Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism/Archive 1

talk page template

I'd suggest changing the rose n' fist image in the talk page template to File:Red flag waving.svg. The rose n' fist symbol is specifically associated with the SI tradition, not the socialist movement as a whole. --Soman (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --TIAYN (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

I fail to see why russian soviet expeditions to the poles should have anything to do with the socialism project - russian imperial/nationalistic attitudes to land perhaps - but socialism? any comments? if none - shall remove

• 11th Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 12th Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 13th Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 1st Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 28th Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 2nd Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 3rd Soviet Antarctic Expedition
• 4th Soviet Antarctic Expedition

The more I tag category pages there are many obvious russian based articles that have been tagged socialism when it it blatantly obvious only a russian tag needed - only - any comments or clarifications?

SatuSuro 08:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin GA Review

This project has a declared interest in the Charlie Chaplin article, which is one our most important and most viewed articles. It is being reviewed to see if it matches the criteria for a WP:Good Article. Among other issues it is poorly sourced. The review has been put on hold for seven days to allow time for the article to be sourced. Reference sources can be found on the "Find sources" notice on the talkpage. Further comments can be found at Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1. If you feel that Charlie Chaplin doesn't quite match this project's interests, please let me know, and I will remove the project tag from the talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 09:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

The members are americans? --201.79.208.108 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about this project? If so no, i'm Scandinavian (Northern Europe) so not all members of this project is American. I don't know about the others... --TIAYN (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The American left

I think it would be helpful to have an article about the US Left describing its development in the 19th century and the numerous political and labor movements as well as the current Left in the US. Does anyone have any oninions on this? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --TIAYN (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I started the article as The American Left. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

A while back there was a proposal from someone in WikiProject Socialist movement to merge with the Marxism task force. I think this may be a good idea. I wonder if there is support for it? Then the question is 'within WP:PHILO or without?' I think if we did this, we should either rename the project "WikiProject Socialism" or "WikiProject Marxism." leaving the "movement" out of it. Greg Bard 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Marshall Plan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lost literature of socialism

I wonder if anyone could comment on this book at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[1] In it the author argues that Friedrich Engels was Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust and that Hitler was a socialist. TFD (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitler hid behind socialism the same as many communist nations hide behind democratic sounding names. He was in fact a fascist and once he attained power, killed most of the socialists in the country. The only private businesses he nationalized were mostly owned by the Jews and in fact most of Germany's corporate owners thrived under him right up until the end. I dont think Hitler needed inspiration for the Holocaust. At the time Germany was bad off and Hitler needed to unite his flock behind him. I'm sure he had a genuine dislike of Jews but even if he hadn't, he would have chose another group for a scape goat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.155.25 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Benn

A request has been made for the article Tony Benn to be peer reviwed at WP:Peer review/Tony Benn/archive1. Any comments welcome. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ismael Urbain for DYK

I'm trying to get this article, which I translated from the French Wikipedia, a spot on DYK. IT came with no references. I have managed to find one using Google Books. Could any of you assist in finding some more sources to reference this article? __meco (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Found some

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• the rest being in French, a language i barely understand...

--TIAYN (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they help very much, although I appreciate your effort. __meco (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-posting from 'Social Democracy' discussion board

I had originally posted the following on the Social Democracy discussion page under the headline 'Ideology section needs a serious overhaul'. It was pointed out to me that this may be a more proper forum in which to discuss it, and in retrospect, I believe that this is the more logical place for it. I just decided to copy-paste it in its entirety, so ignore any abnormalities in context:

There are several issues with this section, not the least of which is the fact that it seems skewed towards issues that are predominantly Western in nature and origin, including several issues that have little or nothing to do with social democratic theory.

What isn't considered is whether or not the policies of contemporary social democratic parties draw from social democracy as a coherent and consistent ideology; instead, the section seems to focus on the actual practices of the political parties. Whether or not one supports such practices, it should be relatively clear that something like Blair's 'New Labour' or Rudd's 'Social Capitalism' are significant departures from the relatively consistent policies previously advocated by their parties. Despite the fact that the list is preceded by the mention of 'contemporary' social democrats, I find it a bit misleading to represent policies that only became prevalent within the last 25 years as though they were representative of a movement that's been around for a century and a half. While I'm aware of the relative abandonment by many social democrats of a socialist society as the end goal, it shouldn't be implied that there aren't still significant segments of the overall global movement who maintain the classical position. At the very least, a section generally labelled 'ideology' shouldn't focus exclusively on a modern form.

Several other issues come to mind, all of which seem to stem in one way or another from what appears to be little more than either situations in developed Western nations or some personal cause that has been conflated into an element of the ideology by a well-intentioned editor. Intentions aside, there are several instances where important aspects of the ideology are absent, while issues that have little or no direct connection with the general history and current positions of the social democratic movement are listed. The most glaring example of this is probably the fact that things like 'youth rights' are listed, yet the very idea that gave rise to social democracy as a distinct school of thought (parliamentary methods as an evolutionary route to economic democracy, or to a state of social justice) is not.

In addition to the listing of issue stances that are more characteristic of interest-group liberalism than of anything else, there are a number of issues such as 'fair trade over free trade' that are found almost exclusively in affluent countries; this example in particular points to a preferred option regarding consumer choice, a matter of far less consequence in nations where food is produced primarily through domestic channels on a chiefly subsistence-level basis. While as an individual choice this stance may be indicative of the wider value set of a social democrat, it is exclusively an action, and therefore communicates nothing as to why that action is preferable. As I understand it, an ideology consists of both means and ends.

I won't bring up the lack of historical policies and goals of social democratic parties, as this issue has been raised before. However, it remains a valid assertion that the ideology's origins in the original revolutionary socialist movement are deserving of some mention in this section.

I would be happy to participate in the necessary rewrites if others feel they are necessary, and would of course submit them for review before placing them in the article. If anybody agrees, let me know. If not, the list of policies is still deserving of attention, at least to bring it in line with the general theory. --Apjohns54 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Those last three sentences stand here as well, as I would prefer a collaborative process to unilateral action. I have access to enough reliable sources to do it myself if sufficient interest isn't expressed by others, but would prefer not to. The probability of my bias coming through in what I would write is most likely low, but oversight and accountability, not to mention cooperation, make for far better articles and contributions than one person's take on the subject. --Apjohns54 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ResPublica

ResPublica - please review / assess this article for importance and quality, and add/expand if possible. Thanks. Chzz  ►  03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I would also like to add: Because one or two leaders come to office that differ from the former conventional views does not necessarily imply an entire shift in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.155.25 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Eastern Europe

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with (geopolitical, economical etc.) errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Central Europe is more than an ex-Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Socialist Campaign Group

Hi! I've been trying (slowly) to edit the page for the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs in the UK. I am hampered by a lack of information that systematically lists all of the past members of the group (and when they were active in the group). There are bits and pieces out there that I have started to pull together to make this page historically accurate and more interesting. If anybody could help build the page further, that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.151.38 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Socialism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Socialism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

transposing of content of far-left article to more appropriate radical left heading

I've started a discussion on the in/appropriateness of moving the content of far left over to radical left, and I go into the reasons here, and I'd like it if WikiProject Socialism contributors would chime in. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kengir uprising FAR

I have nominated Kengir uprising for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophes - Workers' Party or Workers Party?

Pages like Socialist_Workers'_Party_(disambiguation) look extremely sloppy with half of the party names having apostrophes and half not. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how this is determined. This proposal, the guidelines on special characters, both seem to point to article titles without apostrophes.

Which is correct? Discussion, please!! Jsharpminor (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think (and have argued in the past, in the proposal mentioned above) that we should avoid apostrophes in these situations. The usage in Wikipedia should mirror, to a large extent, usage outside Wikipedia. see www.swp.org.uk/, www.wpb.be, www.themilitant.com, www.uwpdm.com, www.swp.ie, www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us.htm , www.nwp-pk.org, etc...

That said, this is not 100% consequent. see www.workerspartyireland.net and www.wp.org.sg.

It has been argued that "Workers' Party" is more grammatically correct. However, I'm not sure that we should interpret "Workers Party" necessarily as "Party of the Workers". It can have different possible connotations, such as "for the Workers". Its a bit like "Labour Party" isn't necessarily "of the Labourers". --Soman (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not really correct to speak of more or less grammatically correct in this case. We have some discussion of this in a Wikipedia article; the distinction ("descriptive" vs. "possessive") drawn by the one source cited there (Gregg Reference Manual) is not perfectly stated (to my taste) but serviceable enough. In any case, (1) the omission of apostrophes in these cases is quite traditional and correct, enough so that some of the apostrophes mentioned here are probably near-hypercorrection (if not strictly incorrect either); (2) a clarifying example is to recognize that we could speak in the singular of a Socialist Worker Party (or Real Man Party), etc., and few would clamor that the choice not to use the possessive is an error. (All that said, I think as Soman suggests below, we have to go with the sources when the language barrier doesn't prevent it; real world usage simply varies, as the NYT style manual recognizes.) Wareh (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought a Labour Party was a party for those in labour (congratulations... its a boy!... now breath!). Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They may not necessarily all be named the same. Deference should be given to the verifiable spelling of each. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The more difficult question is, how to do with parties with non-English names? the Socialist Workers Party (Chile) most probably did not have an official name in English, so how do we treat such a case? --Soman (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Each party should be referred to with or without the apostrophe depending on how it is referred to most often in English-language sources. If this results in country-to-country inconsistency, so be it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm with Metropolitan: Do whatever the best sources usually do. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and should be rejected here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I suppose I didn't think this sort of consistency "foolish," but it appears after further research that it is. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agsin to Metropolitan and WhatamIdoing, the problem is the sources give no help in deciding. It's quite easy to decide that it should be 'Workers' Party of Ireland' and 'Socialist Workers Party (Ireland)', seeing how the parties themselves name themselves. But the majority of cases are from non-English speaking countries, and if there are any translations they are generally inconsistent (some calling it the Labour Party, some the Workers' Party, some the Workers Party). We should have a standard, preferably added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) on how to do in those cases, so that it is not an aestethical choice of the individual editor. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Socialism to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Editors here may be interested in assisting with the Good Article nomination of Tony Blair. The review can be found at Talk:Tony Blair/GA1. GA is reachable, but it will require hard work. Any assistance would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request: Karl Marx

I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the connection between post-Keynesian economics and socialism?

I dispute that post-Keynesian economics can be categorized as socialist. You are welcome to discuss this, if you want, at the relevant Talk page. Thanks.-The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Katyn massacre at Featured Article review

Katyn massacre is undergoing a featured article review process here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn_massacre/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Marxist theory

Template:Marxist theory has been nominated for merging with Template:Marxism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Explanation

Before my edit, a long code was used to produce the membership userbox:

{{userboxtop|}}
{{userbox
| border-c = #cc0000
| id       = [[File:Red flag waving.svg|35px]]
| id-c     = white
| info     = This user is a member of<br>'''<font color="#FFFFFF">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialist movement|WikiProject Socialism]]</font>'''.
| info-c   = #cc0000
| info-fc  = #FFFFFF
| info-op  = text-align:center;
| usercategory  = WikiProject Socialism participants
| nocat = {{{nocat|}}}
}}<noinclude>
[[Category:WikiProject user templates|Socialism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]</noinclude>
{{userboxbottom}}

I replaced this long code with: {{User Socialist member box}} . I also fixed a few typos.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Communist front

An article that you have been involved in editing, Communist front, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Political culture

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture

There is a new WikiProject whose aim is to provide Wikipedia resources and a common discussion for political culture articles. This includes Anarchism, Corporatism, Oligarchy, Liberalism, Socialism and Fascism. Greg Bard (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Far left

Editors are invited to contribute to this discussion: Talk:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark)#RfC: Should the ideology of Communist successor parties be called far left? TFD (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New: Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism

Seems to have started as Austrian economics POV-pushing, but has potential. Yakushima (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Denis Healey, Ralph Miliband, Michael Crick, and... Nicholas Bridgestock?

Our article on Nicholas Bridgestock says that he ignited the Winter of Discontent deliberately. And some articles have been edited to indicate that he had a significant role in the events of that period. But, Bridgestock seems to have been a rather secretive fellow, and my searches for any books or news media mentioning his role, have turned up nothing.

The article uses Denis Healey's autobiography The Time of my Life (p.321), as well as books by Ralph Miliband and Michael Crick, and also A Short History of the Labour Party (pp.201-202), as sources. Would anyone with access to any of these be kind enough to check if Bridgestock is indeed mentioned in them?

It's been alleged to me that the entire article is a hoax, but it seems to be from a good faith contributor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't check those sources, but he has no mention in the index of Tony Benn's Diaries: 1973-1976, 1980-1990 or 1991-2001. Having checked all the index entries for Denis Healey and Harold Wilson in the 73-76 Diaries, where he is also absent. He doesn't feature in Smear! Wilson and the Secret State (1991) which is probably the most encyclopedic account of the covert dealing and plots of Wilson era. I also can't find one reference to him while searching the net, which isn't a copy & paste from the Wiki bio.

It seems unlikely that he could be the arctitect of Wilson's repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, Healey's top rates of tax rise, and Callaghan's pay freeze, while secretly deceiving the TUC into thinking that Callaghan would soon back down. This Machiavellian genius appears to have been running the country during the late 1970's, controlling everthing! Yet he has only a single Wikipedia biography to his name. Flame579 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked Parliamentary Socialism and A Short History of the Labour Party and he doesn't appear in either! This is obviously a hoax, so I proposed that the article be deleted. The pages of Denis Healey and James Callaghan will also need to be edited. Flame579 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the references to Nicholas Bridgestock from the articles on Denis Healey, James Callaghan and the Winter of Discontent. Flame579 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work in fixing this. I had Healey's book on order from the local library, but it's almost certainly not needed now. Assuming the article is deleted without incident on the 15th, I'll also drop its author a query about this... as well as going through some of his other contributions to see if there's anything similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Your input is sought at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Socialism into the Political culture WikiProject

Greetings folks, A little while ago, the Philosophy project merged it's Marxism Task Force into this WikiProject. At that time it was also proposed to move the Anarchism Task Force out in a similar way -- but there wasn't exactly a perfect place to merge it to. There hasn't been any action other than that since then. At the time, I had proposed and then hinted strongly that WP:PHIL name the members of the Anarchism Task Force to the Philosophy Hall of Fame (Start of Sophia) but that hasn't gone anywhere unfortunately. My proposal now is to merge the Anarchism TF and the Socialism WP into the new Political culture WikiProject. I think the Anarchism TF, the Socialism TF and the Political culture project would mutually benefit from the larger pool of editors in the discussion. Furthermore, I think the Political culture project would be a good venue for such discussions because it will attract a diverse set of editors, all united in their interest in political culture. The truth is that without the Anarchism folks and the Socialism folks it won't be much of a project. However with both, we have a potential powerhouse. There is also talk about merging the whole thing into WP:POLITICS, but I think that discussion is premature. So my question is, should I move forward with some form of merge? A) A total merge including the discussion space, B) Merge everything, but leave the Socialism discussion area independent, or C) Leave my WikiProject alone! If we go with C, I may still tag articles with a WP:POLC banner without deleting the Socialism banner, and leave it up to evolution from there. Then again, perhaps D) merge with Politics isn't so premature. Any thoughts?Greg Bard (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Please also consider merging the liberalism and conservatism projects. TFD (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is the beginning of a discussion about that at WikiProject Politics. The idea is that the conservative and progressive traditions are under Liberalism. I.e. Conservatives are Classical liberals, and Progressives are Social liberals. It is totally possible to name them as sub-taskforces. Greg Bard (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A. J. P. Taylor

I have rewritten the introduction for A. J. P. Taylor adding, amazingly considering its length, the first inline citation of the entire article. That said, lack of citations aside, most of it is quite well written, readable, and seems to cover all of the many aspects of his life. It has been suggested before that the article be split between life and work. I will make a start on this in the near future. So I would appreciate any help in the form of criticism, suggestions, sources, and things that should be removed or added, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John21Allen (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitler

Someone who is not a memeber (or atleast an active member) of this project added Adolf Hitler to this project's scope. Does anybody mind? LittleJerry (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?"" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming proposal at Communist Romania

Since the Communist Romania article is a part of this project, I thought it would be a good idea to notify everyone here of the ongoing Requested Move on Talk:Communist Romania. The proposed new name is Socialist Republic of Romania. Regards -- Director (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Socialism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Socialist history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Grottkau

I prepair a German version of this article. Could you help me and tell me, where he died? Best regards --Whoiswohme (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA reviewer needed

New article Foley Square trial (about the 1949 trial of leaders of the US communist party) needs a GA reviewer. Any help would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Haymarket affair Good Article reassessment

Haymarket affair, which is listed as part of this WikiProject, has been nominated for a community reassessment to determine if it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article waiting for review

An article from this project is nominated for Featured Article status: Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders. To assist the process, visit its FA review page to add comments, or register support/oppose sentiments. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi folks, I've requested a move of Anarchist communism to anarcho-communism based on usage within and outside of the article. The discussion hasn't attracted a whole lot of input, and I thought some of you might have some expertise to lend. Best, BDD (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

wIKOPAEDIA COVERAGE OF PEOPLE OF THE LEFT

i HAVE BEEN READING THE ARTICLE ON hERBERT aPTHEKER,COMMUNIST HISTORIAN,AND AM STRUCK BY THE ALLEGATIO0NS OF CHILD ABUSE.sO MANY ARTICLES ON LEFTISTS IN wIKOPAEDIA ON LEFTISTS CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINALOITY AND PERSONAL WRONG DOING-mICHAEL fOOT,COMMUNIST AGENT,-gEORGE gALLOWAY SADAAM AGENT AND EMBEZZLER-kEN Livinstone liar,cheat and again embezzler as well as anti semite.Why do you thinl this is.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.244.19 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Communist Romania

This is to notify members that there is currently a WP:REQUESTED MOVE discussion taking place at Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move. Input would be appreciated. Regards -- Director (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Shining Path, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Socialist Studies № 1.png

File:Socialist Studies № 1.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un.jpg

image:Kim Jong-un.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR Socialist Left Party (Norway)

Socialist Left Party (Norway), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

• Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)