| Revision as of 05:29, 2 May 2017 editKS79 (talk | contribs)356 edits →This should be a disambiguation page← Previous edit |
Revision as of 06:53, 9 May 2017 edit undoKS79 (talk | contribs)356 edits archiving discussions that are over two years oldNext edit → |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
* |
|
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives--> |
|
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives--> |
|
|
|
|
==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--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move== |
|
|
] → ] — Criticims should be Criticism . ] (]) 20:16, 25 August 2009 (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) |
|
|
|
|
|
) |
|
|
== Economic Criticisms == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 main body of criticisms of communism come from economists. So why not at least include some reference to it here? |
|
|
|
|
|
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--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Content redundant == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
*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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This should be a disambiguation page == |
|
== This should be a disambiguation page == |
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)
