communist. The vast majority of currently functioning communist parties around the world use the hammer and sickle symbol e.g.: Communist Party of Greece, Communist Party of Germany (1990), Communist Refoundation Party, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist), Polish Communist Party (2002), Communist Party of Brazil. Helper201 (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , communism is not equal to Leninism, so hammer and sickle cannot be considered as a common symbol of communism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated by, communism is not equal to Leninism and the red flag has also been associated with communism ever since the Paris Commune, way before social democracy. Your reasons seems to be pushing your own POV in that you don't want to the red flag to be associated with communism (despite the fact it is; communism, socialism and social democracy are all different forms of socialism and left-wing politics) because communism bad, despite the fact the word Communism is erroneously used as a synonym for Marxism–Leninism, which is actually a state socialist ideology (in practice state capitalist; just because they claim to want a communist society in the far future doesn't make them communists, any more than certain liberals striving for a classless society doesn't make them communists; Margaret Thatcher, of all people, also spoke of a classless society, does that make her a communist?). That's why I'm fighting to have Marxism–Leninism being called properly rather than conflated with communism as a whole due Cold War, Red Scare and red-baiting. I don't see the same thing being applied to the ideologiy of liberalism and its slave trade, colonialism and imperialism, or the previously failures of democracy, etc., so why should communism be put under another standard? By this logic, anarcho-communists and other libertarian communists/Marxists are anti-communists (do you see how it doesn't make any sense, like at all?), which makes no sense; they're anti-Leninists, anti-Marxist–Leninists and anti-Stalinists, but they're anti-communists by the virtue of the fact that the word Communism is being reduced to nothing but exactly what they oppose, Marxism–Leninism. Obviously, if reliable sources keep referring to Marxism–Leninism as Communism, there isn't much I can do about it; however, what can be done about it is to make clear what is referring to (beside, this isn't something I'm making up; sources acknowledge they're talking about what other reliable sources confirm and refer to as Marxism–Leninism and often times they even capitalised the word communism specifically to refer to Marxist–Leninist communist party states and not conflate it with communism, but then I wonder why not just call it by its proper name, i.e. Marxism–Leninism; beside, communism is a noun and shouldn't be capitalised other than when referring to a proper communist party) and not conflate it as a whole with communism; having a symbol representative of all communism would be a good start.--79.47.28.7 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, don't forget that Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad other users finally took part in this discussion. I have to agree with . Perhaps not the flag he/she choose, which I like but I have seen it already used on WikiProject Socialism, but the red flag is the right one. To me, the objection to that This is completely unnecessary conflation. It can make many social democratic and socialist movements appear communist at a glance of this symbolism, when they in no way are. (per ) seems POV-pushing in not wanting socialism and social democracy being associated with communism (more specifically Marxism–Leninism/Bolshevism/Soviet model socialism/whatever you want to call it), despite the red flag also being associated with communism ever since the Paris Commune. Either way, why shouldn't this same argument be used in support of the red flag? Why should we use the hammer and sickle when, to use Helper201's words, is completely unnecessary conflation. It can make the Soviet model socialism/Marxism–Leninism appear communist and conflate state-capitalist regimes with communism.--80.104.241.122 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Socialism is a common project both for editors interested in socialism and editors interested in communism. This confirms that we can use a red flag as a symbol of communism in this template. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whatever Communism is supposed to be in theory, the whole "Not real Communism" thing (basically the argument used to delete the hammer and sickle) is in itself pure POV and blatantly biased. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only theoretical, but not all practical currents of communism use the hammer and sickle as a symbol, so it does not fit as a common symbol of communism. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which currents of Communism don't use the hammer and sickle? And anyway, the hammer and sickle remains the most famous and popular symbol of Communism. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, anarchist communism and most of libertarian Marxism's currents do not use a hammer and sickle as a symbol. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's POV-pushing associating communism as a whole with Bolshevism/Marxism–Leninism/Stalinism/whatever you want to call it. Then why not add the slavery image as symbol of liberalism? Only Communist crimes matter; capitalist/liberal, imperalist and colonialist crimes don't? Especially considering the many attemps to associate Communism with Nazism, but then why not do the same with capitalism/liberalism/colonialism/imperialism? Or was that not true capitalism/liberalism/colonialism/imperialism? It doesn't matter mine or one's political views; it's a question of double standards and consistency. By your same logic, why is it only communism that is irrelevant whatever is suppossed to be in theory, but not liberalism or any other ideology? Don't forget there's also It's not capitalism! It's corporacy/corporatocracy/crony capitalism/crony socialism (the irony)/whatever! But then if communism must inevitabely lead to totalitarianism, why isn't the same argument applied to capitalism/liberalism? Why isn't capitalism/liberalism that must necessarely and inevitably lead to corporacy/corporatocracy/crony capitalism/oligarchic plutocracy? Why not have the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism, Nazism and Capitalism/Colonialism/Imperialism/Liberalism? I believe both arguments are flawed, but why is it only applied to communism? That's the double standard. Communism isn't just Bolshevism/Marxism–Leninism/Stalinism/whatever you want to call it; there's anarchist communism, libertarian Marxism and religious communism which all don't use the hammer and sickle, a symbol of the Soviet Union and so-called Communist/socialist/Marxism–Leninism states, not communism as a whole. It baffles me how the red flag isn't considered a no brainer; that's something all communist currents actually agree on and is the most neutral and non-POV image.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling the USSR and other Communist regimes "state socialist", "state capitalist", or whatever, because it didn't implement Communism like it is supposed to be in theory, is the real POV, Liberalism doesn't have a symbol as famous and iconic as the Hammer and Sickle, the Swastika, etc, if it had, it would be put in the Liberalism template regardless of the atrocities it is associated with, the rest of your rant is completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not POV since many reliable sources actually describe it exactly like that. They didn't implement Communism like it is supposed to be in theory because they implemented state socialism in theory and state capitalism in practice; this is acknowledged. No so-called Communist state ever actually stated they were communist or even socialist; they were socialist state only insofar they were ideologically committed to socialism, not that they achieved it. They did and still do state that they're building towards socialism and that they're in a phase of transition between capitalism and socialism, although critics argue they're capitalist states in that they all follow capital accumulation, wage labour, commodity exchanges, etc. Obviously, according to other critics they cannot possibily be their idealised version of capitalism and so they must be socialist/communism because they're bad, even though they don't satisfy any serious requirement for either, not because they're bad but because they all had capital accumulation, wage labour, commodity exchanges, etc., all characteristics of actually existing capitalism and not its idealised version. It's not irrelevant because there's a serious double standard when it comes to communism and this is just one of the many. Even the sources that actually states the hammer and sickle as symbol of communism, they actually clarify it refers to Communist regimes; it's just that Communism is synonymous with that and what matters isn't the word itself, but what it actually means. Either way, I don't see what's wrong with the red flag; it's the most recognizible of all communism and not just one type. The real POV is conflating communism as a whole with one famous current. As stated by anarchist communism and most of libertarian Marxism's currents do not use a hammer and sickle as a symbol and I added the religious current as well. What they all have in common, however, is the red flag. You also make a disservice to communists who actually fought so-called Communism ever since the beginning; they didn't just say Oh shit, that ain't communism; things are going bad and so that cannot be communism. They actually analyzed the whole situation and criticized it since the very beginning, both in theory and practice. Beside, the hammer and sickle is already used for the Leninist template since, you know, it was under Lenin that the hammer and sickle was actually created.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources also disagree with this, there is no double standard against Communism, many non-ruling Communist parties use the hammer and sickle, so it's not a symbol of regimes only, the hammer and sickle is by far the most famous and popular symbol of Communism, and it shouldn't be removed just because a small minority don't use it, lastly, while there were Communist who didn't think Communist regimes were really Communist, I don't see why they should be an arbiter. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me these sources? If reliable sources agree with you, then so will I. However, just because they say communism, it doesn't mean thay're referring to [the] socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Let me guess, they all refer to Communist regimes or Marxist communism. Because while it's true that "many non-ruling Communist parties use the hammer and sickle, so it's not a symbol of regimes only", they're all Marxist communists, therefore it's not "the most famous and popular symbol of Communism" but rather of Marxist communism. All I'm saying is that the plain red flag is the more inclusive and neutral choice because [the red flag] became a symbol of communism as a result of its use by the Paris Commune of 1871, much earlier than any hammer and sickle or red star. It's not that I believe Marxism–Leninism is bad, it's simply that the red flag is a symbol used by all communists whereas the hammer and sickle is used by Marxist communists. Just because the red flag is also the symbol of socialism or has been used for socialism, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for communism too; that isn't a valid reason. Anyway, thanks for your reply. We just have different views; I respect yours.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

July 29, 2019 IP editor removals
I noticed that Mass killings under communist regimes is no longer included in the template and found that this occurred as part of a number of questionable removals by an IP editor on July 29, 2019 (diff). Before I revert these changes, is there any previous consensus for them that I am missing or current objection that needs to be talked through here? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved that to the Marxism–Leninism sidebar because it was more appropriated; just like the People section should include mainly theoreticians and not just any Communist politician. I believe this sidebar should mainly concern communism as theory (as described in the Communist page) and the Marxism–Leninism sidebar concern the so-called Communist states in practice since Marxism–Leninism was the official ideology they followed in various adaptations; just like the hammer and sickle is used as image for the Leninist sidebar since it was first created under Lenin and has been associated with the Soviet Union and other socialist state rather than communism as a whole (anarchist communism, libertarian Marxism and religious forms of communism don't use that symbol, but all communist variants use the red flag).--79.52.17.197 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support moving this link to more relevant template Marxism–Leninism sidebar. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are debating with IP socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. --Pudeo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't any consensus for this change, and I oppose it, it is based purely on POV. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶O̶V̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶u̶s̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶m̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶c̶k̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶y̶m̶b̶o̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶l̶a̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶e̶u̶t̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶h̶o̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶{̶{̶t̶q̶|̶[̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶l̶a̶g̶]̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶y̶m̶b̶o̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶u̶l̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶i̶s̶ ̶C̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶1̶8̶7̶1̶}̶}̶,̶ ̶m̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶l̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶m̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶c̶k̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶m̶–̶L̶e̶n̶i̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶'̶'̶b̶a̶d̶'̶'̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶l̶a̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶y̶m̶b̶o̶l̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶'̶'̶a̶l̶l̶'̶'̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶m̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶c̶k̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶a̶i̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶J̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶l̶a̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶y̶m̶b̶o̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶;̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶a̶l̶i̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶.̶--95.245.199.21 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought this was about the image too. Anyway, why not add the slavery trade, colonisation and imperialism to the liberalism sidebar as related topics? Talking more seriously, we shouldn't just list any Communist politician, but people who actually contribuited to communist theory as a whole and not a single variant; and who weren't just Communist politicians. Lenin would be enough; we shouldn't include all people following Lenin, for that there's the Leninism and Marxism–Leninism sidebar. The People section in this version is just as fine. What's wrong with this list, which doesn't include influences of influences but all people who contribuited to communist theory as a whole in important ways? Thomas More · Tommaso Campanella · François-Noël Babeuf · Robert Owen · Wilhelm Weitling · Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels · Élisée Reclus · Peter Kropotkin · Errico Malatesta · Rosa Luxemburg · Clara Zetkin · Vladimir Lenin · Alexander Berkman · Emma Goldman · Sacco and Vanzetti · Nestor Makhno · Alexandra Kollontai · Antonio Gramsci · Buenaventura Durruti · Antonie Pannekoek · Albert Camus · Herbert Marcuse · Jean-Paul Sartre · Simone de Beauvoir · Pier Paolo Pasolini · Cornelius Castoriadis · Guy Debord · Murray Bookchin · Subcomandante Marcos--95.245.199.21 (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on my People proposal?  --82.53.106.200 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think POV is the identification of Marxism–Leninism with communism. These concepts are different. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marxism-Leninism is a communist doctrine, but not the only one. So they are closely related. The linked article is not related exclusively with Marxism-Leninism. It covers, for example, events in the Soviet Union such as Red Terror (1917–1922), previous to the conceptualization of Marxism-Leninism (~1926). --MarioGom (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 confusion. Marxism-Leninism is a communist doctrine, but not the only one. That's exactly what I have been said the whole time; then why do we use communism, whether capitalised or not, when it's referring to Leninism or Marxism-Leninism? I propose to move the Red Terror to the Leninism sidebar and the rest to the Marxism–Leninism sidebar. Otherwise, if they remain in the communism sidebar, they should also be added to the socialism sidebar since they were socialist states; or more properly, state socialists committed to communism.--Davide King (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my English. Perhaps it's not always clear what I want to say. I meant that understanding communism as Marxism–Leninism is wrong. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Variants of variants of variants
I don't think that we should list here all branches of Marxism. To do this templates Marxism, Leninism and related exist. For example, Trotskyism and Marxism–Leninism are variations of Leninism, Maoism is a variation of Marxism–Leninism, left communism is a variation of libertarian Marxism. Eurocommunism is an attempt to compromise between Marxism and social democracy. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not all of them, but the most notable. Eurocommunism is maybe borderline, given the rather limited time period and geographic relevance though. Including all variants would be adding Hoxhaism, Titoism, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo Thought, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Prachanda Path, etc. There are some variants (M-L, Maoism, Trotskyism) that are discussed in most sources discussing history of communism in depth. Their relevance reaches to present and in every continent, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can just take some reputable reliable sources about history of communism, for example:
 * And check the extent to which each variant is discussed. Marxism-Leninism is by far the most extensively covered, probably followed by Maoism and Leninism itself. Trotskyism follows, but quite far from M-L and Maoism. Mentions to others is scarce and usually limited to shorter historic periods or geographic regions. --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , to be precise, this is not the history of communism, but the history of Leninism. The history of non-Leninist currents of communism is practically not represented here. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, Wikipedia has to follow what it defines as Reliable sources about what to include under the term "communism". If it just followed the opinions of individual editors, no consensus would be possible on politically-charged topics like this one. I noticed that you again removed the same terms here that you had removed on the sidebar version before being reverted. There is no consensus for that change in the discussion here and you should not try to make that change prior to a consensus, per Consensus and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , as we see, we don't have a consensus that we need to identify Leninism or Marxism–Leninism with communism. There are enough reliable sources that indicate that communism is a broader phenomenon than Leninism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MarioGom presented four sources above that appear to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable and which treat the word "communism" the way it was treated in this template before your edits. That's enough to restore the links you removed. If you have other links you believe should also be included in the template and can justify them with similar sourcing, please do so. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , see, for example, the definition of communism from The Encyclopædia Britannica. This is a very reliable source. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, from that britannica article: "In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin asserted that socialism corresponds to Marx’s first phase of communist society and communism proper to the second. Lenin and the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party reinforced this distinction in 1918, the year after they seized power in Russia, by taking the name All-Russian Communist Party. Since then, communism has been largely, if not exclusively, identified with the form of political and economic organization developed in the Soviet Union and adopted subsequently in the People’s Republic of China and other countries ruled by communist parties. For much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes." In other words, that article also supports how this template was organized before your changes. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , but this is template "Communism", not a template "Communism in 20th century". In the 19th century, when communism appeared, no one knew anything about the USSR and Marxism–Leninism. And now, in the 21st century, there are very few Marxist–Leninist states. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, I understand, but we should not be excluding articles from this template that are clearly related to the term as it is used in reliable sources today. This is not to say that we can't also include a link to something like Pre-Marxist communism in the template (which is currently included), but very notable topics like Pol Pot and Mass killings under communist regimes should not be removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , these pages are included in a more relevant template Marxism–Leninism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир Yes, you are insisting on us using Marxism–Leninism (a template you created a week ago) for these articles in place of this one, despite the common term used in reliable sources being "communism", not "Marxism-Leninism". That's the problem. If you read Template namespace about template names, it directs us to the policy page for articles, Article titles, which says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." This means we should be using "communism", not Marxism-Leninism". Your Marxism-Leninism template may be completely redundant or may have some specialized use, but should not be replacing the communism template and so you should not have made all those changes you made to this template. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , but template Marxism–Leninism sidebar has been around for 8 years.
 * The topics you are talking about are precisely the specific topics for Marxism–Leninism and Maoism. Pol Pot did not make a significant contribution to the theory of communism, and the article "Mass killings under Сommunist regimes" deals mainly with Marxist–Leninist regimes. So all the changes made by me to this template have a rationale.
 * Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, you created Marxism–Leninism a week ago, but yes, Marxism–Leninism sidebar was created in 2011. Regardless, Wikipedia policies don't support your rationale for changing the way the communism template is being used or the edits you have made to its content. Please self-revert. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are many reliable sources that use the name Marxism–Leninism in relation to the regimes in question (see on jstor). Therefore, all my changes are justified. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, there are very few there (8,693) compared to "communist regimes" (73,943). It's not close. And the source you provided earlier from Britannica stated this explicitly (that communist is "largely, if not exclusively" the term for these regimes, not Marxist-Leninist, not Stalinist, not Maoist, etc). These other terms certainly have their place in an encyclopedia, and even in templates, but insisting on replacing the term "communist" with them is Disruptive editing. Please stop. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not clear why you are against such a clarification. Wikipedia even has a special template Clarify. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marxism-Leninism templates may include more links specific to M-L than Communism templates. But as I said before, there is no reason to exclude the most notable (according to reliable sources) variants and people from the Communism templates just because M-L templates exist. Some articles may include both. The direction where you are taking these templates to is quite paradoxical, since it is leading to exclusion of most notable items in favor of far less notable ones according to reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , please explain specifically what you mean by "most notable items". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир, there are very few there (8,693) compared to "communist regimes" (73,943). It's not close. And the source you provided earlier from Britannica stated this explicitly (that communist is "largely, if not exclusively" the term for these regimes, not Marxist-Leninist, not Stalinist, not Maoist, etc). These other terms certainly have their place in an encyclopedia, and even in templates, but insisting on replacing the term "communist" with them is Disruptive editing. Please stop. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not clear why you are against such a clarification. Wikipedia even has a special template Clarify. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marxism-Leninism templates may include more links specific to M-L than Communism templates. But as I said before, there is no reason to exclude the most notable (according to reliable sources) variants and people from the Communism templates just because M-L templates exist. Some articles may include both. The direction where you are taking these templates to is quite paradoxical, since it is leading to exclusion of most notable items in favor of far less notable ones according to reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , please explain specifically what you mean by "most notable items". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Such as the ones I presented above. That is Wikipedia's main criteria for notability. I'll try to post a more comprehensive source analysis to this talk page. --MarioGom (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , typically, the most notable items in Wikipedia's templates are items that relate to a theory. For this template, these are Communist society; Class struggle; Common ownership; Free association; From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs; etc. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * we are discussing about the variants section. The articles you mention do not seem related to this discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity & Mass killings under "Communist" regimes
Articles Crimes against humanity and Mass killings under "Communist" regimes are primarily about Marxist–Leninist regimes. Therefore, templates Marxism–Leninism and Marxism–Leninism sidebar are more appropriate for them and these articles are included in these templates. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of custom colors
I have removed the custom colors from this template, as they serve no encyclopedic purpose. See also Nazism and Neo-Nazism, where similar color schemes have been removed. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)