Template talk:Communism sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Leaders[edit]

If Stalin is qualified a "leader of communism" here then why are Pinochet or Hitler not considered a leader in the capitalism sidebar from their reactionary endeavors to stop workers' revolution, protect private property and preserve capitalism? Oh, of course, they weren't "establishing" capitalism, they were only "preserving" it. Yeah, all excuses to damage communism. I may as well argue that Stalin wasn't working to establish communism, a view which would actually be held by plenty of communists. I think the "Leaders" section in this sidebar should either be removed or replaced for a section which only mentions ideological leaders (e.g. Marx). Zozs (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

i think they should be in that sidebar. i agree with your views but general opinion and these leaders' statements/works matter. kazekagetr 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol necessary?[edit]

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) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with having an image in the template. One can argue over which variant of symbols best represent communism as a global topic, but compared to the overall state of the template I'd say the image is the least of its problems. The current image represents well the modern communist movement in its formative stage (1920s and 1930s), and is thus not an entirely bad choice although the use of this variant of red star+hammer and sickle (sometimes referred to as 'Soviet star' or 'Bolshevik star') certainly declined over past decades. --Soman (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is pretty much normative to put relevant symbols into sidebar templates for socio-political topics and I'm not seeing a reason for making an exception here. Yes, the hammer and sickle is controversial, and for some deeply offensive. But we don't censor. I'd also note that the Swastika is on the sidebar for Nazism. I'm not seeing an issue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think this is unnecessary folklore, in fact, and we really neither need that nor should endorse ideological fixation with symbols by adding those merely as decoration for templates (!).--Siebi (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not folklore. It's history. Symbols are an often important and indeed WP:NOTABLE part of history. This sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And for the record I think the hammer and sickle occupies the exact same spot on the moral axis as the Swastika. But again, we don't censor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Of course, you are quite right when you say "Symbols are an often important and indeed WP:NOTABLE part of history". However, I would say that symbols do not make very much sense when used in this way as a mere illustration of a template. It might be a nice eyecatcher, but there is not very much informative content or added value to it – IMHO very much unlike here, for instance, where you get a detailed description of what you see… But as applied here, it rather promotes what I already mentioned above: a certain symbolic fixation as one of the main features of most extremist movements and ideologies.--Siebi (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. However if you want to pursue that line then logically it needs to be applied throughout the project and we need to remove controversial symbols on all templates dealing with ideological extremism. And that is a discussion that needs to be had elsewhere. I would suggest WP:VPR. I don't think such a proposal is likely to be well received, but that is really where it belongs if you want to go down this particular road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think I'll have the time and ressources to do so, but at least I would have been interested in what respect you disagree and for what exact reason...--Siebi (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the principle symbols of political ideologies, including extremist ones, are an important aspect that needs to be covered. Placing them in appropriate subject sidebar templates is not purely decorative as these symbols were often an integral component of the movements. Further I think that removing them, especially for essentially IDONTLIKEIT reasons, breaches WP:NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I can put up with your POV. What I strongly object to, though, is your reference to IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED, since I think I did give comprehensible factual arguments about why a template use of extremist symbols appears questionable to me that go far beyond a stance based on my personal taste.--Siebi (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
We are both looking at the same arguments and seeing different things. That suggests that we may have reached the point where it is best to just acknowledge that we don't agree and move on. If you do decide to take this to WP:VPR (or maybe WP:VPI) do kindly ping me. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I've changed my mind – here we go...--Siebi (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: The Village Pump discussion has concluded with overwhelming consensus. The proposal for "banning the uncommented use of extremist symbols" has been rejected. Wikipedia strives for radical detached impartiality. Controversial subjects should be treated no differently from mundane subjects. Subjects which are notably abhorrent should should be treated no differently than subjects which are notably beloved. Any imagery in this template should not be singled out for different treatment than is commonly applied to other templates. Images are routinely used in templates to provide at-a-glance identification. Pages are commonly saturated with thousands of words. Images can aid the reader in swiftly finding content they are seeking, and more significantly they can aid the reader in swiftly disregarding a block of content they are not interested in. Alsee (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle[edit]

@Karl.i.biased: Hammer and sickle is a symbol of class struggle, but communism is a classless society. Therefore using of hammer and sickle as a symbol of communism is incorrect. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes a word can have multiple meanings. Communism is primarily a modern political movement originating with the work of Marx and Engels. --Soman (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Almost every communist movement or party in recent history has used some variation of the hammer and sickle on flags, banners, etc.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Communism isn't equal to Leninism. I think we shouldn't repeat this mistake here, even if it's common.
Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Variants section" is misleading[edit]

The Variants section is useful however we are putting variants of variants in that section. For instance as of now there is a link to Marxism since it is a variant but also a link to Marxism-Leninism, a variant of Marxism. That link belongs specifically to the Marxism template. I'm removing all links that are variants of an already stated variant. Mangokeylime (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Red star with hammer and sickle[edit]

@Pedro8790: 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)
@C.J. Griffin: 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)
@Гармонический Мир: 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.
Pedro8790, 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)
@Гармонический Мир: 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)
Pedro8790, 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)
Pedro8790, 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)
@Pedro8790: @C.J. Griffin: 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
@Thespoondragon: 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)
@Somedifferentstuff: 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)
Pedro8790, 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)
Гармонический Мир, 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)
Гармонический Мир Somedifferentstuff 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)
Thespoondragon, 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, Pedro8790, 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)