| Revision as of 04:50, 18 March 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Tankie/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:10, 5 January 2025 edit undoLunaEclipse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions7,441 edits Assessment: banner shell, Politics, +Anarchism (Rater) |
| (17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<!-- |b1 Referencing and citations =yes |
|
{{Talkheader|archive_age=1|archive_units=year}} |
|
|
|
|b2 Coverage and accuracy =no |
|
|
|b3 Structure =yes |
|
|
|b4 Grammar and style =yes |
|
|
|b5 Supporting materials =yes --> |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
| algo = old(365d) |
| Line 8: |
Line 13: |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=Start|importance=high}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WP UK Politics|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Internet culture |class=Start |importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 3 January 2013 (UTC) | result = '''merge to ]''' | page = Tankie }} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 3 January 2013 (UTC) | result = '''merge to ]''' | page = Tankie }} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Shouldn't the title be italicized== |
|
==Shouldn't the title be italicized== |
|
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well? |
|
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biases, inaccuracies == |
|
== Expanding the term's usage == |
|
|
|
|
The article refers to leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong as "totalitarian" this is of course preposterous as such leaders were regulated through Democratic Centralism, Stalin was elected by party members three times, that was how he gained his position of leadership and he also tried to resign four times meaning he didn't care about preserving his status as leader and wanted to leave office. It also means he was selected democratically, if you say this selection by party members isn't democratic, you are ignorantly hypocritical, look at America, the voters don't select their leader, the electoral college does, that's how Trump got elected despite the fact Hillary had the popular vote, for example. ] (]) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Stalinism isn't technically an ideology and merely refers to Marxism-Leninism, most Marxist-Leninists who refer to themselves as "tankies", or "Stalinists" most often do it ironically with an attempt of humour. ] (]) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*I don’t trust a user called “proletarian banner” to be neutral on this any more than I trust all the conservatives bombing socialism articles with WP:NOTFORUM rants. Misplaced Pages isn’t about righting WP:GREATWRONGS no matter what side you’re on. ] (]) 05:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Violation of ] ] (]) 04:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Given that the user is arguing that Stalin and Mao weren't totalitarian and has now been blocked for sock puppetry, I'd say Dronebogus was pretty on the money. — ''']''' 07:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*This article is not the place to have a discussion about whether Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were totalitarian. If thats what the WP:RS call them then thats what we do as well, we don't really have the latitude to replace the findings of experts with our own personal opinion. ] (]) 15:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't trust a user with the term bogus within their name to be neutral either. ] (]) 19:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh, I am not righting any great wrongs. Also, their status as "experts" is absurd, they clearly don't understand the political systems of those nations or the concept of democratic centralism because they are ignorant, biased right-wingers, okay?! ] (]) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not my opinion that they were democratic, it's factual. I could argue America isn't democratic because it uses an electoral college to decide who becomes president and disregards the voters, these could be interpreted as phony, mock elections. ] (]) 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::The United States is formally a federal presidential-constitutional republic—the lead of ] explicitly says this—but that does not really change the fact that Stalin is widely described as totalitarian by a metric ton of Reliable Sources. Referring to all people who think that the Soviet Union was totalitarian as {{tq|ignorant, biased right-wingers}} is an extraordinary (and false) claim. Additionally, ] is a concept associated with vanguardism that means that votes are binding to all members of a political party, which is different than direct democracy in a number of ways (but an in-depth comparison of the two systems is not the crux of this issue, which can be solved by examining mainstream ] on Stalin’s rule). — ] (]) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::This isn't the place to debate such things. ] (]) 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nah, it's not an extraordinary and false claim, it's true. ] (]) 21:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the preponderance of scholarship is going to disagree with you here, especially with respect to the Stalin era. The edit summary you left indicated that there is a bit of ] going on in that edit. — ] (]) 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There's not original claim making, there is evidence to suggest that they were democratic. <ref>https://cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR28x5c-GTROxLQT-ZBoTPkTupCV3t1B7qJQNTWVb91qbfHt1nbWhUA_CTu</ref> <ref>https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.clogic/article/view/191861/188830</ref> <ref>https://www.docroid.net/25FEQ8G/the-cpsu-in-a-soviet-election-campaign-pdf</ref> <ref>https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.clogic/article/view/191862/188831</ref>] (]) 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:More sources, <ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/soviet_republic.htm</ref> <ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/soviet_constitution.htm</ref> <ref>https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691654065</ref> <ref>https://archive.org/details/WorkerParticipationInTheSovietUnion/mode/2up</ref> <ref>https://www.unz.com/print/AmQSovietUnion-1938oct-00059</ref> <ref>https://archive.org/details/OnSovietSocialistDemocracy/page/n1/mode/2up</ref> <ref>https://archive.org/details/sovietdemocracychernenko/mode/2up</ref> <ref>https://writetorebel.com/2016/11/13/socialism-and-democracy-in-the-ussr</ref> <ref>https://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3a4773/datastream/OBJ/view</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::In order, your sources are: |
|
|
::#A emphasizing that the top of the Communist party calls the shots as a group in the USSR; |
|
|
::#A ; |
|
|
::#An insecure website I'm not going to click through on; |
|
|
::#Another |
|
|
::#A chapter of a 1918 document written by |
|
|
::#Another chapter of that same 1918 document written by |
|
|
::#A third |
|
|
::#A fourth |
|
|
::#A written by a grad student and hosted on a ] |
|
|
::#Another writing by |
|
|
::#A of CPSU General Secretary ] |
|
|
::#An |
|
|
::#A 1947 by an ethics professor at ] |
|
|
::None of these remotely meet the criteria of ] on the Soviet Union. The writings of Lenin are fine primary sources for his thoughts—not independent scholarship on how the Soviet Union actually worked in practice. The manifesto of a CPSU General Secretary that was published by a state publishing company is also clearly not ] of the CPSU. ] are not reliable sources, particularly when they are published by anonymous non-experts. Links to non-existent pages are not even sources at all, in and of themselves. This leaves the super insecure website, a 1952 CIA memo, a 1947 work by an ethics professor, and the 1938 work by the grad student. The text of the CIA memo doesn't actually support the claim that the Soviet Union was a democracy, while the book written by the ethics professor is clearly written out-of-expertise. The 1938 work by a ''grad student'' indeed says that the Soviet Union had democratic elections under the auspices of the ], is extremely old, and was published by the ]—this doesn't smell like peer-reviewed scholarship, and it seems to be ] territory. — ] (]) 03:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
:It's not a fringe theory, I gave you over twenty sources, want more? I could give you a hundred! You refuse to acknowledge the truth because of your biases and you dismiss several things just because you don't like them and don't think they constitute academic research. ] (]) 03:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::First off, you did not give me twenty sources—you gave 13 links, 4 of which were deadlinks and 1 of which is a fatally insecure website. Second off, I believe that I am evaluating the eight sources that you've presented in line with ] and I have made my reasoning explicit. This is not a situation where ], this is a situation where the sources spectacularly fail to meet the relevant guidelines on ]. If you'd prefer, I could open up a noticeboard discussion to involve more users on whether or not the notion that the Soviet Union was a democracy is a fringe historical theory. Third off, I don't really see how this is ordered towards improving the ] page's content, and it is bridging into ] territory. — ] (]) 05:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just a single WP:RS would be fine, none of those work. ] (]) 04:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Stalin and Khrushchev == |
|
|
:Stalin's and Khrushchev's governments shouldn't be conflated, as the latter nominally and actually distanced itself from the former, so the government that invaded Hungary or it's leader should be talked about, instead of the one that preceded it. Also what does Mao have to do with it? He called out the Khrushchevites. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== More recent usage (2022) == |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2022 the term "tankie" is sometimes used for those leftists who support the Russian invasion of Ukraine (such as by Hungarian YouTuber Adam Something). Maybe this use isn't frequent enough yet to be mentioned in this article. ] (]) 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reliability of Sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was purusing through the article and noticed a part that seemed odd. So I looked at the sourcing, Source 10, and the title stood out as a little odd. So I decided to go to the piece in question. It is an opinion piece that has anti-Chinese misinformation in its opening paragraph that then goes on to talk about China. While the piece does have some possible uses, are there not any sources that don't open with the equivalent of blowing their foot off? Or at least something that doesn't have such an extreme bias from out of the gate? ] (]) 07:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"''Tankie'' is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies" should perhaps include the denial of atrocities, repressions and other such things by tankies. ] (]) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:If you're talking about the Diplomat, it's considered reliable per ]. What is the misinformation in the opening paragraph? — ''']''' 08:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well?
.svg){kind=small}
