Talk:Communism

Lead section images

Hi @The History Wizard of Cambridge, I notice you recently added five images to the lead section. Images are often the first thing readers look at in articles. For that reason I prefer having no lede images in broad topic articles, such as communism is. Could you explain how you chose the current picks? There is a demonstration, a revolution, an anti-fascist victory, a Marxist–Leninist leader visiting another Marxist–Leninist ruled country, and a propaganda poster for Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. No libertarian tendency represented. –Vipz (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, well my 2 cents are there is no need for a lede images in broad and wide topic articles and this is exactly one of that articles. Cheers 79.101.141.7 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I support these images.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My justification for the lead image choices

I apologise for my late reply to you @User:viz. I chose photographs on a basis of how iconic and recognisable they were, coupled with their effects upon history and real world events.

Communist parade (6297059793).jpg - Modern India because this represents the largest communist movement outside of a communist country active today.

Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra.jpg - Cuban revolution. Cuba is among the longest lasting communist governments, as well as one of the few remaining, and the only one in the Americas, with Fidel Castro being one of the most easily identifiable communists in history.

Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg - The Soviet victory over Nazism. In my opinion this is the most iconic photograph ever created by communists. The only other images representing communism that are as easily recognisable are the hammer and sickle (which is in this photograph), and Che Guevara shirts which are already somewhat represented by the Cuban revolution image.

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-48550-0036, Besuch Ho Chi Minhs bei Pionieren, bei Berlin.jpg - Ho Chi Minh in East Germany. This one I was on the fence for but I wanted to find an example of both an iconic communist practitioner, who also had a large effect on real world events, and represented some form of interaction between different communists.

Marxismo Leninismo Pensamiento Maotsetung.jpg Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao. As the five communists whose theories and actions have had the most influence upon real world events, this needs little explanation, though I also wanted to include an image I felt was typical of communist art and culture, hence why I chose an art piece.

Over-representation ? You mentioned that there are "no libertarian tendency" represented in the images, and that Marxist-Leninists are over-represented. This is likely because Marxist-Leninist communists are responsible for the vast majority of communist revolutions and governments, while "libertarian communist" have had relatively little noticeable effect on real world events. While Marxist-Leninists had military, scientific, and economic superpowers, libertarian communists don't appear to have made much of an impact on world history. That is not a comment on which ideology is supposedly more correct, that's just how it looks from a historical viewpoint. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think much of an explanation or debate is even needed to explain why those images were inappropriate, especially for such a diverse political topic. However I will partially explain my reasoning for removing these images specifically.

The reasoning for the inclusion of these images you've provided doesn't justify inclusion. The first image you suggested certainly couldn't be described as major or important, the only justification given is because it is modern and therefore relevant. The size of a "communist movement" isn't just defined by party membership to begin with so even the very claim itself that it is the largest movement outside of a communist country is doubtful.

The main issue with including the image of the Cuban revolution is that revolutions aren't really the focus of this article and this article doesn't really focus on Cuba and no reason is given as to why this revolution is of special importance. It is also factually incorrect to say that it was the only Communist government to have existed in the Americas.

The Reichstag flag image is iconic but it isn't really associated with Communism so much as it is associated with the Soviet Union and WW2 which is why it generally appears in articles and books on those topics as opposed to ones on Communism. The facts that it includes a hammer and sickle or that it is an iconic image created by communists are not justifications for including the image in the lead.

The Ho Chi Minh image also has issues but since you were "on the fence" for this image it seems unnecessary to explain my reasoning for removing it.

"Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao" is a charitable way of describing a propaganda poster of which there are countless. The inclusion of propaganda posters isn't necessarily an issue but in what way is this poster representative of Communist art and culture? Communism encompassed multiple different countries and billions of people over a century since the October Revolution which literally cannot be represented by one poster. By chosing one poster that isn't really very notable it can appear as if you are suggesting that one country or viewpoint is more important or correct than another.

There are many, many more issues with these images but fundamentaly the main issue is that images were included in the lead in the first place, not what the images are. Much of the criteria you've laid out feels arbitrary(why do forms of interaction between different communists need to be included?) and self contradicting. Regardless of how "correct" Communism is it is often associated with economic backwardness and starvation. It is also often associated with massive military and technological development, cults of personality and liberatarianism among other things. This is a "High-importance" article on Liberatarianism after all. Originalcola (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! They should be added. User:Originalcola has arbitrary and reasoning that’s is not backed up with evidence. 2601:248:5181:5C70:AD25:F61A:AECC:E695 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Wanting inclusion of libertarian communist iconography is not a justification for exclusions of otherwise appropriate images. Are there iconic images related to libertarian communism that should be added? Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Property Definition Correction:

"According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power, and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production."

The above statement is incorrect. The common ownership of PRIVATE property, not personal property. Private property is all property used to exploit human labor for a profit. A person's house, car, computer, and "Fruit Of The Looms", are personal property, that isn't publicly owned. You have a right to your personal property in communism (I haven't met one communist yet, that would disagree with that statement and I've been a communist since 1988). This Wikipedia statement, that the communists are attempting to make ALL property "common" or publicly owned, is WRONG (It will give people the wrong impression, that we're coming after their stuff when we're not). Incorrect. John Bilbao (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Personal property is different from private property in communist thought, and in the USSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It needs to say "common ownership of the means of production". Because this common ownership only pertains to private property that creates wealth, like land or a factory or a business. Any other private property is privately owned in a communist state as much as it is in a capitalist country.

The only exception I can think of is when it comes to housing. Communist states (Cuba, Gaddafi's Lybia) gift all citizens with housing arrangements. This means citizens don't have to pay for the place they live in (as in rent or mortages). But to be able to provide everyone with a place to live, the state needs to own the housing spaces. Arguably, paying rent creates wealth through ownership of the property, so housing might qualify as means of production too, even if it doesn't produce anything (rent barely qualifies as a maintenance service).

I don't know if the homes provided by the state were all created by the communist government through housing investments, or some were apropiated from private owners - probably only the first is true today. I'm not Cuban so I might get it wrong but I believe they distribute living spaces by the squares, meaning you might end up sharing living quarters with strangers, as if it was a student dorm. And you have the option to move out to a more private home, if you manage to save enough to afford it. If somebody from Cuba reads this, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, in a nutshell: "common ownership of the means of production" or "means of wealth" is the most accurate description here. Featheredhat (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Lack of criticism section

Just about every ideology page on Wikipedia has a criticism section. Why does communism get an exception? The analysis section masks criticism for a casual reader. 2.87.252.249 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Criticism is best incorporated into the relevant sections of articles rather than put into a separate section. For example, most of the section on Stalinism is devoted to criticism. It would not help to move this material into a separate section with criticism of other aspects of the topic. TFD (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CRIT. There are articles Criticism of communist party rule and Criticism of Marxism.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also an article Criticism of Christianity. The problem is that there are many beliefs within Christianity and many angles of attack. TFD (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The main christianity and capitalism articles have both a dedicated criticism section, as well as dedicated criticism articles linked at the top of the main article's relevant section. It seems somewhat obvious that this deviation in format for this topic is intended to remove criticisms from the table of contents in the main article, and to bury the links to the criticisms article several paragraphs into a more neutral sounding "analysis" section. 116.96.44.114 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGF Please do not assign motivation to other editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, I am a reader. And considering Criticism of Wikipedia I don't think its unreasonable to express concerns of Political bias among the editors of these articles as long as the discussion is productive. If I am in error, please provide a rational explanation for this deviation in formatting among related topics as the original author of this post indicated. And if the real answer is that "criticism is better incorporated into relevant sections", then why are other political and religious articles not organized in a similar way considering they have dedicated criticism sections on their main articles? 116.96.44.114 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

One criticism of Communists was that they usually attributed political bias to critics, even within their own party. TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This completely incorrect and contradicted by just about every single article covering other major political ideologies. There is no reason to treat Communism as unique in that it a dedicated criticism section is unwarranted. 46.162.125.17 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

was communism successful in russia?

eighteenth Brumaire of louis Napoleon literally describes why Russia would be unfit for communism, it's unready and just as marx said it faced extreme backwardness and arguably worse conditions than Tsarist Russia WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not provided any reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by communism. The Bolsheviks envisioned transforming Russia into a liberal democratic capitalist state. However, invasion and sanctions by the West prevented that, leaving them with few options. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

due to the Communistic regime, Lenin himself literally wanted to remove full communism that says more than enough WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks were communists, where do you get the information that they wanted a capitalist state? Was this a typo?

Also, Lennin never wanted to remove "full communism", he was the implementor of communism. I'm very sorry but I think you got your facts wrong?

Could we at least cite a source if we're saying things like these. It's very confusing. Featheredhat (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I had an article at that point I have it saved I'll update you on it when I can lol, but removing full communism was just reverting to a milder state of communism since russia was not prepared for it at that point, full communism was extreme communism, reverting it does not equate to capitalism WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See "Did the Bolsheviks Advocate Socialist Revolution in 1917?" by Eric Blanc: "The October Revolution codified workers’ control but it did not nationalise industry. Indeed, Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership for months after October sought to reach some sort of working arrangement with the owners of industry."

As we know, under Marxist theory, socialist revolution would be lead by the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries. Since Russia was a backward feudal country without a substantial proletariat,it would have to wait for the socialist revolution to come to it. Note all the ideological manoeuvrings the Bolsheviks would later have to make to explain why Russia became the first socialist state. TFD (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should just avoid saying if Communism was successful or not to avoid any bias. Other than maybe noting that Russia was one of the largest implementations of Communism, or one of the most known, it's unnecessary to note if it was successful or not. Just VERY well known. 2600:1700:684F:B000:F182:BA10:8FB8:9100 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The concept of success is difficult. It could be said that communism is a stepping stone to take an unsuccessful, poverty-stricken autocratic state to eventual capitalism. It could also be stated that no entire country has ever been communist in a pure state. But to use the word "success", we would need to depend on RS. And as TFD suggested, best-laid plans of mice and men can go awry from outside forces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Graph Our World in Data

Autocratic states, including some communist states, have experienced significantly more famines than democratic states.

@Small colossal, what about this caption? Communist states are autocratic states, that's just a fact. PJ Geest (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, communist states are a subset of autocracies. And I personally agree with the argument you are making about them. But that's the issue... it is your argument, not an argument made by this graph or by its source article. The graph and its source do not mention communism at all, and the graph does not distinguish between different types of autocracies. So, for example, several famines in "China" are listed, with no indication as to which Chinese autocratic regime is represented. It is clearly not the intention of this source to say anything about communism.

Communist states are autocracies, but for example military dictatorships are also autocracies, and several of them were responsible for famines on this graph. I don't think that means that it would be appropriate to add it to the military dictatorship article, because that's obviously not the subject of the graph. The same goes for communism. This is a graph making a point about autocracy in general. So it would be appropriate for the autocracy article, or the dictatorship article, or others that are near-synonyms of autocracy. But not for articles on specific autocratic ideologies or types of autocratic governments (communist states, military dictatorships, empires, etc.).

There is a lot of data about autocracy in general, and a lot of academic literature about it, but as far as I can see none of it is used in this article. We only use sources that are about communism specifically. I think that is a good policy. Otherwise, the sources about communism would quickly get outnumbered by sources about autocracy in general. - Small colossal (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are implying that Communism leads to famine, while an analysis in a reliable source might point out that while Communism often arose in countries that had a history of famine, democracies did not.

The chart also makes an arbitrary distinction between uncategorized/authoritarian/democratic regimes and the colonies they administered. Ireland for example was part of the United Kingdom during the Great Famine so not technically a colony.

Note also that the chart categorizes the Ukrainan SSR as a colony. TFD (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

right; the Ukraine was a Soviet Socialist Republic from 1922-1991. <the-encyclopedia-of-world-geography> <pg. 223> 206.57.152.111 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

IOW, it was part of the Soviet Union, just as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we add an image here?

I feel like for such an impactful and unique ideology, there should really be some image at the beginning area of the article to symbolize communism, whether that be Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, the Russian Revolution, a hammer and sickle, something entirely different, or a mix of these options. Could someone find an image? LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Communism is too broad of a topic to have one face or event adequately represent it. However, if you look carefully, there is a hammer and sickle already decorating the sidebar that sits at the top of the article. Not all articles truly need a lead image, especially when one is difficult to choose. –Vipz (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Contradiction and reworking of opening definition?

The opening description defines communism as "a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement..."

Yet in the history section it has communism beginning in ancient Greece: "According to Richard Pipes, the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in ancient Greece. Since the 20th century, ancient Rome has been examined in this context, as well as thinkers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Demosthenes, Plato, and Tacitus. Plato, in particular, has been considered as a possible communist or socialist theorist, or as the first author to give communism a serious consideration."

My point here being that marxist communism and communism in general are two different things. Saying that all communism is part of the socialist movement is very clearly an overstatement as first and foremost communism existed quite clearly (and stated in the this exact article, before the beginning of the socialist movement. I think the history of communism wiki gives a slightly more improved definition: "... communism encompasses a wide variety of ideologies and political movements sharing the core principles of common ownership of wealth, economic enterprise, and property. Most modern forms of communism are grounded at least nominally in Marxism, a theory and method conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the 19th century."

Personally I think the true definition of communism is even narrower something a kin to: "A sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology in which individual actors aim to maximize communal well-being" ... but obviously that is just me and I do not represent the general public, that being said, as previously stated it is quiet clear, even from this article itself that communism can not simply be boiled down as a subsect of socialism. Dannyb603 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's exceedingly normal for overviews of vaguely academic subjects to find some thread that begins in the Greco-Roman world. This article does not veer off topic in that way. It does not matter what your true definition is, as we write articles based on what reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend you read either the history of communism, or the pre-marxist communism wiki pages. I highlighted the grecco-roman period as an example but it is very clear that "ideologies and political movements sharing the core principles of common ownership of wealth, economic enterprise, and property" existed well before Marx. As previously stated on the history of communism page: "communism encompasses a wide variety of ideologies and political movements sharing the core principles of common ownership of wealth, economic enterprise, and property. Most modern forms of communism are grounded at least nominally in Marxism, a theory and method conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the 19th century."

I would also suggest you check the source you cited. The Encyclopedia Britannica (source used in this article) never states that communism is only a part of the socialist movement. "communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."

What it does say in relation to socialism: "Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates."

Yes communism is a part of the socialist movement but that does not mean it is exclusively part of the socialist movement let me state again from the history of communism wiki: "The history of communism encompasses a wide variety of ideologies and political movements sharing the core principles of common ownership of wealth, economic enterprise, and property. Most modern forms of communism are grounded at least nominally in Marxism" Dannyb603 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

These are good points now that you've articulated further, I appreciate that. Remsense ‥ 论 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

References

"康米" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 康米 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29 § 康米 until a consensus is reached. Fathoms Below (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Far-left" classification in the lead sentence of the article

Hello @DocZach, I believe it was an edit of mine that most recently removed far-left from the first sentence of the lead section of this article, with the edit summary: Placement of communism on the political spectrum is more thoroughly and duly addressed in the second paragraph. It doesn't really need to be mentioned in the very first sentence. The very first sentence of the article defines the topic, and I don't think placement of communism on the political spectrum is of such great importance to have it there. Likewise for articles of other major political ideologies such as socialism, anarchism, liberalism, or conservatism, to name a few. –Vipz (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the "far-left" classification should remain based on the fact that it is widely covered as a far-left ideology by reliable sources, and it is a defining component of communism. This is similar to how fascism, something on the opposite side of the political spectrum, has the "far-right" classification in the beginning sentence. DocZach (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of whether Communism is far-left. I don't think anyone disputes that. This is actually what makes fascism a bad comparison. Far-right types often try to move Fascism around the political compass for rhetorical reasons. Leftists... don't try to do that with communism. Frankly what you are being told is that we don't put WP:SKYBLUE statements in the first sentence of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The "far-left" classification should indeed remain... in the second paragraph, where it has been present all along. I do not think there is any reason to place it in the beginning sentence. The vast majority of articles on political ideologies do not begin by listing the classification of that ideology on the political spectrum. So, the beginning sentence for fascism is the exception, not the standard. And this article does not need to mirror that one. After all, there are more than two extreme ideologies! For example, anarchism. The beginning sentence of the anarchism article does not call it far-left, but - like in the communism article - it is mentioned a few sentences later that anarchism is left-wing (I would actually support changing that to "far-left" for anarchism, but that's not the subject of this conversation). For some ideologies, their position on the political spectrum is a more prominent aspect than for others. - Small colossal (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I disaagree that most reliable sources refer to Communism as far left. That term is generally reserved for more extreme groups, such as left-wing terrorists. Furthermore, its ill-defined and it meaning varies depending on context. Basically, it means more left wing than the speaker finds acceptable. TFD (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

TDF brings an interesting point. Do we have sources for who in fact classifies communism in the "far left" spectrum? Or a definition of what qualifies as "far-left" in the first place? Unless communism uses excesive violence to raise to, or stay in, power, calling communism far-left might be more a perception or opinion than a fact - and, in fact, "far-left" winds up meaning "more left wing than the speaker finds acceptable". Which does not adhere to wikipedia's policy for delivering strictly facts.

As an example, was the emancipation of Congo to become a free and independent country out of colonial control 'excessive in violence' and 'far-left'? If you consider independence movements to be of 'just' violence, I should follow up by saying that the Congo's first independent government was, in fact, lead by a communist leader, with no bloodshed except their own, as Patrice Lumumba was assassinated not even a few months later after becoming prime minister, by vote. Consider too that the key moments of excessive violence in Congo (Leopoldville, civil war) happened before this state was introduced (1969) and after it ended (1992), with the communists being the victims of assassination more often than not.

And even if somebody wants to argue the 'excess of violence' from Lumumba trying to take a city, it feels like it's a hard comparisson to an ideology that proposes, and implements, an absolute physical anhiquilation of a group, as is the case with facism.

So. I would ask to rephrase the text to reflect it's cathegorization as far-left is in fact subjective, such as mentioning "some people" locate this ideology in the far-left, with at least a source that reflects this point of view. Thank you in advance. Featheredhat (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this point of view, if we could we should get a citation for the "far-left" classification. Super m001 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article cites repression of freedom of religion and speech as if it’s fact of communism. In fact, it’s only happened likely because of outside pressure. Namely US meddling in affairs. You can’t make something a fact when there is a bully on the block for 250 yrs. It is not an inherent principle of communism. If this site is not already bought by Elon/Trump it will correct that misinformation. You’re conflating some principles of fascism with communism because your masters are fascist imo. 73.35.55.164 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Trying to treat this as a serious complaint about the article and an opportunity for constructive dialogue...restrictions on religion and speech have been imposed by various communist regimes over the past century, the article reflects that. Wikipedia could say "Communists did xyz bad thing, but only because of outside pressure," but that's not the opinion of most real-world scholars (WP:RS is the relevant policy) and frankly it would make the site look like a joke. If your goal is to improve the article, there's a ton of Wikipedia policy and culture you would really need to familiarize yourself with first, if your goal is to promote communism there are better ways to do it. Prezbo (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

A communist country is a contradiction as of itself. You can't in your right mind say that communism has done crimes and killed people when everyone who calls themselves a communist (including Marx) knows that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, but the absolute first stage towards it. 85.76.82.71 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

While this article certainly has neutrality issues it is also a Level 3 vital article about a controversial topic. What this means is that it is watched by a lot of eyes and edits will be highly scrutinized for adherence to Wikipedia policy. If you want to make the changes you are proposing I would strongly encourage you to do some reading and find WP:BESTSOURCES that support your assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an understandable concern, but it must be said that there is a fairly obvious distinction between what communism means to communists and the meaning it has accrued through history -- states have come and gone, and it happens that many which have proclaimed themselves to represent the interests of revolutionary Marxism (whether or not one considers them to have actually done so) have done things which most people would consider 'bad'. Whether they truly represented the correct interpretation (whichever one that might be) of Marxist doctrine is ultimately a detail not terribly relevant. AFEG64 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"have done things which most people would consider 'bad'" From my perspective, Vanguardism and so-called "professional revolutionaries" as champions of the working class tends to translate to an elite that does not actually work for a living, and does not particularly care about the financial needs and demands of the workers. I am not particularly surprised that the standard of living in the Eastern Bloc was far from great for much of its population. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"that's not the opinion of most real-world scholars..."

Most "real-world scholars" being overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxons of course. Not that their "opinions" could be mistaken for an absolute truth in a world in which the media and online reference websites such as Wikipedia are vastly dominated by a few Anglo-Saxon families, right? Is this system "perfectly neutral" or are we dealing with a narcissistic self-recursive loop?

English Wikipedia citations to academic work are overwhelmingly Anglo‑American/U.K. sources. Roughly 80–90% of academic citations by English Wikipedia come from anglophone publications. And Wikipedia editors calls that "neutral". 2403:6200:8856:308:9930:CD78:6938:4BF2 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2025

I request for the Category:Dictatorship to be added to the External links, please. 2A0A:EF40:1D2B:FB01:417:4FD5:7483:DE0A (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: before adding or making more requests concerning them, please look at WP:Categorization, and acquire a bit more familiarity of what categories are onwiki and how they are used. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 12:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2025

Remove repeated sentences in section History: Communist States: Soviet Union, 1st paragraph:

Change

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline. Trotskyism overtook the left communists as the main dissident communist current, while more libertarian communisms, dating back to the libertarian Marxist current of council communism, remained important dissident communisms outside the Soviet Union. Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.

To

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline. Trotskyism overtook the left communists as the main dissident communist current, while more libertarian communisms, dating back to the libertarian Marxist current of council communism, remained important dissident communisms outside the Soviet Union. OrsonKing (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 04:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Source needed

"characterized by one-party rule, rejection of private property and capitalism, state control of economic activity and mass media, restrictions on freedom of religion, and suppression of opposition". This should quote a source, or link to an article that quotes the source. (Cases like the goverments speared by Patrice Lumumba y Thomas Sankara don't share these caracteristics of supression of oposition or state control of media, or restrictions on religion, or one-party rule. It feels this is almost exclusively describing Stalinism, and even then the restriction on freedom of religion is news to me, and I'd like to know where it comes from but I can't without access to a source.) Featheredhat (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Source 35 at the end of the next sentence describes and details these. Element10101 T ~ C 00:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The article should use a better source than Encarta, which was a free encyclopedia offered to Microsoft clients in the 1990s. Gorbachev was a Communist, but didn't restrict freedom of religion or suppress the opposition and opposed one-party rule and state control of the media. The article confuses policies (which change) with ideology (which doesn't). TFD (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, now I'm troubled... The article cited is from Encarta, another encyclopedia, but it doesn't contain any sources. The mention of restriction on religion is a passing comment without any cited work, and everything else mentioning religion confuses events that happened in medieval ages with communism... which is absurd. I don't know if this statement about religious restriction in communism is made-up, but it doesn't seem like this article is a reliable narration or account of it.

...And just like that, I can't read more on this subject. Not from this citation, or from googling it for that matter: In everything I read, communism is either indifferent to religion, or worked alongside it (from wikipedia: Religious communism). So maybe it isn't even real.

I wonder if it's not a good idea to remove this description as a whole... Or at least put a pin in it until somebody can provide an actual reliable source, article or quote of someone witnesing or experiencing these.

.

Additional comments: The other generalizations about the governments of that time could be contested too, as control of "mass media" or supression of opposition sound almost exclusively things of stalinism (lennism had neither of those things)... And these are my personal feelings but, I feel, were this not a communist article (which has been popularized in media as 'evil' in most Western fictions, most of which never even experienced a communist government), most of these would be dismissed as hearsay. This is one example. Featheredhat (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The article says that the Communist states of the 20th century were characterized by "one-party rule, rejection of private property and capitalism, state control of economic activity and mass media, restrictions on freedom of religion, and suppression of opposition", which was indeed true. However, this describes Communist states, not communism inherently. Thus, I think this just needs a better source, not entire removal. Element10101 T ~ C 15:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Zohran

Why does “Zohran” link to this page? Is this vandalism or am I missing something? 125.253.110.1 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Where do you see this? Zohran redirects to Zohran Mamdani. I don't see any links to this page from there either. Mellk (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

see [1] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it was quickly reverted. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't add more content

I would like to add information about the Marxist inspiration of Dr. Karl Marx to the article, as well as include countries where communism has been implemented, its advantages, and the different branches of communism—particularly communist monarchy, which I support, as I understand how this monarchical-communist system works in practice. However, the page is currently protected... Dr. Valmontier (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

See: edit requests. Mellk (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)