Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 2 March 2022

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Communist Party of Great Britain.

Untitled

Talk Tankie: there is an alternative definition - and an honourable one! I refer to menbers of the world's first Tank formation; the Royal Tank Regiment. This is the successor to the Royal Tank Corps, which itself was succeeded by the Royal Armoured Corps incorporating the old - and obsolete - Cavalry regiments. But THOSE are NOT TANKIES: who of course, RULE! Not that I myself could be accused of being in the the slightest prejudiced in any way...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.66.130 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really relevant, I don't think. I've added sources about the use of the term Jim Killock (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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?

Sources, deletion, etc

I've added sources and so on. I think the topic is worth a mention - it's one of those phrases that get used in political culture in the UK. Whether it deserves a separate page, or merging, is another matter. Jim Killock (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it belongs in wikitionary, not wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the further sections seem like original research - precisely one of the reasons this belongs in wikitionary.--Cerejota (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's also the name of a faction, and reflective of the story of the perception of a current in British politics. There's more here than would get into Wiktionary. I've removed the two citation needed tags, and replaced with the Campbell reference. The way the term is used by Blair and Campbell indicates its currency, they drop it into conversation. Hope that is ok.

as per AfD, #REDIRECT to Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Tankie

I have completed it.--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Horse Eye Jack, I don't think this meets GNG. Coverage in RS doesn't appear to rise above the level of a mere definition, with the exception of the piece in the New Statesman. Additionally, the claims that the term was actually used in Czechoslovakia do not appear to be supported by the provided source, and seem a bit far-fetched given that Czechs and Slovaks aren't known for their use of English slang. In the absence of additional sources, I think that either restoring the redirect (and adding mention of its more recent use outside of the UK) or converting to a wiktionary redirect would be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:I’l admit The Independent obit was kind of hard to parse. The use by Boris Johnson appears notable and came after the last discussion. Actually all these sources did, there are also few I havent added which cover the modern use of the term a little more in-depth like . Plenty more sources to come, give it 24 hours? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, I wasn't judging based on the past AfD; I think that the the depth of coverage in the provided sources doesn't really do much more than define the term, which would make this a better fit for wiktionary. I don't think BoJo's use of it amounts to much notability in itself, although it does raise the odds that an RS decided to give coverage to the term. As someone who's quite familiar with the term, 's description (as written by the article's author) is eyeroll inducing...how strange is it really for a leftist to support the USSR's policies? The quoted Twitter description is better, although someone else could quibble with Carl Beijer's credentials.

The depth of that last source is solid, although I'm not familiar with the source itself. Feel free to keep working on the article for now. _signed, Rosguill 01:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

At least if it gets merged back now it will be somewhat understandable and at least acknowledge that the term is used outside of the context of British leftism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

non-NPOV, non-RS sentence

I deleted a sentence which violated WP:NPOV and whose source is not a WP:RS.

1. The term tankie is pejorative, as the article correctly states. Per WP:NPOV, in particular WP:IMPARTIAL, we can't use pejorative terms in articles. More precisely: We can describe how such terms are used (which the rest of the article does), but we can't use them directly (which the sentence did).
2. The source https://newbloommag.net does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. As far as I can tell (e.g. and ), it's a blog run by a group of students. For example, all articles in its 'politics' category are written by the same person, namely the author of the article provided as a source. See WP:RSSELF, WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:NEWSBLOG.

If there's a reliable source stating that certain groups, e.g. certain members of the Chinese diaspora, have often been called tankies in the last few years or so, and that information is deemed relavant enough for inclusion in the article, we can add it. But one article from a group blog certainly isn't enough, and using a pejorative term for any group of people is never admissible. Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Neo-tankie"

I have never heard the word "neo-tankie" employed in my life and the only person I have seen use it is the "satirist" Rowan. Is this WP:UNDUE to devote a section to such an obscure term?PailSimon (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A Google search for "neo-tankie" shows zero relevant sources. I deleted the section. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Definition vs usage

These surely are the same thing and ought to be merged. Also, the "definition" section currently states that the term originated in 1968 (Prague Spring) while it is cited as in use in 1956 in the "usage" section. Merging these sections while keeping the sources seems sensible --Jim Killock (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Biases, inaccuracies

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. Proletarian Banner (talk) 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. Proletarian Banner (talk) 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. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't trust a user with the term bogus within their name to be neutral either. Proletarian Banner (talk) 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?! Proletarian Banner (talk) 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. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The United States is formally a federal presidential-constitutional republic—the lead of United States 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 ignorant, biased right-wingers is an extraordinary (and false) claim. Additionally, Democratic Centralism 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 WP:SCHOLARSHIP on Stalin’s rule). — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah, it's not an extraordinary and false claim, it's true. Proletarian Banner (talk) 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 here indicated that there is a bit of original claim-making going on in that edit. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There's not original claim making, there is evidence to suggest that they were democratic. Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

1. https://cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR28x5c-GTROxLQT-ZBoTPkTupCV3t1B7qJQNTWVb91qbfHt1nbWhUA_CTu
2. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.clogic/article/view/191861/188830
3. https://www.docroid.net/25FEQ8G/the-cpsu-in-a-soviet-election-campaign-pdf
4. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.clogic/article/view/191862/188831

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles