Template talk:Socialism sidebar

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Socialism This 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles

I was just wondering, should Socialism itself be with a capital S? Proper noun right? Meanwhile socialist and social are just common noun and adjective respectively? Perhap's all the *** of socialism articles should be moved to *** of Socialism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.242.153 (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a well-established policy on this, unless it is a proper noun (i.e a location, person or organization) it is always lowercase, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Lexor|Talk July 2, 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Most socialist parties use that as the symbol. Don't worry about the copyright, I reckon its fitting for public use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.242.153 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most social democratic parties use that as a symbol. But it is not representative of all the branches of socialism. I would suggest a red flag. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, red can symbolize everything from Nazis, communists, socialists, and republicans. I like the red flower. Yaanch 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why Democratic socialism isn't included in the list? This box appears on that article, and it seems to be topically related. Thesquire 10:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Ideology#Political_ideologies – Kaihsu 19:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

RJII seems to think that it should be included based on his definition of mixed economy which is a "mix of capitalism and socialism". What do other people think? My source is that none of the definitions in google define it as such with the exception of the Wikipedia article (which is now changed). For reference, the reason RJII seems to want to include this is so that he can put the socialism infobox on the mixed economy page. Perhaps he will let us know if this is not the case. - FrancisTyers 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My" definition is the same as the definition you just put in the mixed economy article: "An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises" In socialism, the means of production are publicly owned --in capitalism they're privately owned. When you mix the two together ..tada! A mixed economy! RJII 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, isn't a mixed economy just as capitalist as it is socialist? --AaronS 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's, in the ideal, one half socialist and one half capitalist. Half of the means of production are privately owned and the other half are socially owned or controlled. "Mixed economy" is in the "liberalism" box (I'm the one that put it there, actually) so it should also be in the socialism box. RJII 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get "half and half"? "Part and part" doesn't mean half and half, since the size of each part is unspecified. You're just making the "ideal" up in your head. And just saying something is "part" socialism hardly merits inclusion here. Find an actual group of socialists that support a mixed economy, and maybe you'll have a case. Sarge Baldy 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the Influences section. If a mixed economy is a mix (doesn't have to be "half and half" --i was just speaking in terms of the ideal) of socialism and capitalism, then obviously it's an influence. RJII 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss removals. Sam Spade 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give a source saying that "nazism is a type of socialism" is a widely-accepted view and you can insert it. -- infinity0 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does widely accepted have to do w anything? You've seen my sources, and TDC has offered to come up w even more if you need them. Go read Hayek. Sam Spade 16:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because adding them to a template implies they are widely accepted as that. Usually, we don't put fringe stuff onto a template because there is no space for it - a template only contains important info. YOu are the one trying to add stuff - burden of proof is on you. -- infinity0 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek is not an authoritative source on Nazism and Socialism. He's an economist, not a historian or politicla philosopher. -- infinity0 16:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look over the list of branches of socialism in the socialism article. There isn't enough room to include all the widely-accepted ones, let alone the controversial ones! We should limit ourselves to those that are both widely accepted and important.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.103.107 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Hayek is a political philosopher. -- Vision Thing -- 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism isnt a form of socialism and anti-semitism isnt a part of the socialist ideology,so stop putting these terms in. -Red_Bastard-—Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Bastard (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why Nazism, Facism and Anti-semitism should be included into the list either. I don't believe that any supportor of socialism will be appreciative of it being listed as part of their ideology. Such movements have always been active in Anti-Facism and Anti-Racism campaigns. And I hope an admin can help out here, there's a revert war going right now. --A10203040 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both The Middle East Conflict Man and Red Bastard have been blocked for 24 hours. However we have a new POV pusher (or sock puppet) called Carroteater117 over at Socialism. // Liftarn—Preceding undated comment added at 15:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh..Carroteater117<- pictures of Saddam and Milosovich, smells exactly like The Middle East Conflict Man. --A10203040 16:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infinity, Hayek was indeed a historian and a political philosopher, in addition to being an economist. In fact, he is known more today for his political philosophy than for his economics.

Someone writes, "Take a look over the list of branches of socialism in the socialism article. There isn't enough room to include all the widely-accepted ones, let alone the controversial ones! We should limit ourselves to those that are both widely accepted and important." Since this template includes a drop-menu, I don't see any reason not to include them.

Red_Bastard, I agree with you that anti-semitism has nothing inherently to do with socialism. However, fascism is definitely a sub-type of socialism in the same way communism is a sub-type of socialism. The confusion comes from the obvious fact that communists and fascists absolutely despised each other. Nevertheless, they are both schools within the broader category of 'socialism.'

Since national socialism is a sub-type of fascism, I would recommend including both fascism and national socialism (or at least fascism, if you really can't stand including national socialism) in the template.

I agree with you, however, that anti-semitism definitely should not be included in the template. Anti-semitism is very specifically advocated by that sub-sub-type of socialism we call national socialism, but is in no way integral to the understanding of what is essential to the outlook of socialism historically. Anti-semitism ought to be included in any template dealing specifically with national socialism, in the same way that the gulag should be included in any template dealing with Stalinism; but this does not mean that anti-semitism or the gulag have any place in the socialist template. Conversely, fascism and communism both belong in this template.

Mussolini was an unabashed socialist, and fancied the ideology he was creating a pure form of socialism. I am going to add fascism to the list, but I will not add at this time national socialism. Here are my two reasons: first, national socialism is a sub-type of fascism, just as Stalinism is a subtype of communism. Ergo, adding them would be unnecessary. Second, given national socialism's propensity for anti-semitism, it will likely lead to unwanted confusion. It is incorrect to imply that anti-semitism is integral to socialism, but at the same time important to acknowledge the historical roots of fascism in the broader socialist movement. Thus, I shall add fascism but not add at this time the much more controversial national socialism.

Respectfully,

Allixpeeke (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is "left-wing nationalism", which in European countries is called "national socialism" (e.g., Italian: socialismo nazionale which is different from "nazionalsocialismo"). The article may indicate the historical degeneration of the nationalist socialists: i.e., Le Faisceu, Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria, etc. In any case, the anti-Semitism of the internationalist socialists (i.e., the real socialists) played no role in political philosophy – I don't deny that it existed. Including anti-Semitism would be like including "racism" into the liberalism template. --RVD3 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)RVD3[reply]

this is just flat out a disgrace to me and my belives, nazis is not in any way affiliated with my belives, or the belives of socialist i think its is bias all the way around. so i ask that this word be un-affiliated with socialism-slipoutside —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipoutside (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily removed the link to Revolutionary Socialism until it's clear that it is significant enough to be mentioned. The article unfortunately seems not to describe revolutionary socialism in general, but the opinion of a very small group. See its talk page (and please join the discussion there if you are knowledgeable in these matters). Qwertyus 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I alphabetized the lists, so, in the future, if you add or remove something, make sure things are alphabetical. It's a better organisational system than "arbitrary". --Yossarian 04:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks strange. "Criticism of socialism" the first Key issue? "Anarchism" abouve "Marxism" in the Influence section? First and Second international are seperated by a "List of socialists".

Alphabetical ordering works fine for sections of 15+ items, for a quick search, but not for sections of 4 or 5 items. ActiveSelective 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you try to organise them in terms of "importance" it becomes a subjective matter that a lot of people will get crabby over. I know it looks a tad funny, but I find it's better than an arbitrary list (even a short one), and less contentious than listing them by "importance". Just saves editors future headaches, as I see it. If there's another neutral way of organising this that's also more aesthetically pleasing, go for it. Arranging "Anarchism" above "Marxism" means nothing if its merely for alphanumeric organisational consistency. I should say, though, that I moved the "List of Socialists" to the bottom. You were right, that particular seperation looked too weird. --Yossarian 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't see no people crabby over it. Still looks strange. But I like your flag, by the way. ActiveSelective 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it had been organised by importance before I changed it (for example, I doubt Owenism would have been put above Marxism if that were so). I just assumed the lists were compiled with no real organisation in mind. I was suggesting that listing them by importance would be the most likely alternate to an alphabetical (or the like) system, and that if someone tried to implement it as such, people would get crabby. So I put it in alphabetical order, just for the sake of presumpting such a problem, and the fact that I personally like organisational details...like alphabetical orders ;) I actually doubt anyone will notice that they're alphabetical (the lists aren't really long enough, as you said), but if anyone percieves a political bias, rather than an organisational one, they can just be pointed to the talk page for an explanation. But, and I think we can both agree, my flag is nifty. Cheers --Yossarian 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a little confused over the Scrabble thing...also, why is the Scrabble system better for that grouping? Sorry, I don't mean to be bloody minded. I'm just trying to make sure things make sense. --Yossarian 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alphanumerical ordering (again!) is too eurocentric. Obvious, duh. But you're right, I know what you mean, the thing still looks funny, indeed, now there are still two sections sorted alphabetically. Don't worry. We'll sort that out. You'll agree that picking a sort method at random is a guaranteed POV-free way of sorting, instead of doing everything only the eurocentric way. And, accidentally and luckaly, it just happens that this particular sorting there makes the section also look better. It accidentally makes it more logical, like the "key issues" section not starting with "criticism" anymore (that's just like, for example, the holocaust article not starting with "holocaust denial" anymore). ActiveSelective 10:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesssss...but, by the same token, the Scrabble way is (arguably) American in bias (the values in Scrabble were assigned by an American using the frequencies of letters in American newspapers, the game is owned by an American company, its mostly played in the United States of America...). But, then, if we wanted it to not be European or American, we might sort it the way Chinese speakers sort logograms (something of an impossibility since English speakers don't use logograms to write English). But then it would be Sinocentric. But that's me playing devil's advocate. More practically, the Scrabble method is overly complex. If someone wanted to add something to the list, s/he'd have to sit down and calculate every letter's value, add it up, add fifty points for a seven letter word, and then the thing you said about 3x word value and 2x letter value, which I'm actually not sure I understand (this all assumes they know how to play Scrabble). The problem with sorting them "logically" (in terms of "influence"), is that it represents someone's (or a group of someones') bias(es). So, to put it plainly: If one sorts Anarchism over Marxism (for example) because A comes before M, it has no bearing on any endorsed importance attributed to either movements because the organisational system is based on the progression of letters in the English Latin alphabet. Okay, maybe it is Eurocentric (simply for the fact that Europeans use it), but it has no inherant political bias (like a "logic" or "importance" based progression) other than the fact that it evolved in Europe because Europeans use alphabets rather than logograms or hieroglyphics (Semetic languages also use alphabets, and I'm fairly certain (but don't quote me) their speakers occasionally use the progressions of those alphabets to list things). Sidelining a simple organisational tool because it's European would be rather shortsighted. I can definitely understand your reservation about the seperation of the "Internationals" at the bottom...but I just don't see why its a big deal to have the Influences section set out alphabetically. It's easy to do, it's not biased , and if any special provisions need to be made (such as the Internationals getting seperated...but that has more to do with organizing by like subjects) it's not too hard to do. Soooo...there's my little essay on this subject...I think I'm about spent ;). Again, I don't mean to sound bloody minded. I'm just hopelessly confused at this point. Cheers --Yossarian 10:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are confused. Semitic languages use consonantal alphabeths, without vowels. They also put letters in a different order. The letter Z is the seventh in the Hebrew alphabet, for example. ActiveSelective 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z(eta) is also the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet, what's yer point? I was merely saying that they (Semites) might organise such things in terms of their alphabet's order. Why would they organize it using the Latin alphabet's order? Rather, why does it matter that Z is the seventh letter? And lacking vowels hasn't got much to do with alphabetical order (as far as I know). Are you under the impresion that I was suggesting alphabetical order is only determined by the Latin alphabet? Or that I was suggesting that's how others should organize lists with their own alphabets (Alpha, Beta, Delta, as opposed to Alpha, Beta, Gamma)? Alphabetical order is determined by whatever alphabet you're using, I believe...I wouldn't arrange a list of words spelt with Hebrew letters with the order of the Latin alphabet. Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate with each other... --Yossarian 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start fresh. I have to admit, at this point, I have absoloutely no idea how you're coming up with these systems. No idea how (your version of) the Scrabble sort works; no idea what a "Semitic" sort would be. I'm assuming that, for whatever reason, alphabetical order is out (I still don't know why, with the exception of the International thing). Well, why don't we think of an organiser that's just as simple, which everyone can understand? --Yossarian —Preceding undated comment added at 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Wow. Let me see if I understand the argument so far. You're (ActiveSelective) arguing over the order of listings sort method on the English language Wikipedia and are against alphabetical ordering? Call me a anglophile but this seems like rather a logical choice since, you know, the language we'd be reading it in (and, well, apparently, discussing it in as well) seems to me, to be, IN FACT, ENGLISH. *cough*

Sorry. I get a little riled up over this kind of thing, but you see, this is the English-language section of Wikipedia, so I always figured that the endorsment of the English language was kind of a foregone conclusion. Since that's the language we're reading. For instance, I don't think you'd find any dictionary, NPOV or not, to be listed in Scrabble values. No matter how hilarious neutral it might be. I agree that leaving Anarchism in there first over Marxism is a little unfair ((OH NOES!)) but that's just the way the turnip tumbles sometimes. In the case of 'Holocaust Denial' listed first in the holocaust template, well, that's just plain nutty. There are special cases for things, I just can't really suppose that, in all fairness, this is one of them. Anyway, that's my ten kopeks. You two crazy kids can figure it out on your own, I'm sure. --Oceanhahn 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC) //EDIT: As for 'Semitic' organization, I'm afraid I don't understand. You're listing according the... the last letter of the last word?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanhahn (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been creating a series of Irish political templates on issues like Irish Nationalism, Republicanism, Unionism, Monarchism. One thing that struck me as useful to link, but which is missing on this and other templates, is a link to cultural aspects. Socialism has strong cultural features which have been used to communicate messages and concepts. It can be found in everything from songs like The Red Flag to particular paradigm shift theatre (key plays in the early 20th century promoting the concept of the proletariat fighting the bosses, etc which fundamentally changed viewpoints), to key publications. It might be useful to have one or two such cultural links. Other areas like Christian Democracy or Social Democracy often hasn't had a cultural aspect, but socialism has had a particularly strong one, with socialist states often using strong cultural aspects (songs, images, stories) to communicate its message. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Utopian socialism because it belongs in the template, either as a current of socialist thought, or at the very least as an influence. The ideas of Robert Owen (to whom we owe a lot of terms relating to socialism (and for whose ideas the term 'socialism' itself was coined, who helped organise one of the first British trade unions in the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, and who was one of the inspirations of the Rochdale Pioneers and the British Co-operative movement), Charles Fourier, and others were the intellectual leaders of the Pre-Marxian socialist movement, and (for example, in Robert Owen's "Report to the County of Lanark") laid the foundations for a number of ideas which were expanded upon later by Marx and Engels, and later Marxian Socialists. Similarly, the lessons learned in failed social experiments (like New Harmony) informed the Socialist theories and institutions that followed. Finally, if you read - for example - Beatrice Webb's "'The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain," you will note that the early Fabian socialists (and some of the later Fabians, like G.D.H. Cole) were famliar with, in the case of Webb claim an intellectual herritage which can be traced to, and borrow some ideas from, Owen. In turn, Fabian ideas have informed the ideas of various strains of social-democratic, labourite, and progressive thought in the English speaking world (and - in particular - in Britain).

Given these reasons and, in the words of G.D.H. Cole, prior to the 1840s, "The word 'Socialist... meant 'Owenite', and had hardly, in Great Britain, any other meaning," (Cole, G.D.H., “A Century of Co-Operation”, Oxford: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1944, p. 28.) it would be a huge oversight not to include Utopian socialism in the template. - AmishThrasher 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the politics portal being deleted? That's not redundant. As for the "list of socialist ideas"...well, that's a little difficult. Yes, the template is a "list of socialist ideas", but the article would, potentially, be more comprehensive. However, I don't think it's necessary to include, as the aritcle is more of a list of ideologies than a list of ideas. If that changed, maybe it could work. --Yossarian 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I deleted the politics portal is that it's not specifically about socialism. The Communism template has a Communism portal, and Fascism has a Fascism portal. However, I see that the Politics Portal is in the Conservativism template, so I can see the justification. Maybe it's time for people to create a Socialism portal. I renamed the "List of socialist ideas to "List of socialist ideologies." It wasn't a problem because nothing was linked to it yet. I re-added it to the template because it is a good resource and lists much more than what is in (or should be in) the template and socialism-related See Also sections.Spylab 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

Nobody supports your ridiculous assertion that a politics portal has nothing to do with one of the most influential political ideologies of modern histroy. Thus, please stop this campaign of deletions. -- WGee—Preceding undated comment added at 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you're the one who has a reading problem. Above I wrote that I now I can see the justification, since there is no Socialism portal. Please stop this campaign against all of my edits, no matter their worthiness. You don't have the massive consensus that you pretend to have. Spylab 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

I am not campaigning against your edits "no matter their worthiness". I'm sure you've made more constructive edits to other articles, but virtually all of your contributions to socialism-related articles have compromised their quality. -- WGee 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this edit by User:172. For four reasons:

1. It was a far going edit which was not discussed.
2. It assumes that the template communism is a model to be strived at, while it is actually the result of a compromise and not an ideal template.
3. It puts the template out of line with other political ideology templates Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Liberalism sidebar, template:Christian Democracy sidebar, which are colourful and sometimes illustrated.
4. The current version is just prettier.

- C mon 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these reasons has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is about the readers, not the editors. Templates here are supposed to be simple, readable, and professional looking. 172 | Talk 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a visually appealing encyclopedia is part of growing our market share. We don't have to strip everything down just because we're free. Creativity and well layed-out pages are essential. The template should not have been changed. Indeed, since it wasn't discussed, it was a violation of Wikipedia policy to change it. --Tjss(Talk) 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning makes no sense, the communist template is disputed by some. See here. You have no grounds to enforce this, but your own preference, while the make up of this template has never been disputed before. As a reader I prefer some colours (consistently, well done, no rainbows in templates) to lighten up large texts. Did you hold a query under wikipedia-readers which template they prefer? I don't think so: this is your personal preference. C mon 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like 172’s version better. Legibility should have priority over kitsch. —xyzzy_n 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do colors have anything to do with legibility? No. Yaanch^Speak! 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that user:172 went too far on this change. He made it bland and boring. The more interesting red template attracted people's attention and it may attract some more readers to the topic of socialism. Maybe, the boring format he added is a reflection of his profession as a historian. History can be dry sometimes, but when we have the chance to make it a bit more "colorful", we should do it. Anyone disagree? If not i may revert it to the interesting version, but while keeping the legit additions to the template. Yaanch 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reader who sees the template is very likely already reading about socialism, so there is little need to attract further. If the template was located somewhere unobtrusive, it could be more colourful, but since it is generally used as a float in the article text, it must not distract from the article. After all, we should assume that the reader is indeed directly interested in the topic that is currently displayed, not in the myriad related topics. (So, actually, the template would work better as a wide box in ‘See also’ sections…) —xyzzy_n 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version look horrible. Appropriate use of colour and sizing of text is very useful in making the purpose and hierarchy of a template legible. Warofdreams talk 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, old version was much better. -- Vision Thing -- 12:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too must add my voice to those criticizing the new template layout. It is, simply put, ugly. Not only that, but it does not follow the long-standing convention used by all other political ideology templates on wikipedia. I have always been an advocate of universal, consistent standards. Thus, 172, if you wish to remove colours and symbols from this template, you must also remove colours and symbols from Template:Liberalism sidebar, template:conservatism, Template:Libertarianism sidebar, template:Christian Democracy sidebar, template:Green politics sidebar, Template:Fascism sidebar, Template:Nazism sidebar, template:progressivism and many others. -- Nikodemos 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to single me out. Xyzzy said it the best. Actually, I like [the new] version better. Legibility should have priority over kitsch. Bars of red distract too much, especially in a context more complex than this one. And speaking of the "purpose and hierarchy of a template," the categories of the old template ("influences," "key issues," "ideas," were conceptually incoherent). 172 | Talk 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I single you out is because you are the only person advocating the simpler version (other than Xyzzy, who is not here any more). As I said before, consistency is paramount in my thinking. I don't care very much how the template looks like as long as the same standard is applied to all political templates. So I have two choices: 1. Struggle to keep the old layout of this template. 2. Struggle to change the layout of all other templates. The first is obviously easier, so that is what I will do. I am sorry, but this is something I cannot compromise on, especially since I have the backing of the majority of editors (and, in matters of pure aesthetics, the majority should rule). -- Nikodemos 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as if Xyzzy has left Wikipedia. He/she seems much more active than I have been recently. [1] The old version does not contribute to standardization, given the aesthetic differences in the "kitch" across political templates. Anyway, since you restored the new categories-- the important matter here, I no longer have much of an inclination to spend time on the issue. 172 | Talk 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other templates, libertarianism and fascism seem the most legible. I suggest a new aesthetic design based on either of those two, rather than restoring the old one, which resembles some of the flasy graphics of leftwing youth league websites. 172 | Talk 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article in Encarta, modern socialist parties have distanced themselves from the red flag. "While a significant percentage of the working class continued to vote for the parties of the centre and of the right, socialist parties increasingly sought to attract middle-class centrist voters. To do so they discarded many of the symbols and rhetoric of their past, such as the red flag or the designation of members as comrades, which they shared, embarrassingly, with communists." Since it isn't representative for all socialists I will remove it from the template. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From now on -- Vision Thing --, i recommend making a consensus before making large changes such as removing the image from the template.. Yaanch^Speak! 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the encyclopedia comes before bureaucratic procedures on talk pages. VisionThing's citation of Encarta is accurate. It is very difficult to find iconography embraced by all major groups describing themselves as socialism. I support VisionThing's removal of the (cartoonish) red flag picture. 172 | Talk 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that his citation was correct, but I'm also sure if i googled the subject i could find supporters of the red flag for socialism! Im just saying that a general census would be recommended. If i found a citation saying that all templates are better off with colors and images, would that give me the right to change the template with out anybody's else's opinion? No. Yaanch^Speak! 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While many socialists have distanced themselves from the red flag, none have outright rejected it. The red flag is a relatively uncontroversial symbol - all branches of socialism have used it at some point in the past. Many of them do not use it any more, but, again, failure to use a symbol does not constitute rejection. -- Nikodemos 09:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Nikodemos, this template should have an image (just because that makes it look better) and the red flag is our best choice, as it is both representative of socialism and the image is free. Social-democratic symbols like the rose in fist, should be on the template social democracy (note that there is no free version of the rose in fist). C mon 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually working on a picture of a rose that is similar enough to the social democratic symbol to be used on the social democracy template. -- Nikodemos 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your idea would work well, but of course i would have to see it first ;) Yaanch^Speak! 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think 'libertarian socialism' should be included in socialism template's current trends?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.253.87 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Libertarian Socialism is actually a strand of {{Anarchism sidebar}}. C mon 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user added it again to this template. I will delete it again. Yaanch^Speak! 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add it back again. Anarchism is a strand of socialism, so the fact that libertarian socialism overlaps with anarchism is no reason to keep it off this template. VoluntarySlave 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind, for me Libertarian Socialism can be on this template, not because anarchism is a strand of socialism (that's just nonsense) but because libertarian socialism encompases some strands of anarchism and some of socialism. C mon 23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to the red flag on this template?--Crocadog 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is being discussed here C mon 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the red flag should be removed, im socialist and dont want information seekers, to misstake me for communist, a nazi or a republican.Slipoutside (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Utopian socialism" on this template twice? If no one knows why, or if no one defends it, i will delete one of the links. Yaanch 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the most recent image was deleted i think we need to decide what image we want on this template; we should have one. Before, we had a red flag but i think red is to ambiguous because it can represent communism, republicans, Nazis, and soviets. I think the red rose in a fist is the best idea because that symbol is only socialist. Any ideas? Yaanch^Speak! 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image is not a requirement. Many templates do not have one. The rose is inappropriate because it is associated with the Socialist International, which is at odds with many groups describing themselves as socialist. 172 | Talk 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are against ascetics in templates or anything that could take the reader away from the article. But personally i feel that images contribute to it. Yaanch^Speak! 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think trade unions should be included on this template, because they are an important group of socialist organizations. Socialist politics is more than political parties, for socialists, the struggle between workers' unions and employers is also a political struggle. C mon 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides, trade unions are listed under "related subjects", and they certainly are a related subject. -- Nikodemos 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c'mon, niko, what trade union do you two belong to? Conman3000 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I m not a member of a trade union , although I sympathize with the Alternative for Union (AVV), whose founder is currently member of the Tweede Kamer for the social-democratic PvdA. More importantly however the major trade unions in the Netherlands are the large social-democratic FNV and the smaller Christian democratic CNV. So for me politically trade unions and socialist politics are related. C mon 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions are not anti-capitalist, though. Conman3000 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are all socialists, like market socialists and social democrats. C mon 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some trade unions are or were socialist organisations (for varying values of ‘socialist’). Some try or tried to be neutral. Some are or were anti-socialist (for varying values of ‘socialist’). My impression is that the relationship between trade unions and socialism is quite one-sided to the effect that while trade unions are useful for recruitment, organisation and, of course, strikes, they are really just the means to an end (the end depending on the exact value of ‘socialism’) or a natural phenomenon signifying the imminent whatever of the proletariat (for values of ‘socialism’ that include ideas like class struggle), or both. I suggest linking to syndicalism instead, since that’s an actual ideology and not just a form of organisation. By the way, trade union leaves a lot to be desired… I found [2] more enlightening, even though it’s in Russian and has a Marxist-Leninist POV. —xyzzy_n 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions exists to protect the wages of the workkers in the trades, they do not seek equal distribution of wealth, they seek more wealth for themselves. Conman3000 06:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands and the United Kingdom socialism evolved out of the trade union movement, ties between labour unions and socialist parties in Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden etc. are very strong.

Conman3000 has a narrow view of what trade unions do, in the Netherlands, fi trade unions have and still do participate in movements that advocate social change, the FNV set up the 1980s marches against nuclear weapons and the 2000s Dutch Social Forums.

I can obviously live with an additional link to syndicalism, but I don't think it can replace trade unions.

- C mon 06:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social change does not mean socialism. Conman3000 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need room to discuss specific countries on this template, as in the In specific countries-subheader. I think that templates like {{Europe in topic}} f.i. can better be used for this (when it comes to European countries), because the inclusion of these countries is just arbitrary: why the Netherlands or Canada, but not Germany (whose socialist tradition was arguably the most influential) or Sweden (whose welfare state is a model for many socialists and social-democrats) or the USSR which also claimed to be socialist. I don't see the use of this specific countries subheader, esp. seen the countries included. C mon 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Template:Liberalism sidebar and template:conservatism have sections dedicated to [ideology] by country. We should follow the same standard here (or else change the standard in those other templates). The countries included are simply the countries that have articles on their respective socialist movements. The reason Germany is not featured is because there is no Socialism in Germany article (though I agree with you that there should be one). The same goes for Socialism in Russia. -- Nikodemos 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On template liberalism this regionalization is not overly appreciated see here. I think we should start here and create a trend: no to this non-sensically regionalist perspective. For once let international socialism take the iniative! ;) C mon 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that discussion has been dead for 8 months... I'd still rather keep the national variants, if only because two of them (Britain and USA) are very good articles that deserve the attention. -- Nikodemos 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing their quality. But I'm saying that the current inclusion of countries is arbitrary at best (just because they have articles...) and anglo-centric at worst (why canada? New Zealand? there are way more influential countries). But if no one feels so, I'll leave the matter. C mon 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to concur with C mon here- even if the discussion is old. The as-stated arbitrary choice of countries is certainly not a great way to do things. Either change it, or start Socialism in Germany and Socialism in Russia, I think.--EJFox 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, on templates such as Template:Communism sidebar, Template:Libertarianism sidebar and Template:Social democracy sidebar there are no sections by country. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Do others, like me, think that Eco-socialism should be added to the Currents of socialism on the template? It is a growing current within many socialist movements and I believe it should be recognised. I have been working to make the page a lot better and it is now substantially improved. Aled Dilwyn Fisher 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think eco-socialism should indeed be included. Allixpeeke (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i thing it should be added too Slipoutside (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...are gawdy. They suggest the over-use of colour and graphics you'd expect on pop idol fansite designed by a 12-year old. Please tone it down a little, eh? Kevlar67 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great now. It gives some colour to the articles, and fit well in the wiki format. --Soman (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit with wiki format at all, though. Compare it to {{Green politics sidebar}},{{Liberalism sidebar}}, {{Conservatism}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}}. It is out of step. It clashes badly with those templates. This is a dangerous trend. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it goes with {{Communism sidebar}}, {{Anarchism sidebar}}, {{Maoism sidebar}} Zazaban (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who rewrote the template, and I did it for good reason. The old template did not display well when accompanied by a secondary template. The article that prompted the change was Socialist state, which uses the Socialism template and the Forms of Government template. In its original state, the page displayed horribly, along with several other pages. I noticed that the Communism template played well with other templates, so I modeled it after that. Stevens757 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that libertarian socialism, despite being considered by some not to be a form of socialism (as it rejects state ownership of the means of production) is listed in this template.  I can only assume thus that this template aims to show a big-tent view of socialism, not merely limited to the statist forms thereof.

Given that left-libertarian Brad Spangler has argued that anarcho-capitalism is misnamed, and that it ought to be more properly understood as a form of stigmergic form of socialism, I wondering if anyone here thinks we should include anarcho-capitalism on this template?  I won't add it myself, because I don't know how popular or unpopular the idea may be.  But I wanted to throw the idea out there, to sort of test the water and see what others here think.

It might be worth noting that anarcho-capitalism is, more or less, what one comes up with when combining libertarian socialism and free-market socialism, both of which are already listed on this template.

Cheers,
Allixpeeke (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little over eight years have passed, and sadly, there seems to've been rather little in the way of discussing the idea of adding anarcho-capitalism to the list of forms of socialism.  I'm still interested in the idea that it might merit inclusion on the list, and would still like to hear what others think of this idea.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template lacks links to real-socialism (topic not "processed" on en.wiki) and workers' self-management (autogestion, if you like it, it's shorter). A link to "list of socialists" could be a little clarified: we don't know are all these persons ideological leaders or promoters of socialism. It just says " list of self-identified socialists". We don't see which of them are the theoreticians of socialism. I find it very useful, if a special article 'd be made (especially when speaking about theoreticians and scientists from Central and Eastern Europe). Kubura (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me start by saying that this template is SWEET. But, now let me complain that the [hide/show] link is really hard to see - blue on dark red isn't the best combination. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it is hard to see. I tried to rectify this when I wrote the new template, but could not find anywhere in the code to modify this color. It seems to be hard coded into the wiki, but my knowledge is limited so maybe someone else can rectify this. Thanks for the comments. Stevens757 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user deleted Red flag reverted it.Please if you want to delete come to a consensus in the talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. That's why I propose to return to the previuous version of the template, without "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable categories of this template. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, not completely related but.. Template:Islam by country could definitely use to be boxed by regions like this is by topic. If someone more proficient could help implement that (using the basic code you use on that template) it would be greatly appreciated. gren グレン 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding "Jewish Socialism" linking to Labor Zionism, since many people regard Labor Zionism as a Jewish Socialist movement. Thoughts? Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of including Jewish Socialism, but I'm not sure it should link to Labor Zionism - although Labor Zionism is a Jewish socialist movement, I don't believe the two are equivalent; certainly some Jewish socialists are not zionists. The Religious socialism article currently links "Jewish Socialism" to Jewish left; that's not ideal either, as Jewish left is conceptually broader than Jewish socialism, but might be a potential alternative.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that we should include "Nationalization" under the related subjects section of the socialism portal, because nationalization is a key component of many socialist systems and ideologies. I think we should also include "Mixed Economies" under the key issues section, as most modern socialist proposals aim for the creation of a mixed economy as opposed to a completely planned or market economy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecry (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last two months, this template underwent to a massive amount of radical changes in its aesthetical appearance ([3], [4], [5], [6]), but I can see no sign of discussion about it. This template involves many WP pages, I think this sort of modifications should be discussed before. A blue template, or a red one, or a white one, are not the same. 82.50.182.107 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the same here above.) Moreover, if nobody will disagree, I'll revert it (in some days from now on) to the "red version" (on which there was consensus, and which matches Template:Socialism). 79.16.23.207 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed, and nobody intervened. As announced, I restore the consensual version. 82.50.180.67 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Recently there's been a bit of back-and-forth regarding the yellow star in the template. I guess we can all agree that the template should be stable, so it would be good to find a compromise.

My preference is for an image instead of none. However, I do understand the objections to the yellow star (it's perhaps more identified with a sub-section of Socialism (i.e. Communism)).

Could I therefore suggest an alternative or two?

• File:Red flag waving.svg - this would be my preference, since the Red Flag is unequivocally a symbol of socialism, from the extreme left through to the right.
• File:Red Rose (Socialism).svg - I'm less enamoured of the Red Rose, since it's primarily a Social Democratic symbol, but I note that there have apparently been objections to the Red Flag in the past (see above).

Thoughts? Are there any symbols I've missed that might also serve?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well, one may argue that the red flag has become more a symbol of communism... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. So long as whatever's chosen isn't removed without explanation I'm not too bothered either way! What's your preference for? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old flag was much more "stylish", in my opinion, why this one? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the current one is supremely ugly. Why not File:Red flag waving.svg? --Yossarian^Complaints 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Class Traitor a pertinent term to include in the Socialism sidebar? I think that it is essential to understand the relationship between socialist workers and strikers, picketers, and more importantly reactionary soldiers. MattW93 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last discussion of its inclusion, especially Allipeeke's comments I added it, there being no follow-up comments or rebuttal but of course, a leftist has reverted it immediately. The arguments then were weak "Hayek isn't a socialist so you can't quote him" as if only socialists can speak about socialism. "There isn't enough space" errrr - drop down menu? And they're still weak. Jstriker (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion did not reach a consensus for change and please learn to address content issues rather than attacking other editors. The question of evidence stands, a reliable source is needed for inclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has been attacked, stop playing the victim. As to the issue at hand - who knows if those editors are even still around so I'll address the question to you, since it was you who reverted my edit: would you agree Hayek is a notable and reliable source? Jstriker (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making comments on other editors rather than content issues and you referenced the previous discussion. While I see mention of Hayek I don't see any specific reference. --Snowded ^TALK 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a baby and stick to the discussion at hand. No there is nothing specific provided in the last discussion, but Hayek himself was well known for sharing the view that NS was a form of socialism. I was simply asking you if you felt Hayek would be a notable and reliable source? If so I will of course provide one. Jstriker (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the reference and I will consider it, you would be a lot better with a text book on political science or similar however. Hayek is after all partisan. Also as long as you persist in commenting on editors not content you will find I and other editors will pick you up on it. I--Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record sir, you are NOT under personal attack. "I will consider it" ... so it's up to you if the reference is ok? Jstriker (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting on editors not content. I have no idea if your are making a personal attack or not and really don't care, just follow guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. Its not up to either of us if the reference is OK its down to policy, without a reference its impossible to determine. --Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm not attacking anyone what exactly is your problem with anything I have said above? You seem to be determined to make this something personal by accusing me of the heinous crime of "commenting on editors" (what/where?). Of course you could just drop it. Anyhoo - what do you think to this - http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html ? Jstriker (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in your first post you claimed I was "attacking other editors" and now in your latest post you profess that you "have no idea" whether or not I am making an "attack". So which is it? Jstriker (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek's argument that National Socialism is a form of socialism has not been widely taken up by scholars of political ideologies. See, for instance, this article on 60th anniversary of the publication of The Road to Serfdom. The template should only include things that are widely held to be variants of socialism, and National Socialism is not.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link to is inaccessible without a subscription. The abstract simply says "we examine whether national socialism was socialism" so doesn't point one way or the other. I take it you have access and can quote the relevant parts and sources used to back up your claim that this article represents itself as the widely held view? If you can't you've backed yourself into a corner and have shown yourself to be acting at best in a lazy manner. Jstriker (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and it's nice to see I'm giving you something to do ;) Jstriker (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The most important difference regarding whether or not national socialism was really socialist involved the question of nationalization of the means of production, identified by Hayek himself as a part of socialism. This did not happen in Nazi Germany, even though an important faction of the Nazi Party supported such a policy as well as ending the payment of interest and of land rent. However, one of Hitler's first acts upon achieving power in 1933 was to purge this faction of the Nazi Party. The official doctrine of the Nazi Party was that of the corporate state in which class conflicts would be muted to achieve national goals and industries would be cartelized, arguably a betrayal of Hitler's original small business supporters. To the extent that one follows Marx in seeing the issue of ownership of the means of production as the crucial element separating capitalism from socialism, rather than market versus command plan, Nazi Germany would be more accurately described as “command capitalist” rather than as truly socialist."VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So how does this one article prove how the view you are pushing is more widespread? It doesn't seem to be a summary of the literature on the subject. Also, why is social democracy therefore on the list? If we cannot find a a majority of sources which describe social democracy as socialism, can we discuss its deletion? Jstriker (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and may I say, it must be nice and convenient to have such subscriptions paid for you ;) Jstriker (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think the quote means that Hayek is controversial in his statements and that other scholars have contested the idea. Hayek is also writing from a strong position, he is not creating a text book or encyclopedia of political science. I think that to include it here, then we would need that type of book to make a statement that supports the edit. Social democracy is subject to the same rules --Snowded ^TALK 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost correct - the quote means that particular author thinks Hayek was wrong - nothing more, nothing less. So what do we do when we have sources on both sides? Remember - this is the case for social democracy too. Also, I don't accept your assertion that only text books are acceptable sources, this would rather restrict the amount of information on wikipedia if it was general policy. Which it isn't. Jstriker (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template not an article. It should therefore reflect appropriate sources. Given this is about what is categorised as socialism the appropriate sources are directories etc. of the subject from academic sources. --Snowded ^TALK 13:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your friend's source is appropriate and mine isn't? Jstriker (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article about Hayek is a discussion of the general reception of Hayek's work, not just an individual author's reaction to it. If Hayek's position was widely accepted, the author would have mentioned this. Obviously, I can't quote the fact that he doesn't say that (you can't quote what isn't there); your local public library may allow you to access the article if you want to check it yourself.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try addressing the argument Jstriker, you're back to making comments on editors again. --Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a comment about me. See how this doesn't get anybody anywhere? Jstriker (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will go no where if you don't address the arguments --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You personally have presented neither any sources (most importantly) or arguments. I suggest dispute resolution. Edit stays whilst we pursue this. Jstriker (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clear arguments are presented above by two editors in respect of the source and you have failed or refused to address them. WP:BRD is very clear on this and the edit should not stay. There are various ways in which you can ask other editors to engage (see the welcome template I placed on your talk page, which you promptly deleted). In the mean time I have made a 3rr report here --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Summary so far: Initial research by myself to find the Hayek source > Bold edit > Revert by you based on nothing more than commenting "not sure about that one" in the edit summary > Presentation of source supporting my edit > You didn't respond in the discussion yet continued to revert > Presentation of source arguing against my edit > Now you started to engage in discussion of the sources (including, possibly some original research - "i think the quote means that Hayek...") yet continued to revert the initial bold edit quoting WP:BRD as a reason in your edit summary in spite of the policy stating:

•"Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring" and

•"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

You assert that only "directories etc. of the subject from academic sources." are acceptable. This is your assertion and not a fact and neither sources presented are this in any event. Neither are any sources provided for anything pre-existant in the template along the lines you suggest. Thanks for filing the dispute resolution, in spite of our disagreement on this. Best rgds. Jstriker (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is very clear. You made the original bold edit (fine) it was reverted, you should then seek consensus here before reinserting it. If you are unhappy with the nature of the discussion various means are available to you to engage other editors. The use of Hayek as an appropriate source was challenged by two editors for the reasons stated above. I suggested that for the edit to stand it would have to appear in an encyclopedia or directory of political science, something to which you have not responded. In the mean time you have not modified or amended your edit, you have simply inserted it seven times. I am not aware of filing dispute resolution, I have reported you for edit warring. If you self revert then I will happily revoke the report --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just typed a reply, hit save and it disappeared. Wonderful! Will make sure to copy this time!

WP:BRD is indeed very clear. It states:

•"The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."

That was me. You only claimed to be following WP:BRD after your own tendentious reverting. This can be seen from the edit summary history log of the article when compared with the discussion here.

•"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once." That is any change.

It is regrettable that you chose this more confrontational road rather than taking me up on my offer to go through a dispute resolution process. In any event, the administrators will make their minds up, but my offer is there in black and white, so to speak. I'm just slightly disappointed you chose this route instead. My offer still stands, if you withdraw the report. I think that this will just end up as more work for the administrators and it would be more constructive to go through dispute resolution instead.

As to your assertion that only "directories etc. of the subject from academic sources." should be acceptable, I already made it clear that I disagreed with you in my last post (perhaps you missed this?), which only supports my offer to go to dispute resolution. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to such a narrow range of sources. Jstriker (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many options open to you before formal dispute resolution. BRD means that the stable version of the article remains in place while discussion takes place. You really need to self-revert you know.

Saying that you disagree is not engaging with the argument, you need to deal with the balance between material (your source) which is polemical in nature, and sources which attempt to summarise a whole field (political science) as per the suggestion of other editors.. --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously as the more experienced editor perhaps you could have suggested some earlier in the discussion then?

I've just noticed having started reading the dispute resolution page that there are various noticeboards for things like notable/reputable sources. Why did you not suggest these as the more experienced editor? What say ye?

I said I disagreed because I think we shouldn't restrict ourselves to such a narrow range of sources. Therefore I did engage with your argument and gave a reason for not agreeing with it. Again in labelling the source I provided as polemical you are making an assertion, not a statement of fact. The suggestion to exclusively use "directories etc. of the subject from academic sources." was yours and yours alone, not that of "other editors".

Personally, I think it is a bit off-putting to a new editor to be treated in this way. From lurking, I have noticed that usually it is the more experienced heads who try to exhaust all possible conflict resolution approaches before becoming confrontational when coming up against good faith edits. Jstriker (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its normal for discussion to take place on the talk page before other mechanisms are brought into play. I placed a welcome template on your user page so you would have a chance to look into the basic rules and processes - you deleted it a few minutes later. Edit warring, after a warning is not acceptable. Its not confrontational to simply report that. Especially after (i) providing a welcome and (ii) giving a warning. All you have to do is self-revert then you are in the clear (advise from an experienced editor) and then discuss things here. Inserting material 7 times when other editors agree with you is not showing good faith --Snowded ^TALK 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and it was I who started that discussion. I who suggested dispute resolution which you ignored. We'll see what the result is. To be honest in closing, this smells a lot like Lt. Sobel's (senior) attempt to cajole Lt. Winters (junior) in the series Band of Brothers by presenting him with either the threat of court martial or the opportunity to back down in telling the truth. A tenuous anaology perhaps but it may well capture the spirit of what's going on here. "All you have to do is self-revert then you are in the clear" - it just sounds very coercive to me. Jstriker (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you self revert then you are no longer breaking the rules, Its simple really. No one is asking you to lie (your analogy) just follow the norms of this community --Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to act in good faith throughout. It is your assertion I have "broken the rules", not a fact. It is you who ignored my offer. We'll see what the result of your report is. Best. Jstriker (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the pro-changer in this discussion to get a consensus. Therefore, I've reverted back to the previous version. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Types of Socialism wikipedia article list National Socialism? Types_of_socialism#National.2FEthnocentric_Socialism. Jstriker (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can discuss the question of whether or not National Socialism was a type of socialism with some nuance; we can't do that in a sidebar, which is why only widely accepted branches of socialism should be included.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Jstriker, Snowded writes, "You are commenting on editors not content."

That is clearly not true.  Jstriker's comment, to which you are responding, is on both editors (or, more accurately, one editor) and content.  I know you know she or he is commenting on content because you, in this response, respond to the content-side of Jstriker's comment.

As for the editor-side of Jstriker's comment, all she or he said was that she or he was not attacking you; if anything, this is more a comment about her- or himself, since she or he was the only person accused of "attacking other editors."  Moreover, Jstriker is correct that she or he is not attacking anyone (save for the regrettable blemish of having very briefly infantilised you).  Do you honestly believe there is something untoward in one editor writing to the second editor that the former is not attacking the latter?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Jstriker, Snowded writes, "as long as you persist in commenting on editors not content you will find I and other editors will pick you up on it."

Regrettably, Jstriker did issue an undefendable comment about one editor (viz., you) in calling said editor "a baby."  I have zero intention of defending that regrettable excursion from the discussion.  But why do you say "not content"?  Jstriker's response commented both on editors (or, more accurately, one editor) and on content.  Your response implies that she or he had not commented on content, even though Jstriker clearly did comment on the question of the notability and reliability of a source.  It's not like you could have missed this fact, considering that you directly responded to Jstriker's question about Hayek.  Again, you leave me confused.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Snowded, Jstriker writes, "Stop being a baby and stick to the discussion at hand."

Really, Jstriker, why did you have to lower yourself to this?  Up until this point, you had been completely civil with everyone, having attacked absolutely no one.  You really oughtn't surrender the high ground.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Jstriker, Snowded writes, "You are making comments on other editors rather than content issues and you referenced the previous discussion."

Snowded, just as I've admonished Jstriker to not accuse you of "playing the victim," I shall admonish you to assume good faith on Jstriker's part in recommending that you cease "playing the victim."  I assume, in good faith, that Jstriker actually believed that you were including yourself among the "editors" that you allege she or he "attack[ed]" (in which case you would be seeing yourself as a victim despite Jstriker having not victimised anyone), in which case his reason for having made this "comment[] on other editors" (i.e., you) would have been made merely to point out that she or he has not, in fact, victimised anyone, yourself included—a reason I believe we can all agree would be justified.  I do not make the bad-faith assumption that Jstriker (A) does not believe you've included yourself among the "editors" you allege she or he "attack[ed]" but (B) implied you did in order to (C) make you look bad.  This isn't, of course, to say that this latter possibility is not a possibility, only that between the two possibilities, we ought to assume the good-faith possibility.

Regarding content issues, she or he seems to be trying to address them through addressing the question of sources.

Yes, she or he referenced the previous discussion, but there seems nothing wrong in doing so.  After all, this discussion seems to be, essentially, a continuation of the previous discussion.  Would you not agree?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Snowded, Jstriker writes, "No one has been attacked, stop playing the victim."

While you are absolutely correct that you had not attacked anyone, to be fair, I would recommend you not imply that Snowded is "playing the victim."  After all, although Snowded falsely accused you of "attacking other editors," she or he did not claim that she or he was among the editors that she or he alleges you "attack[ed]."  Therefore, it's presumptuous to assume that Snowded even regarded her- or himself a "victim."

Jstriker also asks Snowded, "would you agree Hayek is a notable and reliable source?"

I obviously cannot speak for Snowded, but I definitely regard Hayek to be notable and to be mostly reliable.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Jstriker, Snowded writes, "The previous discussion did not reach a consensus for change and please learn to address content issues rather than attacking other editors."

I am confused, Snowded: whom did Jstriker attack?  The only editor that Jstriker even named in that post was me, and she or he only referenced me in order to reference my comments above.  I certainly did not feel the least bit attacked.

Further, you admonish Jstriker to "address content issues" as though she or he had failed to do so.  He addressed three issues, in fact: (1) that someone undid her or his edit without "follow-up comments or rebuttal", (2) that the "Hayek isn't a socialist so you can't quote him" argument is not a valid argument, and (3) that the "there isn't enough space" argument is likewise invalid.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VoluntarySlave, you write, "If Hayek's position was widely accepted, the author would have mentioned this."

Is this a fact, or an assumption?

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VoluntarySlave, this is the one and only reasonable argument that has been presented against the notion of including fascism in the template.  Cudos.  I still don't agree, but cudos nevertheless are in order.

Still, my initial suggestion above was that bother fascism and communism are forms of socialism and thus both deserve inclusion.  While this is a reasonable argument for excluding fascism from the template all-the-while including it in the article, it does nothing to explain why communism also oughtn't be included.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Jstriker, Snowded writes, "Try addressing the argument Jstriker, you're back to making comments on editors again."

How was that a comment "on" editors?  He referenced editors indirectly, sure, but solely in order to distinguish the two sources from one another.  His comment was not about editors, but about the sources themselves.  His question, which you seem to've evaded in this response, was about why the one source should be regarded as legitimate while the other source shouldn't.

Yours sincerely,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jstriker writes, "Almost correct - the quote means that particular author thinks Hayek was wrong - nothing more, nothing less."

Nothing less?  No, something less.

The quote doesn't say Hayek is wrong about anything.  The quote claims that Hayek identified "nationalization of the means of production" "as a part of socialism," and then it neither claims Hayek was wrong on this point nor discusses a single other thinker who believed Hayek was wrong.  Quite the contrary, the quote makes it seem that Marx would have agreed with Hayek on this point.

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded writes, "i think the quote means that Hayek is controversial in his statements and that other scholars have contested the idea."

No offence, but I've absolutely no idea how you got that out of the quote.  The quote says absolutely nothing about "other scholars," and almost nothing about Hayek himself.  Indeed, all it does say with regards to Hayek is that Hayek identified "nationalization of the means of production" "as a part of socialism."

The quote implied that if one agrees with Hayek, then one would have to conclude that any government that had not nationalised capital was not yet a socialist government.  The quote doesn't just not say anything about Hayek's views on national socialism qua ideology, the quote also doesn't say anything about anybody else's views on national socialism qua ideology, including but not limited to "other scholars."

Snowded also writes that Hayek was "not creating a text book or encyclopedia of political science" and that "to include it here, then we would need that type of book to make a statement that supports the edit."

Question: would you still feel the same way if, lacking a corroborating text book or corroborating encyclopedia of political science, one were to present many sources (as opposed to just one) which agreed that national socialism is a form of socialism?  Follow-up question: what if some of those many sources were from self-described socialists?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.  I am curious to know, in light of what I've written in the above paragraphs, do you still hold the same interpretation of the quote as you did previously?  12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting quote, VoluntarySlave, especially the section that reads, "an important faction of the Nazi Party supported such a policy as well as ending the payment of interest and of land rent.  However, one of Hitler's first acts upon achieving power in 1933 was to purge this faction of the Nazi Party."

My interpretation of J. Barkley Rosser Jr.'s statement here, VoluntarySlave, is that, in Rosser's view, national socialism and Hitlerism can be distinguished from one another, with national socialism constituting a valid form of socialism but with Hitlerism not constituting a valid form of socialism.  Is that how you, also, interpret Rosser's statement?  (It would seem that this statement actually validates Jstriker's edit.)

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.  As an aside, the term "command capitalism" is rather quite interesting.  If the state is commanding capital, then I see little relevance in the point that ownership of capital was nominally private; after all, when the state controls capital, that means it's the state that holds real ownership (by which I do not mean to imply legitimate ownership).  This, indeed, is precisely why I regard national socialism (and other forms of fascism) to fall under the umbrella of socialism (crypto-socialism).

This discussion is six years old. The discussion on national socialism has been debated and resolved on the article on Nazis etc. etc and the clear community consensus is that it is not socialism, per the sources in any meaningful sense of that term. If you want to change that then raise the subject on the national socialist article and see where it gets you----Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded and Allixpeeke: I disagree that there has been "clear community consensus" on the grounds that A) There are still academic papers debating the fact over 80 years later, and B) (Although my goal is not to resort to ad hominem attacks as someone did above,) much of the resistance against the edit on the Wikipedia talk pages seems to originate from yourself, Snowded. (For an example of ongoing academic papers, see here:^[1].) Not listing National Socialism on the grounds that the sidebar needs to be short, as VoluntarySlave asserts, is disingenuous considering that articles as short as Marhaenism (or otherwise much shorter than National Socialism) are in the sidebar under Variants. I believe my linked article and its sources asserts sufficiently that avoiding the link between National Socialism and Socialism is not only incorrect but intentionally misleading. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia talks, and so I'd like to know what standard of proof is required, and on whose judgement that rests, to fix this discrepancy. Thanks. [1]: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_19_04_06_znamenski.pdf Zerim (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zerim,

Interesting essay.  (I appreciated the fact that I was able to read all of it, unlike the essay posted by VoluntarySlave above, of which I was only able to read a single paragraph.)  One section reads, "Communists soon began using the term fascism to label…all movements that they defined as their enemies.  For example, the Communist International routinely called Social Democrats 'social fascists' until 1934."  I found this striking because I remember, a little over a decade ago, a communist on a message board I frequented back then call a mutualist who also posted there an "anarcho-fascist" merely because the latter did not wish to abolish property.  Needless to say, the term he made up in order to demonise the mutualist was absurdly oxymoronic.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Snowded,

(This discussion began in March of 2006, which is nearly ten years ago.)

Certainly, there are a variety of opinions as to what constitutes socialism.  If one defines socialism very broadly to include all ideologies that do not believe the present distribution of property is just, then a great many ideologies fall under the socialist umbrella, including everyone from Rothbardian anarcho-"capitalists" on the left to Democratic New Dealers on the right.

When you made reference to "any meaningful sense of that term," I immediately pondered that, perhaps, you might be thinking that the only way to categorise fascism as a variant of socialism is to employ a broad definition such as this one.  But, even if we apply very narrow and generally accepted definitions, fascism still falls under the umbrella of socialism.

Perhaps the strictest definition of socialism is state expropriation of the means of production, which is to say control by the state apparatus of capital goods.  Under this narrow definition, neither anarcho-"capitalism" nor libertarian "socialism" would constitute forms of socialism—and yet fascism still would.  Indeed, as far as capital specifically is concerned, the sole difference between state communism and fascism is that while the fascist state usually usurps only real ownership of the means of production from private owners, the communist state usurps both real and nominal ownership of the means of production from private owners.  (There are certain other differences between state communism and fascism, too, of course, but none concerning capital, and certainly none that I find so meaningful so as to throw fascism outside of the socialist tradition.)

In your opinion, is state control over capital not a meaningful sense of the term socialism?  For, I don't think I know of a narrower definition than that.

Perhaps you worry that, in trying to explain why fascism is a form of socialism, I'm somehow trying to insinuate that fascism is "left-wing" or "libertarian."  If so, then fear not, for I categorically place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum, diametrically opposed to libertarianism.  I find nothing oxymoronic in labelling fascism a form of right-wing socialism as I've never regarded socialism to be intrinsically leftist.  (Coincidentally, I also place state communism on the far right.)  Hopefully, this alleviates any remaining concern.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that short essay. If it is published in a reliable third party source then it might be eligible to determine content here. For the moment if you look at the discussion at the article on the Nazis and elsewhere you will see that this is regular topic, and as regularity consensus per the sources is not to call it socialist. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, It looks like you meant to reply to me, given the 8 minutes difference between your and Allixpeeke's posts. If by 'third party' you mean 'I don't know the authors' then that's correct, it was a search result from my University System's Ebscohost Library search (which indicates that it is a peer-reviewed journal). There are other articles on the subject, if it's necessary for me to provide them, such as one from the Cambridge Journal of Central European History (also peer-reviewed): ^[2]. [7]. Since this one isn't freely available, I'll quote some relevant excerpts:

Some Relevant Excerpts

But perhaps the Nazis succeeded where the liberals failed because the Third Reich came closer to uniting the multifarious elements of Friedrich Naumann’s antebellum National Social movement.15 While Naumann supported large-scale collective bargaining and interventionist state welfare, such as universal health care and unemployment insurance, his movement differentiated itself from the proletarian left through its “liberal” belief in individualist, “market-conforming (along lines later articulated by the ‘Ordoliberal’ Alexander Rüstow)” “self-help [Selbsthilfe]” embodied by job-training and placement agencies. — Kurlander 282 That left liberals invoked Naumann’s “National-Social” views with increasing frequency over the course of the Weimar Republic is no coincidence. The economic interventions and social leveling of the war years, punctuated by the November 1918 revolution and Versailles Treaty, had pushed the entire German political spectrum to the left on social questions and to the nationalist right on foreign policy issues. — Kurlander 284 Meanwhile the former Weimar Treasury Secretary Georg Gothein and his colleague Joseph Williger wondered how a brilliant liberal economist such as Schacht could possibly take direction from a megalomaniacal, “socialist” crackpot such as Hitler, and mocked the government’s investment in unnecessary building projects and the costly worker incentive program, Strength Through Joy… — Kurlander 291 As Gothein wrote in February 1933, the NSDAP, “as the name already suggests, is an expressly socialist party. Indeed, it proclaims to struggle against Marxism as its most important task. But the programmatic demands of its theoreticians are in all economic and social questions purely socialist.” — Kurlander 291-292 German economic policy, Winschuh observed, was premised on the fact “that social security, the emancipation of men from that suffocating anguish that crises of capitalism have produced, is tied to full employment.” Again, the lifelong liberal recognized that full employment and social security involved some “incursions into liberty, namely the acceptance of state intervention in the economy and consequently [a regrettable] bureaucratism.” But in the age of mass politics, “the organization of the economy can no longer be determined solely by the liberty of the individual person, but . . . by social freedom, by the security of the masses.”79 Only a “worker’s party” such as the NSDAP, one that embraced capitalism as well as socialism, could lead its citizens down “a German path that led between the capitalist self-importance of the entrepreneur and socialization, between Detroit and Moscow.” 80 — Kurlander 297

At this point, I can't really find any (semi-modern) sources that argue that the National Socialists weren't in some way Socialist. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't addressed to you but to Allixpeeke and referenced his post which is in effect a piece of original research, an essay. As you your comment If you think those quotes stand up to scrutiny then post them on the talk page of the Nazi Party and see if they stand up to scrutiny from the various political scientists who patrol that page. This template is not the place to have that discussion. Having witnessed those discussions over the years I don't think they will (both in terms of weight and reliability) but you should raise it there if you feel strongly about it. And/or raise an RfC and post links. Trying to make this change on a template page is really not the way to do things. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to post there directing them here, fair enough, but the issue is currently about this template. The conversation should be here since the conversation is about what fits in the sidebar. More specifically, I do not see how National Socialism doesn't fit within the definition that's in the first paragraph on the Socialism page: The widened definition on the Socialism page per se necessitates that any author arguing that it is not socialism also prove that National Socialist practices did not fit within any of the definitions associated with the variants linked in the sidebar. This is the heart of the issue; the burden of proof is large, but it must be met to honestly say they were not Socialists by any definition. (And we can't redefine socialism as 'also they can't be anti-semitic' on the way to that proof.)

For the record, the page currently says, "Socialism is a range of social and economic systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;^[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.^[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.^[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,^[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.^[5][11][12]". (Emphasis added). Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is supposed to start new discussions once discussions become stale. Anyway, Hayek thought that everyone was a socialist except for him and Mises. But his political views have received no attention in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of verbiage and repetition, not to mention the bizarre 6 year break, and I fear that this has gone on far too long to be productive. Nazism is not any sort of Socialism. It may have tried to promote itself as such at certain times to certain audiences but it should not be any sort of a revelation to anybody that the Nazis would say pretty much anything, no matter how untrue, for tactical purposes. It may be true that some people were genuinely bemused by this at the time but nobody who has even cursory education in the subject is bemused now. I believe that further discussion of whether Nazism belongs on a Socialism sidebar is so intrinsically ridiculous that it does not merit further discussion. Fringe sources, or contemporary sources bemused by Nazi propaganda writing before the true nature of Nazism became known, are no good at all. I favour rolling all of the above discussion up and rebuffing any further attempts to raise it with a polite but terse advice to refer to the established consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I've linked two peer-reviewed articles above contradicting that viewpoint, I request at least an equivalent source showing that it is not a form of socialism. If there are peer-reviewed academic papers being published which directly contradict the 'established consensus' here, and there is a push to 'rebuff any further attempts to raise' the issue, then I directly equate that to censorship. "Before the true nature of Nazism became known" is also not relevant unless everyone in the party decided to stop being a socialist along the way: the issue there is that they were mass-murderers, which is unfortunately not something logically mutually exclusive with Socialism.

Regarding 'wrapping it up and making room', I would agree if the posts were not relevant to an ongoing contentious issue. I do agree that the section is physically large, but deleting it to the ether of the edit history would be dishonest considering it's all relevant. Collapsing parts of it may help. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Review is not peer-reviewed, although it calls itself that. Its publisher, The Independent Institute for example promotes climate change denial.[8] As you correctly quote Kurlander, "the Third Reich came closer to uniting the multifarious elements of Friedrich Naumann’s antebellum National Social movement." Exactly, Nazi economic policies were liberal rather than socialist and drew on the same "left liberal" school that would evolve into ordoliberalism, liberatarianism and neoliberalism. Kurlander also points out that some of these liberals initially feared Hitler was a socialist until he put them in charge of economic policy. TFD (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct regarding the reliability of the Independent Institute in general. Although I believe the linked article still contains an effective argument, and I can't find anything saying the journal is not peer-reviewd, I won't consider it as an adequately academic/peer reviewed source for this purpose. I may go and acquire copies of some of its references from my library, but in the mean time I'll replace it with another paper explicitly stating that National Socialism is a form of Socialism (on the first page, even), [9]. The full text is available somewhere on that one for free, but due to time constraints I'll have to get back to you in the next day or two about more sources for and discussion on ordoliberalism. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited article says that Soviet and Nazi economic planning were similar in nature. It does not follow that it supports a statement that National Socialism is a form of socialism. Can we please have this discussion in one place. The Nazi article has the most developed discussion so I suggest there as it will attract more people with a background in political philosophy ----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you missed this: "Second, the Nazi economy shared many characteristics with the dominant socialist economy of the time. The National Socialists were socialist in practice as well as in name."

We can move over there to discuss a few points, but the issue at hand here is, although perverted from the then-popular international version, it is at minimum a variant of Socialism. That's an issue of etymology, not political philosophy. (However, not to rule out the category of political philosophy, the variant has been termed German socialism by certain authors (and Goering), on top of having some socialistic programs.) I'll iterate that not listing it under variants is little but politically motivated. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it, it remains with the context of one author's review of economic practice. Per TFD below you seem to be simply seeking out sources with a few key words, failing to read them properly and wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for sources which state whether it was or was not any form of socialism and found only some sources stating that it is. The failure to provide any sources when directly asked to do so is what's wasting time; it's not my fault if the established literature says what it does. Attacking my reading comprehension skills and editing posts after they've been replied to is not good-faith behavior. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that it wastes everyone's time when you present sources you have not read? Why should I have to read a lengthy article which you have not read in order to determine that your analysis is wrong? I think that Znameski said Nazism is socialism, but it is an obscure article from 1991 and has not received any recognition in reliable sources. Instead of searching for sources that support your views, read the literature and aim to present what it says. Use the same reasoning you would in other areas of your life. TFD (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only half surprised you'd call that obscure or unreliable, considering it was published by the head of the department of economics at MIT. And, you know, I'd love to read articles which state that it's not any form of Socialism, if only I had any. The best I can find--which I don't dispute--are that it was in many aspects difficult to classify. Also, I have read Temin's article; I said the bit about time constraints because it's quite time-consuming to look up the academic sources you're not providing so that I can research them further. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was unreliable. Could you please read what your sources say and other editors say before posting comments. In any case if you lack reading comprehension skills this discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend you read up on WP:IUC. You changed what your post said after I replied there[10], and now what's currently there is actually not correct, given that Znameski's article was written more recently. This behavior is clearly unethical.

"has not received any recognition in reliable sources", now "I did not say it was unreliable"? What? And please cease with the unnecessary personal attacks. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability means that we can rely on the facts presented. That is separate from the opinions argued. See [WP:WEIGHT|Due and undue weight] "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The opinions expressed in a reliable source are not necessarily significant. TFD (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This sidebar is supported to be a formatting alternative to Template:Socialism, but the content seems to have diverged. I can see there's a lot of effort put into this sidebar, but I do invite people to compare and converge the two. I think one space where the main template has a big advantage to the sidebar is in the list of people. The main template has fewer people than the sidebar, which is supported to be a reduced version of the main template. I have brought that list over into this template. --Duncan (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove all the unnecessary dots in the "People" section (the ones not between two names). 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "unnecessary dots" (or more precisely, bullets). I only see them between names. Intelligentsium 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've already carried out the request, but forgot to untransclude the template afterwards! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 299° 31' 0" NET 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, where the lines break depends somewhat on what font your browser is using. Using my default font (Droid Sans), it's mostly fine, except that there's both a line break and a dot between William Thompson and Thomas Hodgskin. However, if I change the font to a wider font like Verdana, I get line breaks and dots after Hall, Thompson, Hess, Engels, and Morris. I'm not sure what to do about this. We could replace the use of Template:·, which allows line breaks after the dot, with &nbsp;·&nbsp;, which doesn't. I've made this change in my user space, so you can look at it and see if it works.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, there are endless strategies for creating a socialist society. The section is pigeonholing them into narrow categories. The section is not useful.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The single most important conflict within the socialist movement is between reformists and revolutionaries. That needs to be expressed somehow in the template... although maybe not in the current way. I agree that things like Blanquism and Impossibilism are not important enough to be listed here. - Amerul (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Yes, there are endless potential strategies and theories for how a socialist society might emerge, but there are a few notable strategies that deserve to be listed (in particular, the ones which have Wikipedia pages). This makes it convenient for a user who is not familiar with the subject to quickly get a gist of the types of strategies that have been advanced for achieving socialism; it is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive one (none of the lists are exhaustive in the template), but still does an adequate job of giving users a general idea of the strategies, or at least, helps point them to subjects to direct their own research toward.-Battlecry (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R-41, you removed a majority of the concepts listed under the Ideas list supposedly because those concepts were not supported by all socialists. This is true even of the ideas you retained and added in the list. The fact is, socialists have very few common, concrete ideas and many major socialist ideas contradict the ideas of other socialists. The purpose of the list is to provide a quick reference for notable major ideas supported by various socialists, regardless of whether or not they are shared by all socialists or not. Economic planning in some form has historically been associated with socialism, and deserves to be listed alongside major ideas espoused by market socialists (such as the social dividend or basic income, which are schemes promoted by advocates of market socialism). -Battlecry 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a recent edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Socialism_sidebar&diff=541843428&oldid=541826026, there is this Edit summary:

Don't forget: starts/ends of links mustn't be too close to template edges, otherwise they'll linewrap when shown in bold

What is stated there doubtless is so but irrelevant IMO, because none of links there is in bold and there was room to spare at the edges and no line wrap before the above Edit. So, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for unbalancing line lengths in the People section of the sidebar. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jawaharlal Nehru 175.101.18.131 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thorstein Veblen and Bertrand Russell should be included under the people section. Bernie Sanders might also belong in that section.

73.159.157.246 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jackiebiles (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put in the list of Socialists, the 35th President of Brazil, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. I think he has more influence than Bernie Sanders.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, you probably also want to establish a consensus for the change. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is too long. Some of this needs to be in a collapsed state by default.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are our rules for inclusion in the People section? We don't want it to get too big, do we? Recently Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein have been added. Clearly this was done in good faith, as both do have connections to socialism, but neither was a key figure and both are principally known for other things. Russell was primarily a liberal so his inclusion could be confusing to readers. Should we slim the list down to remove these and any other similar entries? Should we also put a hidden comment in the source advising people only to add people who are primarily known for their socialism? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the "people" subsection here at the Socialism sidebar is overpopulated, that the "people" subsection at the Communism sidebar is underpopulated and incomplete; and given that sufficiently populating the Communism sidebar will result in far too much overlap with the Socialism sidebar, thus rendering the Communist sidebar pointless and redundant; I recommend trimming this subsection of Communists. Please discuss. Erhik (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the "people" subsection has become overpopulated compared to similar sidebars, I suggest trimming the list, in favour of authors and theorists, and at the expense of career politicians. For example, Bernie Sanders or Rafael Correa or Jeremy Corbyn self-identify as "socialist", are strongly associated with the word in the public's imagination, and probably fit most people's understanding of the word, but their contribution to socialist literature and theory is minimal at best. We could at least divide the subsection into authors and politicians. Please discuss. Erhik (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that career politicians who were also significant theorists of socialism (not necessarily of the very highest order but significant) should stay but I think most of the rest can go. Exceptions could be made for those played a decisive role in moving a country towards socialism but not for fairly normal politicians. I suggest to remove the obvious ones and leave the any which are borderline pending further discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll remove some of the more obvious ones, but I just don't know enough to make some of the more complicated decisions. Erhik (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]