User talk:Trust Is All You Need/Archive 10

Questia
I have reserved a Questia access code for you, but it says your e-mail is not enabled. Could you please enable it and message me so I can send out your code? Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --TIAYN (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Primary stage of socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Primary stage of socialism
Hello! Your submission of Primary stage of socialism at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What issues? there are no new comments... --TIAYN (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cvijetin Mijatović (non-free).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cvijetin Mijatović (non-free).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1st Congress of the Workers' Party of North Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to New People's Party


 * Workers' Party of North Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to New People's Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Primary stage of socialism
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2nd Congress of the Workers' Party of North Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factionalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neutral and Revisionism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=615413659 your edit] to Estonian United Left Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * |ideology = Eurocommunism, [Russians in Estonia|Russian minority politics]

WP:JSTOR access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR. You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ideology of the Communist Party of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legitimacy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen
Hello Trust Is All You Need! It appears you have attempted to delete a section from the page South Yemen. While edits and contributions made in a constructive or corrective can certainly be commended, removing cited content without discussion or consensus is generally frowned upon. For more information on this subject, I invite you to consult the project page WP:REMOVAL.

Thank you, and have a nice day!

GrahamNoyes (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's please get some discussion going on this, before our reverts back and forth start an edit war. Why do you disagree with South Yemen as a Soviet satellite? GrahamNoyes (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Government type

 * I am submitting South Yemen to WP:RFP to prevent an edit war. I ask you again, before we start going back and forth with reverts, can we please get some discussion going?


 * If you have any sources to support your contention that the system of government of South Yemen should be referred to as a People's Democracy rather than the established nomenclature, I would be glad to review them and broaden my perspective on the matter. GrahamNoyes (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you continue removing reliably sourced information and edit warring like this when everyone else is against your change, which you are doing in several articles now, I will be forced to take note of your behavior and non-compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Note that despite me not agreeing exactly with the definition, I'm sticking with the consensus and discussing in talk page instead of edit warring to get my own change done. Zozs (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. You're wrong, you're adding info on WP which you think make sense, but doesn't.. Marxist-Leninist state, what? Does a liberal state exist? Nope, Conservative state? Nope, but yes, a Marxist-Leninist state exists. Wow, who would have thought. Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you. Do I sound like an idiot? I don't care, why? I'm retiring (at least a very long "extended vacation"). --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI re South Yemen
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. bridies (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Your recent editing history at China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Friendly Discourse
Hi, if post-ideological is not the word to use for certain developing countries, what would you describe the ideology as?

Dark Liberty (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I would write; "The Scientific Outlook on Development is an ideology conceived by the Communist Party of China under Hu Jintao." or alternatively "The Scientific Outlook on Development is an ideology conceived by the Communist Party of China in an aim to modernize Marxism to suit Chinese conditions." Post-ideological doesn't belong there, isn't referenced, and even one of the sources you use is against calling China a post-ideological society. --TIAYN (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not Hu Jintao's idea; it's an American concept. Also, the current ideology is Scientific Outlook, rather than the Chinese dream as Colipon referred to - Chinese dream doesn't have any mission statements or plans to do so. 3 of my sources call China a post-ideological society, but do not reference to Scientific Outlook directly, which I noted, and which I suspect the reason for misinterpretation. by the way, I don't think China yet a post-ideological society, not by a long shot, but it may be getting there, and more importantly, there isn't another academic term to describe its change.

How is China Marxist in any way or form? Dark Liberty (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Scientific Outlook on Development is still an ideology of the Communist Party, unlike Chinese Dream which is not even in the party or state constitution yet. Secondly, how they are Marxist? I wouldn't know, ask them. You would probably get the answer; the state dominates the economy (by owning 50 percent of the GDP and the largest companies), it guides the market, officials still uses Marxist terminology, they still have the end goal of reaching communism, the policies presently are similar to the New Democracy or the New Economic Policy, China is not socialist but in the primary stage of socialism so things like these are allowed, the fact that every official who gets educated in a party school is forced to read the classics of Marxist literature, that they are forced to read Lenin and Stalin, that every Chinese student is forced to attend Marxist class every year until they've finished graduation, the fact that students at Party Schools are forced to use Marxist terminology in every assignment so as to "update" Marxism, the fact that the CPC still supports politically the Leninist premise and the Leninist view on Western political system,, they actually introduced under Hu a Socialist core value system, the fact that the establishes new Marxist institute ever year in which party members are educated (you would have thought they'd put an end to establishing these if they stopped believed in Marxism, wouldn't you?), the fact that Xi Jinping claims that the Soviet Union collapsed because Soviet communist party members stopped believing in the ideals of communism (if he had already lost the beliefs in communism himself, he would not have said that, would he?), the fact that every student at university-level has to attend a class on why the Soviet Union fell, the fact that the CPC still retain party-to-party relations with communist parties which don't hold parliamentary representation or a to small to care about (such as the Party for the Transformation of Honduras), the fact that the CPC have no problem subsidizing Cuba and Laos (or even the DPRK to an extent) and perfectly happy they don't get their money back (this is different from the deals they make in Africa, in which they always get something in return), the fact that the party is calling for reducing the number of members in the party and recruiting only members who believes in Marxism, or the fact that the present president and CPC leader of China studied Marxism. The question isn't really if the CPC is Marxist or not, the question is, do the CPC itself still view itself as Marxist? Yes. This is unlike North Korea, which people still call a socialist state (unlike China), which banned Marxist literature in the 1960s and who don't learn of Marxism at school, but rather Juche. The communist parties of Russia, Ukraine, and the Czech Republics (all usually referred to as conservative by the Western press), all support the introduction of Chinese economic reforms. Just because a country doesn't support planning, doesn't make it non-socialist. What people tend to forget the biggest communist group before Communist Russia was council communism, and they never talked about state socialism.  But in the end, I don't care if China is presented as Marxist or not, what is important is that all the views are presented; that China is Marxist, non-socialist, statist, state capitalists, technocrats, right-wingers, just assholes or so on. All these views should be presented, China may be many thing, buts not just one thing. --TIAYN (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate that those who are educated in the Central Party School have to put up with the literature; it's like in the elite Jesuit university, you are forced to take a course called "Bible literature" in order to progress to main courses. However, I think Marxism will be twisted to some form to justify whatever policy or governance the Party has; that is not the way of Wikipedia. I think the indoctrination just a part of the system because they have no other alternative. And I don't think China maintains relations with "Communist" countries. On the contrary, China establishes relations with foremost, first-world nations, EU, BRICS extentions, Germany, South America, and third-world nations, in that specific order.

Burma is pretty much an enemy now to China, as is Vietnam, not that it matters, considering the level of state-to-state dialogue. We don't care if the CCP views itself as Marxist; their views are irrelevant. We care, rather, about how America views China's government.

I don't think Wikipedia have an inclusionist policy should; on the contrary, it should exclude every and every other view that is not relevant. My policy is the same as every administrator: let the reader make their own decisions. However, that is not to say that we should exclude your views on the subject. What I am saying is Confucianism is irrelevant despite having striking similarities to Scientific Outlook; because that would have to be sourced, and finding articles of that nature that is out of my ability and skill.

Dark Liberty (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 23 percent of the courses at the Central Party School are classic Marxist texts, then 29 of the courses are on Mao Zedong Thought, then of course comes Dengism, Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development; but that around 50 percent of the literature they learn about is classical Marxist, communist, just shows that they actually take their ideological heritage serious. Vietnam and China have been bickering over the parcel islands for ages, and relations between Vietnam and China have been had since the 1970s, but notice, everytime there is signs that the conflict might hurt communist rule in Vietnam China backs off (as it did again; wait another four years and the same thing will happen again until they actually bother to find a solution to the problem)... They could chose not to indoctrinate their party members in Marxism (and indoctrinate them in other stuff, such as capitalism, nationalism or so on, but chose not to...); look at Syria, they are ruled by a Ba'athist party which officially pursues Ba'athism, but the majority of the causes are about the great Hafez al-Assad, his dead son Bassel al-Assad, Syrian nationalism and anti-semitism (of course they learn some about Ba'athism, but the ideology has nothing to do with practical policy; during the 2014 presidential election campaign, Assad based his campaign on Syrian nationalism, something which is strange considering he heads a pan-Arab party...) .. . The reason why people say China is not Marxist is that they have a simplistic view of what Marxism is; for instance, while Marx was critical of capitalism, he showered a lot of praise on the same system (calling it the most advanced system in history, and bringing about a social revolution and humanistic values). For instance, he calls the Constitution of the United States a big step in the fight for human rights. Marxism is a complex ideology, its not simply state planning vs the capitalist market. The Soviets tried to put it that way, but its not that simple. In many ways it could be said that China follows the theory of the productive forces...  "On the contrary, China establishes relations with foremost, first-world nations, EU, BRICS extentions, Germany, South America, and third-world nations, in that specific order" - they did that in the 1980s so as to further develop the economy, Gorbachev tried the same thing - you get advanced technology from the First World, not the poor world. Again, you seem to miss the point, China subsidises fellow socialist countries (and even attends communist forums regularly such as the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, the International Communist Seminar and the international conference held by the [[Labour Party (Mexico); would they bother to send delegates, and hold speeches, if they didn't believe in communism?) ... Its not like its difficult to find out for the ordinary Chinese how small these gatherings are, but still they attend. Wikipedia does not care how the United States views China, just as Wikipedia does not care of how Russia, China, Iran, Syria views the United States.

That the party still calls themselves Marxist, still educate ordinary members to believe in Marxism, and so on is relevant. The only reason why its not relevant for you is that you don't believe it - your personal views are not relevant to Wikipedia. These are not my views on the subject, I know this because independent third-party sources have researched the topic. China was commonly considered Marxist and communist until th introduction of the Three Represents, when capitalists were allowed to join the party. However, there is a fault in the logic, the Hungarian People's Republic was, and still is, considered a socialist republic, however, there unlike in China capitalists held seats in the Central Committee in the national party, the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party. Confucianism is important to the Scientific OUtlook on Development since the idea of Confucian socialism developed around the same time, and the modern incarnation has roots in this concept and the Socialist Harmonious Society theory. "because that would have to be sourced, and finding articles of that nature that is out of my ability and skill" - thats not a good argument and break the basic premise of WP; just because its difficult should we give up? --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to include a new section "Comparison with other ideologies" that compares Scientific Outlook directly with concepts such as liberal democracy (which will be the largest section) which in some ways is an ideology of its own, that will list the pros and cons of both systems, and then contrast it with traditional ideologies China is familiar with including Deng's theory, Jiang's GDP growth theory, and Confucianism. This is off-topic and probably not appropriate here but why did Vietnam choose to ally against China, despite what the people endured during the Vietnam War?

On Wikipedia and views, China is still in the mentality that the United States is an ally. If you do a public poll survey pre-Ukraine conflict, you'll see that probably 90% of Chinese have a positive view of the United States. Wikipedia is predominantly Anglo-American so the views in some way it should cater to the audience. I'm not saying to marginalize or remove other views, but there should be some wisdom and discretion on what to leave out.

Also, because China subsidizes socialist countries is a moot point. The question that I'd like to ask is are their efforts successful? and the answer is an overwhelming no. Labour Party of Mexico and one of their sponsors, China, really needs to go on Wikipedia? Every country at some level exports their ideas, America being a leader in this department. Despite Japan lacking an ideology (or what Westerners perceive), I think they have been very successful in convincing people what Japan is, and is not, much more so than China.

You know what's funny is those that associate themselves with the post-ideological order style themselves Marxist or at least take credit for Marx's final few phases of development. That would include those at CNN, as well as Francis Fukuyama stating that controversial phrase that the West was Marxist in nature. Marx was a capitalist, who, viewed Capitalism in its current form, people and society, as in a primitive condition, and stated that in the future it may transform into something else entirely.

Dark Liberty (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we should compare anything, and It would be impossible to compare SCientific Concept on Development with liberal democracy since SCD is not interested in anything political, with the exception of reaffirming the party's position since 1949... This ideology, just as the Three Represents, was introduced to try to solve economic, social, ideological problems, but not political ones (since there are no problems there...) ... As said before, Hu's theory and Jiang's theory differ only on one point; on how to serve the people (Hu and Wen wanted to push for economic equality..) ... Answer; Vietnam sided with the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese noticed this, and reduced their aid to Vietnam accordingly. After independence Vietnam function as a satellite of the USSR; the Soviets had military bases there, but also in other countries neighbouring China, such as Mongolia (and later they invaded Afghanistan, having troops there too). Laos was, in the first twenty years, a satellite state of Vietnam, that is, indirectly a satellite state of Vietnam... To the point, the Chinese supported Pol Pot of Cambodia, but after Cambodia under Pol Pot launched several minor attacks on Vietnam, Vietnam invaded Pol Pot and established the People's Republic of Kampuchea, this in turn led to the Chinese invasion of Vietnam (so as to, in Deng's own words, "to teach those Vietnamese a lession they won' forget...). But when the European socialist states collapsed, they've learnt to accept each other (proven by the fact that only delegates from China, other then Laos, are invited Vietnam communist party congresses these days) .. So in short, because of the Sino-Soviet split.

Is their subsidizing working? Well, North Korea still exists (and the economy is growing at 2 percent per annum because of the Chinese), because of China (and Vietnam) Laos is one of the fastest growing economies in the world (of course, its growing from an extremely low level, but still) and because of China all of the advanced technology which exists in Cuba are of Chinese origins. Because of China, Cuba doesn't need to be afraid that Venezuela collapses (everytime China visits Cuba is granted even bigger loans). And as mentioned in China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation, hardly a month goes by without China and Cuba sharing a diplomatic exchange (of course, their relation is so warm mostly because Cuba is far away; its easier, no geo-political interests in Cuba involve China, unlike with their relation with Vietnam...)

Thats not the point of Wikipedia, its a reason why a WikiProject Countering systemic bias| WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] exists... Its a different thing liking Americans and liking the American government; very big difference. There was also a poll taken years ago in which ordinary Chinese voted China the third most democratic country in the world. Says a lot. I once read an article about the Cuban economic reforms, in which a Cuban communist said that the Cuban communists needed to learn  of the Chinese; since when the Cubans talked to foreigners/capitalists we look and talk communist, but when the Chinese do they sound capitalist. If you read about the period 1988-1993 you understand why the Chinese are quiet (its strange that this period has so easily been forgotten), since mass hysteria overtook the Communist Party. And at last, the Chinese are more interested in themselves, they've forgotten socialist internationalism (at least in the sense that they feel the need to export their ideas; the CPC criticizes the Soviet Union for this, claiming it was a remnant of great Russian chauvinist imperialism).

Marx didn't say capitalism was primitive, he said the very opposite, in fact he was in awe of the creative powers of capitalism. He just felt the whole system only helped the few and forced the large majority in to slave-like conditions (of course, in his defence, around 1830-50s, it did look like capitalism would be like that permanently; lucky for use that capitalism has improved exponentially since then!) .. Alas, Marx was a genius, its sad he spent 1 percent of his writing planning the future of human development; from capitalist mode of production to the socialist mode of production from the socialist mode of production to the end of history, pure stateless communism. And ironically, its this 1 percent (and not the other 99 percent), that the modern communist movement focuses most on. Astonishing isn't it?

I don't see how CNN has anything to do with Marxism, socialism or anything leftist at all.. The United States is the only country in which none of the leading political figures have anything connection to socialist theory, moderate or radical. American politics is impossible for anyone outside of the United States since what is left in the United States is considered right everywhere else. Not even the United Kingdom are as rightist as you guys. Of course, I'm simplifying: FDR was "European" enough. Enough said, I may live in Norway but I'm of Scottish decent - another, far more important event, is happening in the UK and I need to pay full attention to it! :P --TIAYN (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Outlook is the current ideology of China. There are no conflicts in compatibility (or a lack of means of contrasting) with Western democracy (except it may be illegal to do so in certain jurisdictions). Not interested in anything political would require Scientific Outlook be an ideology rather than a methodology. You state that Marxism is taught at the Central Party School, but teaching about freedom, liberty, and the Constitution is not indoctrination? Do they teach Scientific Outlook in the Central Party School? Absolutely Not. Scientific Outlook is an American idea, Made in U.S.A. Should we include that information in the article as well?

I don't see how modern day capitalism is any different than that of the 19th and early 20th century.

Subsidizing has no effect on the world. Laos, one of the "fastest growing economies in the world" or N. Korea won't be an international player in the world economy anytime soon; including such information would be much more so a form of "systemic bias" than not including it. Also, China also does not subsidize North Korea, aside from grain exports in the past. On the same note, voting China as the third most democratic country in the world would be a flawed premise when the people don't understand what is democracy, and very certainly not years ago. Finally, China does not have a media presence, outside of China. China Daily in the United States is printed by Taiwan. LOL.

The point you made on Vietnam is one the most rational to-date. I am though, mildly surprised, that Vietnam self-censors any Anti-American sentiment. I wonder because Scotland still remembers its heritage to this very day.

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not the current ideology of the CPC, and of China. The ideology of China and the CPC has remained the same since 1949; Marxism. SOD is a new way to practice Marxism (or, in a new way to break away from the restraints of Marxism to do whatever you like). Scientific Outlook does not come from America. The word Scientific in Scientific Outlook on Development comes from Scientific socialism. The party still calls Marxism scientific, Hu even saying so in his speech to the 18th congress. I'm pretty sure that freedom and liberty are taught at the school; they are educated in democracy. The meaning of those words have differerent meanings in China as they did in the USSR

I might not remember entirely correct, but i learn this at a university course on the Industrial Revolution, that the average height of a man serving in the British military in the 1840s had decreased by nearly 10cm from that of 1790s because of malnutrition - ordinary people simply couldn't afford proper food. This occurred in the most wealthy country on earth at the time; capitalism has changed for the better.

Subsidizing does have an effect on the world. When the Soviet Union stopped subsidizing oil to Afghanistan because, well, the Soviet Union itself been dissolved, the Afghan army couldn't use their planes. When the money stopped, they couldn't pay their troops. What happened? How did the communist government fall? One of the leading generals, Dostum, revolted and the government collapsed. Subsidizing of course has an effect. And no, China exports more then just grain to North Korea; its a reason why several Westerners have seen modern Chinese consumer goods in North Korea.

I don't think the Vietnamese leaders hate America less; Le Kha Phieu was even open in is hostility towards the US in 2001. But, just as modern-day or Gorbachev's Soviet Union, Vietnam understand it needs the United States. Vietnam has tried to improve relations with the United States since Nguyen Van Linh (who led communist troops in South Vietnam), they understood its better to have good relations with the United States then bad. I doubt Nguyen Van Linh, a man who fought Americans for most of his young years, like America in anyway. And the same goes for Do Muoi or Nong Duc Manh. The Vietnamese, as with the Chinese, understood that in a world hostile to them they could either adapt to the new situation, or isolate themselves. Only North Korea opted for isolation. --TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the ideology is Marxism because if you ask any Party member, they will tell you that the ideology is really not Marxist but rather de-facto Marxist. You can't trust anything Hu says and use those as sourcing statements, although he is a friendly and moderate leader. The leaders of China never state what they actually mean, and what Hu means is he wants China to be a technocracy (not that it is, perhaps in 30 years). I'll get back to you in a day or two. Dark Liberty (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its more reliable then saying that China is a technocracy, or that the Chinese wants to create a technocracy, when no one has said such a thing. Recently, the party decided that it would rather have reds, people who believed in the cause, then experts, since they had in theory a bigger chance of becoming corrupt. This is an old debate; red versus experts. They are now actually reverting back to the old Mao line, better to be red then expert. --TIAYN (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the whole world wants China to become a technocracy. but there is no benefit for China in going the hard-line path. China holds little political power in the world sphere. Whatever article we write we should include that its government can be interpreted as some as a technocratic or meritocratic society. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats what I and the other users have said for month; all notable interpretations of SOD should be present in the article. --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Labour Party (UK), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist democracy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Chessboard
Hey I think you'll be interested in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnia12JO7AU

let me know your thoughts, Dark Liberty (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting :) Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of those anti-communists, pro-democracy men who always sound neutral no matter what :) I read his book Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics and its great; he sounds impartial (when he really isn't), a great skill most politicians lack (look at Kissinger..) To the interview; It gave a clearer, more concise view of American foreign policy (or better, an alternative view of American foreign policy from a man who knows a lot about it). When said that I didn't learn much knew, and he didn't seem to give any new insight on, for instance, America's Pivot to Asia, he had interesting insight on Iran, DPRK and China and I learnt more about the aircraft carrier (they were planning to turn into a casino?!). I don't think the analogy Britain and Imperial Germany in 1914 is very good, nor US-Soviet relations, I just think these states don't like each other but are smart enough to understand that they need each other. The Chinese been saying since the early 1990s that one of the failures of the USSR was its isolation from the rest of the world in the economic field, I doubt the Chinese will want to end up in a similar position. Alas, I also feel some of it is outdated; while its true that Russia is more scared of China then China of Russia, they have improved their relationships considerable recently since Xi Jinping came to power. At last, I'm afraid the CPC's reaction to the 2014 Hong Kong protests will push China closer to Russia; they are going to crush it somehow (the question is how they will do it), and as democracies, the West with the United States on the forefront will condemn it (its not like China is Turkmenistan). One of the last questions was what major event would influence US-Chinese relations in this decade; I think that may be the Hong Kong protests, and how the CPC reacts to it. The CPC knows the world is watching. As Brzezinski noted several times, the leadership in China consists of intelligent people (the CPC is not going to do the same mistake as the Soviets did; appointing a fools like Leonid Brezhnev and Konstantin Chernenko to lead them, and then being forced to wait for their deaths to get the machine running again). --TIAYN (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On the context of the Carrier, he stated that it is important not to pre-judge another country's intent; just as it would be silly to think that a nation-states engaged in war should act peacefully towards one another, just because some time in the future they will be Allies. Many Conservatives will jump to the conclusion to pre-empt American military power, but would not be the way, according to Dr. Brzezinski. However as you will find, his ideas have less influence these days.

It's not so much the CCP's reaction but rather American's actions during the events to the that may draw China towards Russia. Today we live in a modernized world where it is no longer easy to hide information because of relative information symmetry (although that may change in the future). That applies to both China and America.

It's just a matter of time before the protestors start shooting people to provoke the police. The problem with China is their absolute lack of understanding of English, and that's why they can't participate democratically or become democratic; they actually banned English as a subject in the college entrance exam. Don't listen to people when they say most students study abroad and learn English, their level is actually, very, very low.

Their third and fourth generation leaders (after Xi) should reverse this policy and make English the primary language in China, if they are as intelligent as you say, and wish to survive in the geopolitical sphere. that would distance China away from Russia, and create an unstable but nonetheless, an equilibrium.

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People in the Western world have for a long time believed that world leaders who do not believe in liberal democracies are either corrupt or unintelligent. There is also a second view, that people "naturally" support liberal democracy. This is bull. This is just as far-fetched when the USSR claimed the world would turn communist because communism was the future for some strange reason. I'd probably think the opposite, that China's chance of survival increases with Russia on their side - of course, they should be kept at a distance. For instance, while one oil-deal has been agreed on between the two this year, another larger project, creating a new oil line to China was not accepted. To make it clear, I wish that China take the democratic road, there is no reason it would collapse if it remain on this one. Considering the fact that China may become the preeminent economic superpower, I don't think the CPC themselves have stopped believing in their goals.. That Gorbachev came in the USSR is both strange and understandable; after 10-15 years of nothing happening, a man finally lost his belief in the Stalinist-interpretation of socialism, and then became a vocal anti-Stalinist.
 * I feel pretty confident that the CPC feels pretty confident that one-party rule is not a bad idea in theory. And no, I don't believe the CPC is just an organization of old-men who want power only for the sake of power. If that was the case, Deng wouldn't have introduced reforms, and would have just introduced North Korean system. The fact that the CPC's policies are so dynamic just proves that they are interested in power not for the sake of power, but they believe in what they do is justified. As they say, "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China"
 * As for American reactions/policy moving China closer to Russia, I doubt thats 100 percent correct. Putin's an authoritarian, and China is an authoritarian state - they fit together better then the US and China. The fact that they have something in common just proves that. While they will always try to establish good relations with democratic parties and state, their is a limit to how close they are since China can't be treated like Saudi Arabia (people actually care and know what happens in China...) Its not like Vietnam in which Americans, or Westerners in general, have only a faint idea of whats been going on since the fall of Saigon.
 * I'm very sure that the protesters won't begin to shoot at the police; they know what happened in 1989. However, they staying on the streets already poses a problem for the CPC so.
 * I'll be honest, I doubt there will be a new cold war (and if it starts, not anytime soon). Since the CPC aren't full of ideological fanatics as in the case of their Soviet counterpart, I believe they'll try and stay low (and sometime in the future, they will probably try to persuade other countries to implement their system of governance). Buts that 40, 50 years ahead, so I for one feel pretty safe. --TIAYN (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the Communist Party being responsible for a new China, aside from the long-term consequences of the Cultural Revolution (which in turn was a product of the Sino-Soviet split), which probably would pit China at a competitive advantage, considering how stagnant China's traditional culture was hostile towards change, and if so would make Mao one of the most brilliant statesman, according to Kissinger, that megalomaniac, but I do know that without their political and military action against the Japanese, China would've been a lost cause. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If China persuades others to take a more authoritarian model, shorter, than in 20 - 30 years as you would say, or if America persuades others to take a more democratic model, the endgame will be the same. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear enough, I don't think the CPC will create a "New China", but I'm pretty sure the CPC themselves believe that. Sorry, wasn't clear enough. It would be harder for the US to do the same, since they've spent nearly 20 years on trying to implement, but failing to create democracies in the Muslim World. When was the last time that China tried to implement their form of government on another country? Thats a long time ago, and a poor African would not remember it - which is a plus, in contrast a poor African can, and does, remember American failures). 30 of only focusing on the economy might actually help China. --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, China cannot continue to grow the economy, it does nothing for America, as we already have all the goods and services we need (Given that you have enough money). they probably have to develop on their human rights department in accordance to Scientific Outlook, and develop their soft power, in which they have Zero - that would be a win-win for both countries, and probably a win-win for Europe as well. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember that Washington and the founding fathers were against the 2+ party system which we currently have. According to later think-tank suggestions, a permanent Republican or even Democrat majority would be the most logical conclusion, as stated in the New American Goals for the 21st Century. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just curious, how do you think the Korean War would've turned out had Stalin been in power? I value your input, thanks Dark Liberty (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The theory that you need to respect human rights and give a rising middle class democratic rights is a theory, and only that. In fact practice seems to disprove the basics of that theory; the middle class in Egypt supported Sisi and the Muslim Brotherhood, the middle class in Syria supports the Assad regime. In the first democratic election in the Russia (then part of the USSR), the Communist Party managed to get 32 percent of the votes (if all the candidates are combined). If regimes like the USSR and Syria, which has a much worse resume then China manage to get support from a sizeable minority, I'm pretty sure the CPC can field a much stronger following..This is only logical.
 * It doesn't need to do several things for America, thats not how capitalism works, the only thing the CPC needs to do is to do several things for international capital. Its still early, their soft power image will be strengthened; sooner or later people will have to learn Chinese, and then they may even begin to watch Chinese films and TV shows. Darn, several Soviet films/TV shows were popular in mainland Europe. As for the economy, they can certainly surprise us; the major problem is that the state-owned enterprises in general haven't been reformed since the 1990s. Interestingly, some of the SOEs still run as they did under Mao; the old planning system still exists in certain parts of China. There are other reforms too, but I think they will be impossible to introduce; such as removing the law which says that foreign companies can only own 49 percent of a Chinese company, or a law which removes the clause that foreign investment without government involvement is limited in most of China. But these are the socialists "safeguards" added by Deng, and instead of waging wars against the party's own value system, the CPC will continue (as Xi has done) to establish special economic zones.
 * As for the Korean War, I don't get you're question. He died in March 1953, and the Korean War ended four months later in 1953; I don't think there would be any difference. Considering that the Korean War started because the USSR boycotted a meeting of the Security Council, which then gave the "capitalist states" in the council a chance to punish Kim Il-sung for the North Korean invasion of South Korea. I don't think Stalin was interested in the short term to expand the "revolution" to South Korea. If he had followed the advice of his advisors, Stalin would have sent a representative to the Security Council meeting, and the war would never have happened in the first place... Of course, there might be a small possibility that Stalin would have removed and replaced Kim Il-sung with someone else after the war, a policy he pursued in the Eastern Bloc when the "leaders" did not act to his liking. --TIAYN (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Communist Party of China
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Communist Party of China you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Communist Party of China
The article Communist Party of China you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Communist Party of China for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TIAYN, that review was of such low quality that you would be well justified in asking for a reassessment. See my comments at the Teahouse. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey TIAYN, I'm sorry that I seemed to be off my rocker yesterday and the day before. If you'd like to renominate for a second GA review on the Communist Party, I'll give a much more in depth review that will take much longer. If you'd like to seek a reassesment, that works too. I'm so sorry that I made such a big mistake :( Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Leader
I get that the Great Leader is a concept and position, but also a specific person - surely a dead guy does not supervise the department. Can this be explained more clearly? Thanks Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand, the theory of a Great Leader was conceived in the 1960s and 1970s along with the creation of Monolithic Ideological System (see Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System).. The Great Leader is a leader in his own right, who gives legitimacy to both the Korean revolution and the party, the two being worthless without a Great Leader to guide them (as the theory goes). The Great Leader is "independent" from the party, the government and the people, and all of these are responsible (and solely responsible) to the Great Leader. When Kim Il-sung died, Kim Jong-il succeeded him as Great Leader, and when Kim Jong-il died, Kim Jong-un succeeded him as Great Leader. This is not the office of a dead guy. Notice how official announcement still say "The party decides under the leadership/guidance of the Great Leader that...." The Great Leader is an ideological theory which explains the one-man dominance over North Korea (or at least, the one-man dominance showed to the public). --TIAYN (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Pilot (Twin Peaks).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pilot (Twin Peaks).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SCMP Post
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1611328/eight-questions-set-forth-unify-communist-party

Interesting, China has many ideologies, unified by Marxism, at the Central Party. On the other hand, it has difficulty establishing its legitimacy culturally, politically, and economically. Maybe we will see Scientific Outlook being marketed the way I have presented it at the turn of the next century or perhaps by mid-century. Thanks for the link. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the SOD is not an ideology, its officially just a continuation of the policy of adapting Marxism to Chinese conditions. At the next congress, I'm pretty sure, Xi will probably introduce an ideology going alongside the China Dream. --TIAYN (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

CCP 1st National Party Congress
Is there some reason why a red (i.e., blank) Wikilink is better than one that ties the comment to a page with actual content about the subject? DOR (HK) (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a bigger chance a user comes over the article and thinks "maybe I should create that article".. Plus, I'm planning to create articles on most of the National Congresses. I created several articles on the national congresses of the Communist Party of Vietnam, so I'm planning to do the same for the CPC. --TIAYN (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, in the meantime we have a red link? I don't think that adds anything. Feel free to create the article, and then, after there is something to link to, revise this link. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the difference here is clear; I don't mind there being a red link, you seem to. Not much we can do it with that, is it? :p --TIAYN (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are engaged in an edit war on List of communist parties with national parliamentary representation, and have violated Wikipedia's three-reversion rule (at the time of this writing, I count ten reversions by you). Please take the matter to the talk page to avoid being blocked. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Communist Party of China
The article Communist Party of China you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Communist Party of China for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Communist Party of China
The article Communist Party of China you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Communist Party of China for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629636829 your edit] to List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [China]], Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam) while the fifth (North Korea) espouses Juche, and the ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea (its ruling party) being [[Juche#Kimilsungism–

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631601582 your edit] to Aleksandr Smirnov may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * * Alexander Smirnov
 * *Alexander Smirnov (politician) (1877–1937), Soviet [politician]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631935456 your edit] to 6th Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * * Meeting of the Central Committee 24 October 1917

Orphaned non-free image File:Ivan Rukavina.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ivan Rukavina.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Averky Aristov
 * added a link pointing to Krasny Yar


 * Nikolai Ignatov
 * added a link pointing to Mikhail Tarasov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Smilga
Hello,

in your articles on the Soviet Party leadership you named one of the leaders Ivan Smilga. See for example the 9th Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)-article. There is no article of him yet. But shouldn't Ivan be actually Ivar Smilga? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Leonid Serebryakov
 * added a link pointing to Samara


 * Lev Mekhlis
 * added a link pointing to Vasily Popov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 27th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Zozs has reverted the changes you made and I supported on the Marxism-Leninism article intro
Zozs claims that no consensus exists to have put the material to what you changed it to, and has restored the intro to say that it was a Stalinist propaganda term.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The tone that both you and Zozs are taking towards each other on the talk page of the Marxism-Leninism article, is not constructive. Please desist from further ad hominem arguments, and focus on the topic at hand. If either of you are having difficulty doing so, a dispute resolution panel could review what has happened and make suggestions on how to achieve a constructive dialogue.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions and Contact
May I ask you some questions privately? I would really appreciate it if we can talk through e-mail or something similar. I would be grateful if I can speak to you. Thanks! 128.187.97.27 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * here, a link (it will be sent first to WP, and then to my mail (i don't want to make my email public so.... --TIAYN (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 12th Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Nikolay Komarov


 * 13th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Nikolay Komarov


 * 14th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Nikolay Komarov


 * 15th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Nikolay Komarov


 * 27th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added a link pointing to Alexander Yakovlev


 * Alexander Melnikov (politician)
 * added a link pointing to Orekhovo


 * Nikolay Kruchina
 * added a link pointing to Nikolay Morozov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 18th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added links pointing to Nikolay Kuznetsov, Dmitry Pavlov, Sergei Ignatiev and Sergey Kruglov


 * 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added links pointing to Nikolay Kuznetsov, Dmitry Pavlov, Sergei Kruglov and Ivan Yakovlev


 * 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added links pointing to Dmitry Pavlov, Aleksandr Petukhov, Ivan Yakovlev and Alexander Vasilevsky


 * 23rd Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added links pointing to Alexander Volkov, Nikolai Romanov and Mikhail Yefremov


 * 17th Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Mikhail Mikhailov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!
Hey! Nice to see that you have to work with on CPC related topics after your previous frustrations. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was certainly nice to find someone with like-minded interests. There are a lot of articles that can be improved, for example the article on the Politburo Standing Committee. A lot of very powerful party and state organs do not even have articles. I consider this to be low-hanging fruit, but currently there's enough going with current events to keep me busy. Phil, if you're interested in translating from Chinese, a lot of these topics have great coverage on the Chinese Wikipedia or on Baidu Baike. Your contributions would certainly be welcome. Same goes for TIAYN. :) Colipon+ (Talk) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the worst article currently is Maoism, which tries to explain Mao Zedong Thought (the CPC's ideology), Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Maoism (Third Worldism) in the same article. Maoism never existed in China, or the CPC, but MZT did. I'm currently working on the CPSU's CC and have exams in real-life, so I don't have much time to spar.. I don't know about you, but I think the infoboxes of the Chinese leaders need to be reorganized; instead of having, as in the Hu Jintao article, 1st General Secretary, 2nd, CPC Central Military Commission, 3rd President, 4th PRC Central Military Commission, 5th First Secretary, 6th Vice President and 7th First Secretary youth League, it should be 1st General, CPC Central Military Commission (it has power because of its connection with the CPC), 3rd President, 4th Vice President, 5th Politburo Standing Committee membership, 6th Politburo membership, 7th Secretariat membership and (maybe) 8th full CC membership ... Membership in the PSC, PB and the Secretariat is arguably more important then the vice presidency and youth league first secretary. I'd argue that we should not include Secretariat First Secretary since its an informal post which doesn't exist on paper. I'm pretty much arguing we should no the same to the CPC politicans article as I did to the Nikita Khrushchev article. It looks a bit clumsy, but remember, the CPC have term limits so, at least for the post-1980s CC generation, it would look much better. So what do you think, should I pursue such a mass edit? --TIAYN (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am undecided on this issue - I really think Chinese and other Communist country politicians really ought to have different infoboxes altogether - for example the type seen at the Chinese Wikipedia, where it just lists their myriad of titles below the 'personal information' section. Having such lengthy infoboxes, as is the case of Hu Jintao, imo defeats the purpose of having an infobox - meant to be a concise 'fact finder' for the subject. Additionally, I am reluctant to add Politburo and PSC membership into the infobox... and am fully opposed to adding CC membership or worse yet National People's Congress "delegate" in the infobox. As for CMC of the PRC and CPC, that has always been so-called "two name plates for the same organ", so it is really totally unecessary to break that out to two separate offices. You can take a look at what I did at Xi Jinping. Also for Xi, I added his various ad-hoc steering committee chairmanships into the Gen-Sec part of the infobox as "concurrent posts", but maybe you can give me a better idea... What might be a good compromise is to have the most important offices in the top half of of the infobox and relegate less important titles, informal titles, and committee membership to only a "title-date" format somewhere below. So using Hu as an example, perhaps have Gen-Sec, President, CMC Chair, VP, and CYL Sec in the 'office' section of the infobox, and relegate everything else to the 'personal information' section below, such as CC, Politburo, PSC, NPC delegate, Secretary of Tibet, First Secretary, CPPCC etc. What say you? Colipon+ (Talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

While you're right that the CPC is not comparable to the "standard" Eastern Bloc countries, the major difference in the majority of cases is that collective-institutions have more bargaining power in the CPC then in their Eastern European counterparts. I can support not included CC membership (or at least, CC membership for the leading figures) - showing CC membership for a Mayor would actually prove a point. But I would argue that, at least, the PSC membership should me added (and its currently mentioned in many of the infoboxes of the PSC members). I don't know what you mean with the 'personal information' section.... While the concurrent posts thingy is a good idea, it doesn't look very nice. I'm in favour of having these four, and removing the FS Secretariat and the VP (isn't this post largely symbolic? Given to retirees like Li Yuanchao and to planned successors such as Xi or Hu?) Its of symbolic importance, but it doesn't actually do much - theirs seats in the PSC are way more important. I'd organize according to the date they've got the office, with the exception of PSC membership. The new innovations in my version is the footnotes section which reads "For a list of former offices held (or other offices he currently holds), see Offices held by Hu Jintao" and creating the field; "One organ, two plates " (its usually translated into English as "One organ, two signboards" but that takes even more space) - we need an article on this phenomena. While the version you've created at Xi Jinping works (at the CMC part) when he's not left office, when he's left office the version looks terrible. The infobox is clearly not made for such reconceptualization of its functions. While not many would visit the Offices held by Hu Jintao article, its better then to create a list at the end of the article (or to write a section) which lists all the offices Hu held (or any other politician for that matter). If such an article is created, I'd favour removing CYL First Secretary and the Vice President fields. Then we would have 4-5 fields; President, GS, CMC (first state cause he acquired it later, and then party), and PSC membership. I'd also favour adding a 5-6 column, for ordinary Politburo membership - but you can decide that. But this arguments premise falls without the creation of a separate article of offices held; would you support such an idea? --TIAYN (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your suggesstions! I have a somewhat differing perspective, but I think we can work together on this. The infobox format is not well suited for Communist country politicians - they usually hold a plethora of titles, not all of them powerful, but almost always relevant. Take "President" for example, I think while the President and VP are largely symbolic positions, they are very much regarded as important in terms of the status accorded to it in foreign affairs, therefore I am not as reluctant to use "president" in the article body where appropriate when other editors may be totally averse to this. Please take a look at the template below (working off of what you had suggested) to see the changes I've made. I don't think incorporating "One organ two signboards" in the infobox is the best aesthetic choice - personally I still feel the infobox treatment at Xi Jinping is the best way to go. I don't see his leaving office as a problem as it is quite easy to manually format that portion of the infobox to say "In office" for one office and "assumed office" for the other position; at least it seems a bit more aesthetically pleasing than squishing "one organ two signboards" into the infobox. As for Hu, he has held many, many significant positions which a reader may look for in the infobox. These include PB, CC, PSC memberships, first secretary of secretariat, as well as CYL first secretary, party chief of Tibet, etc. My suggestion is to group all of these offices in the 'footnotes' or other such similar section, as is currently the preferred format on Chinese Wikipedia. This way we can migrate all the ad-hoc committee memberships to this section as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can support this; those two, and I would argue for PSC membership.. As you know, membership in the PSC is similar to that of GS - just as being GS is no joke, the same could be said of PSC membership... BUt I can support you're current proposition, but some changes; as seen under (and in the infobox). Thse changes are small; instead of "Member of ...", just "Member, 15th Central Committee"... Instead of Secretary of, just Secretary, Tibet Autonomous Regional Committee. But most importantly, instead of First Secretary of the Central Secretariat, a post which doesn't exist, I wrote "Top-ranked member, 14th, 15th, Secretariat". But as you see below (even if you remove the numbers), the infobox will become wieldy, but still smaller then the current one. SAdly, I think the options is either this one, the "Offices and distinctions" boxes at the bottom of the articles or a List of offices held by Hu Jintao (which sounds stupid I know). It doesn't make as much sense for Hu, but for Xi Jinping it does. He has held over 20 offices (and looking at the pace in which he's obtaining new titles, it may even increase in the future...) .. I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to this problem, so I'll leave it to you to decide. Anyhow, I'm planning to fix CCDI article, so you'll probably see me around on CPC articles again soon. --TIAYN (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Membership, central institutions:
 * 1992–2002: 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th Politburo Standing Committee
 * 1992–2002: Top-ranked, 14th, 15th, Secretariat
 * 1988–2012: 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th Politburo
 * 1987–2012: 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th Central Committee
 * 1988–2003: 7th, 8th, 9th National People's Congress


 * Other offices held:
 * 1998–2003: Vice President of the PRC
 * 1993–2002: President, Central Party School
 * 1988–1992: Secretary, Tibet Regional Committee
 * 1985–1988: Secretary, Guizhou Regional Committee
 * 1983–1985: First Secretary, Communist Youth League
 * 1983–1985: President, All-China Youth Federation

I like where this is all going, thanks for your hard work. A few comments. Do you think "member" is really necessary? Maybe just say "1992 - 2002 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th Politburo Standing Committee", since you already mention "Membership" in the section title. Also if there is a way to format the 'headers' such as "Offices Held" in a way that is roughly similar to the format of "Personal Details" above that would be nice. In addition I agree it is a good idea to create articles called 'List of offices held by Hu Jintao' and particularly Xi Jinping. Even 'lesser' leaders like Li Keqiang will probably benefit from having a page like that, as they all hold a plethora of offices prior to taking national leadership positions (by contrast a U.S. president may have been a Governor or a Senator prior to the Presidency but likely those are the only two notable offices he has held). Also why not include Central Military Chairman as a separate office along with President and GenSec? Those are the three most important offices for sure. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jupp, by adding template.. Good idea about removing Member, more space. I've added the CMC to the test box. In general as long as the person is notable enough I see no reason to not do it. But in general, only important politicians has held so many posts, right? I added "Other" to the field... I removed the number 6th (when counting heads of state) in the infobox. The Chinese don't do as the Americans do they? I number of presidents is for some reason very important, with even the president usually state their official number in their oath, but the same can't be said of the Chinese right? They number the CC, PB, PBC, NPC, and probably RC too, but I've never heard the Chinese media refer to Xi as the 7th president, or Hu as the 6th. Similar to GS - the media doesn't have an official number for how many GS there have been. I would also argue, from an aesthetic point of view, it looks better without the 6th - everything is in one column.
 * Yes, check the latest version I put at User:Colipon/Project_571 (placeholder page). I added some 'headers' like the way I envisioned, I think it looks better now, if you don't like the colouring let me know. Also you are right, the "order" seems to be a mostly American convention, as is putting "religion" in the infobox. Numbering of Gen-Secs would be confusing anyhow as it is unclear whether to include people like Deng Xiaoping as having once held that title, or whether "Chairman" and "Gen Sec" are the same thing. And yes, state media makes a point to specify the 'order' of the institutions people belong to, such as "member of the 17th Central Committee". In my version I also consolidated the Central Military Commission offices - I hope you don't feel too strongly about this. Additionally I modified "Secretary, Tibet Regional Committee" to "Party Committee Secretary, Tibet Autonomous region" as I think that allows for easier consistency with the provinces and municipalities (which would otherwise say "Provincial Committee" or "Municipal Committee"). Colipon+ (Talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I understand were you're going with the CMC stuff. My head just isn't capable in the long run to think unconventionally when it comes to the infobox :p ... Anyhow, the difference between Secretary, Tibet Regional Committee and Party Committee Secretary, Tibet Autonomous region are minimal. I went ahead and lower-capped the headings; the personal details section is spelled "Personal details" so better to be consistent... I like the colour; you notice it better. But some may like colour consistency. Great work, this unconventional infobox can actually serve and should be used in all communist and non-communist dictatorship politician articles in general. --TIAYN (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 25th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added links pointing to Vasily Petrov and Timofey Guzhenko


 * 24th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added a link pointing to Mikhail Zakharov


 * 26th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * added a link pointing to Timofey Guzhenko

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 17th Central Auditing Commission of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Aleksei Kiselyov


 * 5th Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks)
 * added a link pointing to Aleksei Kiselyov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)