| Revision as of 22:49, 16 March 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →deletion proposal← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:04, 31 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,011,970 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=stub|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Socialism}} |
|
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Old peer review|Criticisms of communism|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This should be a disambiguation page == |
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
| ⚫ |
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For many years, this page was a ''de facto'' disambiguation page. It had prominent links to the articles ] and ], and a brief three-paragraph explanation of the difference between them. to that stable form of this page (notice that this particular linked version remained unchanged from May 2016 to April 2017). Then, a series of edits in April 2017 expanded this page by copying the introductions of the two linked pages. At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I am seeing editors treating this page as a short article in need of expansion, and adding new information ''directly here'' instead of adding it to one of the two articles that are linked and summarized here. Thus, we seem to be heading in the direction of a content fork, with the same information listed twice, both here and in one of the two linked articles. |
|
==Mention of "gray area"== |
|
|
It seems to me highly significant that it at least be noted that many criticisms of Marxist theory tie into criticisms of the practical applications. Most who oppose historical Communism do so on the grounds that it is ALWAYS an ineffective system. It seems almost biased to make no mention of what is between between the two, as it implies that historical Communism is not reflective of some desired form of Communism. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That got me thinking. The scope of this article overlaps completely with ] and ]. It doesn't make any sense to have an article that exists solely as a summary of two other pages. It should be used for disambiguation instead. Otherwise it will inevitably become a content fork, simply repeating information from those two other articles. Thus, I propose to turn this article into an official disambiguation page, as it should have been for all those years when it served a disambiguation purpose ''de facto''. I want to leave some time for discussion first, however, and then I intend to go ahead and take care of this in about a week. |
|
==Dab?== |
|
|
Is this a dab page or an article? I'm really not sure I see the value of this article as it currently exists. It should either be expanded (it could be potentially useful for those criticisms of "communism" which are too vague to classify as either specifically about Marxism or about Communist party rule), turned into a true dab page, or deleted/merged. -] (]) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only objection I can see to making this article a disambiguation page is the argument that criticisms of communist party rule and criticisms of Marxism are often related and should be on the same page. But that is not an argument for having ''three'' articles, that is an argument for having ''one'' article, by moving all the content from the two other pages here and then making those pages redirects. I could see the merits of such an argument, except that the two articles in question are already very long. Combining them into one would make the resulting article far too long by Misplaced Pages standards, and it would be recommended that we split it in two. Actually, I assume that's how we got two separate articles in the first place - a split was probably necessary because the combined article was too long. |
|
==Requested move== |
|
|
] → ] — Criticims should be Criticism . ] (]) 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if we're not going to combine them into one, because the result would be too long, then the other logical choice is to leave the two other articles as they are and make this a disambiguation page. -- ] (]) 05:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' — IAW ]<br/>— ] (]) 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{done}} By the way, move requests due to typos don't need to undergo the whole discussion process. ]''']''' 10:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:For now, I have temporarily restored the long-standing version of the page (the quasi-disambiguation version), because I intend to wait for a number of days before going ahead with the change to a proper disambig page, as I mentioned. -- ] (]) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
) |
|
|
== Economic Criticisms == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Ok, seeing no comments, I went ahead and made this a proper disambiguation page. As I mentioned, all the content that was here a week ago was copied word for word from the introductions of the two linked articles (] and ]), except for a very short bit of text that explained the difference between the two types of criticism. Therefore I do not believe that anything was lost by removing that text in order to make the page conform with the rules of disambiguation. -- ] (]) 07:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
What about reference to economic theories that discuss why it is believed that Communism doesn't work. Reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons." What about the severe environmental degradation that occurs with communist systems. If you have ever been to N. Korea (I have) you would understand what I mean by the environmental destruction that communism causes. Many economists believe that communism has a more severe impact on the environment than capitalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The problem is you're not following the norms of Misplaced Pages, in particular ''it's not a disambiguation page''. A disambiguation page would link to multiple things that are completely distinct. There's a huge amount of overlap between marxism and communist states. You're short-circuiting the process. It also misses the point that there may be other criticisms of non marxist froms of communism. etc. etc.] (]) 22:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
The main body of criticisms of communism come from economists. So why not at least include some reference to it here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::But, again, that's not really an argument for having '''three''' separate pages (one for Marxism, one for Communist states, and one for communism-in-general). If we have three pages like that, the communism-in-general page is just going to be a content fork of the other two. It is true that there's a lot of overlap between Marxism and Communist states. So, right now, criticism that applies to both Marxism and to Communist states might be listed twice - in both of those articles. This situation isn't improved if we also list it a ''third'' time. |
|
A separate section on criticisms of the system of communism itself. (Not just the criticisms of communist regimes). Criticisms of communist regimes, are not criticisms of communism. As a result, I feel that the title of this article doesn't match the subject matter. The title should be "Criticisms of Communist Regimes." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::The logical conclusion of your argument isn't that we need three separate pages, but rather that we should combine the criticism of Marxism and the criticism of communist states into one single article. And if you want to do that, I would not oppose it, although I would not support it either. I'm mostly neutral towards that idea. I just think the resulting article would be too long, and I assume the whole reason we have those two separate articles now is because a long article was split in two at some point in the past. Also, it would be a much bigger change to try to combine those two articles into one, rather than just making this article an official disambiguation page (considering that it served as a ''de facto'' disambiguation page for such a long time). |
|
== Minor edit == |
|
|
I've removed the section about Leninism under the Criticism of Marxism section as the activity on the talk page and the contents of the article seem to suggest that the focus is on Orthodox Marxism rather than its intellectual descendants. ] (]) 21:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::As for the purpose of a disambiguation page, there are others on wikipedia that list related topics, rather than completely distinct topics. Take, for example, the disambiguation page ]. There is literal, physical overlap between the things listed on that page (some of the different historical and present entities with the name "Macedonia" overlap the same territory, and some of them are part of the history of others). Likewise with the disambiguation page ]. It is true that ''Georgia (country)'' and ''Georgia (U.S. state)'' are completely distinct, but the page also lists a number of historical states that represent stages in the history of one of the present-day entities - for example the Kingdom of Georgia is not distinct from the history of Georgia (country). |
|
== Criticisms that Connect Theory and Practice == |
|
|
I've removed this section because it is rudundant with what is contained in the criticisms of Marxism section and because it is not necessarily applicable to all forms of communist thought; particular along the lines of voluntary activity and dictatorial leadership which many currents, like Anarcho-Commumism, are specifically designed to deal with. ] (]) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Or another, even better example: ]. Everything listed on this disambiguation page is very closely related and has a tremendous amount of overlap. |
|
== Content redundant == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::So, a disambiguation page doesn't have to list things that are completely unrelated. Often they list things that have a lot of overlap, but still exist as separate articles for various reasons. -- ] (]) 22:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
The content of this article is covered in its entirety in the article ] there is no need to have 2 articles that say the same content. this is called a content fork and it undermines the ideal of Nuetral point of view. I will remove all the content in this article that is represented in the article ] if you have a reason for wanting the information to be listed twice and fork the content. feel free to post here.] (]) 23:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
== deletion proposal == |
|
|
I read the deletion policy but I'm not sure I did the nomination correctly, if I made a mistake anyone can fix it I don't mind and apologize for the mistake ( this is my first deletion nomination so I'm new to this ) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think when the "redirect article" and the "article" are so different it makes sense to delete the redirect. ] (]) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
:::::No, and the relevant policy is ].] (]) 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::But "criticism of communism" is not a broad concept. The broad concept you are thinking about is ], which has its own separate article. "Criticism of communism", on the other hand, is a type of list - specifically, a list of arguments. These arguments may be listed on one page, or on several pages. Right now they are listed on two pages. |
|
*Redirects of this kind are rarely deleted. Misplaced Pages has clear guidelines on when to delete redirects and this isn't one of those occasions. ] (]) 12:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I understand that, however, that being said, if we can make a better end user experience for the people why wouldn't we? What do you think the end user experience is for someone who goes out googling for ONLY criticism of communism. and gets a NPOV article about comunism? I think that they won't be blown away. what do you think? ] (]) 19:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
I have contested the prod and removed it. You can take it to AfD if you wish. ] (]) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Bryce Carmony Did not read the article he proposes to delete and his disruptive behavior is under discussion now at ]. ] (]) 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I read the entire article ( it was only 100 words ) the content was merged into the main article communism per WP:NPOV which states: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::We should avoid a ] that cover the same topic but with different titles. -- ] (]) 02:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
Once the content was moved, andyjsmith turned this article into a redirect, I proposed a deletion based on the redirect being a lack luster redirect. A merger discussion is still underway if this article violates NPOV policy. ] (]) 21:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The merge was made without consensus, contrary to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I didn't object but other editors are free to do so. ] (]) 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: NPOV can't be over written by a consensus. If you want to discuss if splitting the topic into 2 articles based on a pov is NPOV. I'm happy to have that discussion. If you aren't interested in discussion then I wish you all the best. ] (]) 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== See more directory == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think a see also section with 16 items is excessive when you consider how small this article is. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. We can weave this content into the "Communism" article. if it is about communism. if it is about Anti-communism, we can weave it into the communism article. if it is about the history of communism, we can weave it into the history of communism article. or if we believe that communism criticism is a topic in and of itself we can make the article ] and discus the history, the methodology and the style of criticizing communism. ] (]) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
The only objection I can see to making this article a disambiguation page is the argument that criticisms of communist party rule and criticisms of Marxism are often related and should be on the same page. But that is not an argument for having three articles, that is an argument for having one article, by moving all the content from the two other pages here and then making those pages redirects. I could see the merits of such an argument, except that the two articles in question are already very long. Combining them into one would make the resulting article far too long by Misplaced Pages standards, and it would be recommended that we split it in two. Actually, I assume that's how we got two separate articles in the first place - a split was probably necessary because the combined article was too long.
So, if we're not going to combine them into one, because the result would be too long, then the other logical choice is to leave the two other articles as they are and make this a disambiguation page. -- KS79 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
