Talk:Anti-communism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Balance[edit]

Could the people who worked on the criticism section of this article also flesh out the criticism sections of the communist and anti-capitalist pages? There needs to be some balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.39.8 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's been edited out. Not surprisingly, the authentic communist or anti-capitalist would be expected to be less likely to try to repress their opposition. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of focus and bias in "Anti-communism in the United States and Cold War"[edit]

The section starts out with a short reference to the Palmer raids and goes on to mainly explain the supposed evils of Communist nations and other arguments & justifications for anti-Communism. Then ends with an equally odd reference to an "anti-Communist" day. This section needs to edited to include information about actual American anti-Communism (McCarthy, the Rosenbergs, etc.) and to remove the bias - supportive of anti-Communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.48.39 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

repression and anticommunism[edit]

i tried to make a detailed section's structure, dividing by country. of course it is provisional and opened to further expansion by more detailed info about every country --78.13.72.115 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communist resistance[edit]

I've created a disambig under that name. Please expand.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Caused by the kings of Europe'? C'mon guys, we can do better than that[edit]

The section on the European monarchies is laughable, it's very biased and much of it is not true, by the time of WWI most, if not all, the monarchies of Europe were constitutional monarchies, this meant that the monarchs held little, if any, power. King George V or the Kaiser can hardly be blamed for the war. The only true, functional monarchies were the Russian Empire (which was evolving into a constitutional monarchy) and Liechtenstein (which was never a combatant in WWI and hasn't had an armed forces for nearly 200 years)

Even as early as Queen Victoria's time, the monarchy in most European powers was merely a tradition and the monarch a figurehead and France had been a republic for decades. The section requires extreme editing- TashkentFox 14:39, 26 January 2009

Conflict between Communism and Freemasonry[edit]

It seems that there is an ancient conflict between Communism and Freemasonry, which was apparently the cause of a great deal of anti-Communism in Western states. This masonic anti-Communism ought to be written about more so it can be discussed further by academics and historians. ADM (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for academic discussion. There are other places for that. 99.177.65.75 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinism and Pelagianism[edit]

Another interesting aspect I noticed while analyzing religious motives for anti-Communism is the historic opposition between Augustinism and Pelagianism in the Christian world. Accordingly, Augustinian philosophy, which is prominent among Roman Catholics and Protestants, interprets free will and divine grace in a way that allows for greater personal freedom in choosing a salvation which is freely offered by God. The emphasis on personal freedom and non-coercive choice plays a prominent role in anti-Communist political rhetoric in Western nations. In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox have been labeled semi-pelagian because they do not exactly share the same beliefs on original sin and will often oppose augustinian doctrines on infusion of grace and freedom of conscience. Therefore, several Eastern Orthodox beliefs that are taught in Russia and the former Soviet Union are arguably closer to Communism than Western views shared by Roman Catholics and Protestants. ADM (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan's Picture[edit]

In any article which has to do with anti-communism should not President Ronald Reagan's picture be included, and perhaps even Margaret Thatcher's as well? Invmog (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Changes to "Criticisms of Anti-Communism"[edit]

I have added material to the section...referenced. Despite this fact, I have a feeling that my edits will not sit well with the capitalist imperialst apologists. I do not blame you since corporate oligarchs have a monopoly on the mass media and the public school system strives for obedient workers instead of critical thinkers. I will begin searching for more references to back up the unreferenced claims in that section. We are moving towards a NPOV. Applying the framework the pro-capitalists place on the "communist" countries in a comparative analysis of the capitalist world, the only rational conclusion one can reach is that capitalism is a greater evil than communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World Views (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should do some critical thinking yourself. 107.200.61.187 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the talk page for political arguments. The comment you appear to be responding to is three years old, and the user does not appear to have edited since about the time of the comment, so it's unlikely he/she will see your response in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the media is controled by elitist journalists who are to stubborn to admit when their wrong the truth is that communism is to class as nazism is to race communism states that the working class is the superior class and destined to rule the world nazism states that the aryan race is the superior race and destined to rule the world cant you see the similairity not to mention that without the state resources would start to concentrate in the hands of the most resourceful ,the mistake marx makes in thinking that their is one working class instead of seeing that the skilled working class and the unskilled working class are two different entities,the fact that people tend to not want work for free,that people who cant own property are essentially slaves,that people are not the property of their communityand the misguided notion of wage slavery Irishfrisian (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

No need to look further than the second sentance to find bias. Describing communism as a "threat" is not particularly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.47.138 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not neutral but it's true... The Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain states was a real threat to the West. The only reason it finally failed was that the economic theory was wrong and the systems collapsed one after the other. I am actually appalled by the level of this article, and I recommend that it be completely rewritten or broken into stand-alone segments.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination[edit]

This article about anti-Communism is detailed, has factual credibility and is worthy of Good article nomination. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was born and lived in a Communist Romania until adolescence. I can say that this article is one of the worst-written in Wikipedia. The mere fact that it tries to speak about anti-Communism in both Communist and non-Communist countries is already a bad concept. In my view this entire article should be broken into fragments and not lumped together as it is. To be an anti-Communist in America is a different issue than being one in a Communist country. The article is so bad that it cannot even be fixed.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti communism or criticism of (totalitarian) communist regimés?[edit]

What exacly is this article. For example the European Union condemns the crimes of totalitarian communist regimés. Not communism itself, from which many of its founding pillars on human rights have been formed. Such as the right to education and health which derive from early socialist and communisty theory. There needs be a clear distinction between these two things and if need be a new article dealing with anti-communism.

For example it is clear that the views of the soviet left are not anti-communist but anti-stalinist (that article already exists). Hitler was staunchly anti-communist but not anti totalitarian. The American form of anti-communism also differs from much of the criticism against communist regimés in Europe as america is one of very few nations who does not recognise the full charter of UN human rights (in terms of positive freedoms - that is rights to education, healthcare, work and housing - all communist/socialist principles).

I hope that this can be resolved. I was going to fully re-modify this article but I guess some discussion is much needed.

edit: Important, this is not criticism OF the criticism of communism. Just that this article has more criticism of certain communist regimés than than communist ideology. 79.102.222.155 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to start a political debate or anything, but I feel it's strongly argued (eg ISBN-10: 1107646995) that communism necessarily implies a totalitarian and authoritarian state. Even in your comment -- "the right *to* education" , "the right *to* healthcare" enumerate two positive rights. Positive rights are broadly incompatible with liberalism because they imply duty to take action, or the morality of violating rights of another in order to secure them. Opposition to communism is (I think) in large part opposition to the nasty authoritarianism that (practically) always comes along with it. Maddata (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous article[edit]

This article does not even reach a second-rate standard. For example, the whole section about Vietnam is basically messed up and probably wrote by the Anti-communists themselves (ironically how the anti-communists can write this article, eh?). So much rumors was claimed as neutral (or "more objectivity over the subject") "information". The soldiers who fought on land and at sea during Vietnam-China border conflict 1979-1988 would found the part "Vietnam sell their friendship Gate and two eastern groups of islands" hilarious because they freaking died fighting to either protect or take over them. It sounds as stupid as "Japanese government sell out Okinawa Island to the US iN WW2" while in reality, U.S. Tenth Army was still fighting for every trench or every bunker Undergoldstar (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence supporting your claim that the Vietnamese Communist troops actually "fought" to protect what is now called "the Friendship Gate"? 113.166.1.68 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova?[edit]

The segment under Molodva covers the electoral dispute in 2009 after the ruling "Communist" party won. However, does this action count as "anti-communism"? Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova is communist in name only, and its policies are hardly communist at all. That being said what happened in Moldova in 2009 was a protest of political results, I can hardly see how it can be included among other examples of "anti-Communism". --MercZ (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

A messy hypercomplicated and undated NPOV was present which I replaced with a simple one dated to now. Haven't looked at article yet. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see there are other issues as well. It could even be the reverse, an attempt to be NPOV or otherwise accomodate policy has made a messy but large article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the case either. Appears to be be just a forum for trite anti-communist opinion, poorly rendered as you might expect. I guess I'm happy to let it stay as is. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the tag however since it's unclear when it was placed, doesn't match anything here recent, and is redundant with the many section level tags. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of Truman Needed.[edit]

One of Americas foremost anti-communists and the author of containment Harry Truman should have a picture on the article. Needless to say he formed the basic US policy towards Communism for the rest of the Cold War.134.124.126.122 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anticommunist repression against communists[edit]

There is almost complete lack of anticommunist crimes against communists. Repression of political opinion, mass murders etc. For instance, in the Serbian section there is a mention of chetniks, but anticommunism started earlier, in 1920., when communist party, third largest in the parliament was banned and "reduced in size" by 90 % (meaning their members and sympathizers were imprisoned). The same is with prewar Poland; nazi-Germany and various fascist regime weren't mentioned (although they were, apart from nazi-Germany, more anticommunist then antidemocratic or antisemitic). Salvador Allende, as a victim of anticommunist crimes isn't mentioned. New Brazilian president as a victim of anticommunist persecution isn't mentioned. This article is one-sided with obvious intention to show that anticommunism is something good with almost complete lack of crimes committed by anticommunists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.162.14 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti fascists commited crimes against fascists and fascism is illegal in many contries but no one talks about that so why should communism get special treatment the truth is that governments dont like political extremists Irishfrisian (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pre Cold War[edit]

The article currently claims that "anti-communism didn’t become a significant force until the beginning of the Cold War in 1947.". Anti-Communism was one of the defining features of Nazism & Italian Fascism and heavily influenced European politics at the time which eventually culminated in WW2. If this is not a "significant force", what then? 188.192.9.154 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to myself) I forgot the Royalists in Russia and the Kuomintang in China. The statement as it is just reeks of americacentrism. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is historically undeniable that anti-communism was a defining characteristic of Nazism, Italian Fascism, not to mention Francoism in Spain... The Kuomintang initially included communists among its members, but then Chiang Kai-shek carried out a violent anti-communist purge. Another problem with the article as it stands is that it says very little about opposition to communism from democratic socialists and social democrats. And what it does say about social democrats is inconsistent. Under the heading "Ex-communists", the reader is told "Many ex-communists have turned into anti-communists. Mikhail Gorbachev turned from a communist into a social democrat." Which seems to imply that a social democrat is necessarily an anti-communist. But then a few sentences later we are told about "Anti-communists who were once socialists, modern liberals or social democrats..." Does that mean you don't become an anti-communist until you have stopped being a social democrat, socialist, or liberal? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong[edit]

Is the Falun Gong section really appropriate for this article? I'm certainly not saying anything against the Falun Gong demonstrators or the validity of their protest(s). I'm just wondering if protesting against a government who happens to be communist, because that government is repressing them specifically, is the same thing as protesting that government because they are communist (i.e. I'd argue their protest are based on the government's actions toward them, not on the government's communist nature. They're not protesting communism, which would be anti-communist, but are protesting A communist government's actions, which aren't directly realted to communism in general, but rather China's specific forms of repression. Just thought it might be stretching things a bit to label them communist. Like, if the guy down the block steals my bike, and happens to be communist, me yelling at him "I want my bike back" is not anti communist...I'm not yelling at him for being communist, I'm yelling at him because he's got my damn bike:)Jbower47 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. To be against a government who happens to be communist doesn't mean being communist, because in that sense, Trotsky itself would be considered anti-communist, or the communists who were against the Stasi or the other government practices held by West Germany.

--187.55.43.64 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Falun Gong case is a bit complex. They originally did not have a problem with the government (and vice-versa), but several years after the persecution they began targeting the CPC directly, rather than simply its anti-Falun Gong policies. To draw on your apt bicycle analogy, if you kept getting your bike stolen, after each time you bought a new one, and every time it was a communist who stole it, and explained the reasons for their theft in terms of their communism, sooner or later you'd start to dislike communists. Just guessing. But anyway, I think Falun Gong do belong here because of the direction their resistance took in around 2004/2005 - but I'm wondering whether the picture is undue weight. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist opposition to communism[edit]

Looking at the history page for the article, I noticed that a section about Fascist and Nazi anti-communism was recently deleted on the grounds that it did not give sources. Here is the the diff. I agree that information in WP needs to be referenced. However, a properly referenced section on this topic is absolutely necessary, if the article is cover twentieth century anti-communism in a serious and comprehensive way. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to work on this section, using sources from other WP articles. But my efforts have been reverted by an anonymous editor who is intent on inserting links to publications on a neo-Nazi website, the Colchester Collection, into several WP articles. I will not revert again, as I am at risk of edit warring, so please can other editors look at these edits! Here is the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-communism&action=historysubmit&diff=440936250&oldid=440897934 BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on this section. I've just had a look at diff, and I agree with you that 71.181.37.103 has acted inappropriately. He or she has pulled out sourced information, and then put back the tag saying that the section lacks sources! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti communism in South-America[edit]

This section lacks a lot of important information, such as that it was happening way before Operation Condor. One could lurk the history of Luis Carlos Prestes and Coluna Prestes to find more about this subject. While this is all I know, since I'm brazilian, I'm pretty sure such things happened in other south-american countries before the 70's.

--187.49.238.164 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much more should be added, maybe a section just about Brazil. Brazilian Integralism for instance is very important, since it found it's roots on Fascism and Nazism. One important thing is that differently from the european totalitarian movements, it's sole purpose was to erradicate Communism.

--187.49.238.164 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti fascism[edit]

The tone of this article should mirror the anti fascism page and anti nazism page to insure neutralityIrishfrisian (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anticommunism and anticommunists[edit]

Note: "anticommunism" and "anticommunists" are both single words without any hyphens, and they are common nouns, too, not proper nouns. Furthermore, the prefix "anti" is not used with a hyphen except in very rare cases. Here are some examples of the right way to use "anti":
antiaircraft, antibacterial, anticoagulant, anticommunist, antifascist, antimilitary, antimisssile missile, antinuclear, antipersonnel, antiradar, antiradiation, antiscientific, antiship missile, antisubmarine warfare, antitechnology, antivirus, antiwar,.

Exceptions: anti-American, anti-British, anti-Catholic, anti-French, anti-Japanese, anti-Nazi, anti-Protestant, anti-Soviet.98.67.108.16 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of communist atrocities[edit]

I find the following statement odd: "Anti-communists[who?] argue that the repression in the early years of Bolshevik rule, while not as extreme as that during Joseph Stalin's rule, was still severe by reasonable standards". Of course repression was "severe by reasonable standards". There are no reasonable levels of repression, mass killings, pogroms or massacres.101.98.140.129 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 'Criticism of anti-communism' section[edit]

Considering the history of communism in regards to the efforts to oppose, contain and/or eliminate it, there should be a section that discusses the criticism of anti-communism. Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a brilliant idea TURTLOS (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the communism article?Spylab (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idk cuz certain criticisms that exist mainly point to actions committed during attempts to establish communism as opposed to the workings of communism itself (stateless, moneyless, classless). Danotto94 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that the article is using the simplest possible definition — "anti-communism is opposition to communism". If you oppose anti-communism under that definition, it seems pretty likely that you're a communist.
But that isn't the whole of what "anti-communism" tends to mean in Western political discourse. If someone is identified specifically as an anti-communist, it doesn't usually simply mean that he's considered the merits of Marxism and/or Leninism and said, no, on the whole, I prefer not. It means something more complex. And that more complex thing is at least potentially subject to criticism even by those who are not themselves communists.
That point can probably be made in the article, with references, but if it is made, then the opening sentence probably needs to be made more nuanced. --Trovatore (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong are against the Communist Party of China's persecution of Falun Gong.[edit]

I think this should be the first sentence of the Falun Gong section. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong. There should be images of a protest and what Falun Gong are protesting about (the persecution of Falun Gong)[edit]

Because the Communist Party of China releases incorrect information about Falun Gong this article needs to be very clear to clear up any misunderstanding. Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Wikipedia for any political agenda, I must ask you to remove the inappropriate image as I have warned you in your talk page; and you don't have the consensus to add such image to this article about anti-communism. STSC (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Gao Rongrong is appropriate because it shows an example of the Persecution of Falun Gong which is what Falun Gong are protesting against. You seem unable to explain why the image is inappropriate. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not related to 'anti-communism' and is off-topic per WP:OFFTOPIC. STSC (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agreed with stsc, unless there is some particular argument which links that picture with anti-communist activities (and i'm not away of any such link)Happy monsoon day 16:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you made a documentary about WW2 its logical to have part of it about why WW2 happened. Same thing here. Why are Falun Gong protesting against the communist party of China? Gao Rongrong's tortured face leaves the reader to make their mind up. Words on wiki get distorted. So pictures of what has happened are very important. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on Nazism[edit]

The attempts to associate anti-communism with Nazism in the third sentence of this article frankly look POV-pushing. Undoubtedly the Nazis were against the "Bolsheviks", as they called them at the time, but anti-communism in general is not associated with Nazism.

In a long article, the Nazis' position is certainly relevant and can be mentioned. But not in the first paragraph. --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something that would be reasonable to put that early: A sentence about the various viewpoints that have included anti-communist stances. For example, there have been anti-communist capitalists, liberals, socialists, anarchists, and yes, Nazis. That would summarize the article, and would be a reasonable thing to put in the third sentence. But focusing on Nazi Germany, in the whole history of anti-communism, in the first paragraph? Come on. I have trouble seeing that as being in good faith. --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Rjensen (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"anti-communism in general is not associated with Nazism"
Are you being serious? Because that is completely wrong. Fascism's original purpose was to oppose socialism. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore. Good point. Anti-communism was not main feature of Nazism. That was about racism and partly ... socialism (hence National-socialist). Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes. This is an old comment on a talk page that hardly anyone will see, but the overwhelming historical consensus is that Nazism is a right-wing ideology. See Wikipedia's Talk:Nazism/FAQ.--Stepback0 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to both Prinsgezinde and My very best wishes: The relevant calculation here is not how important anti-communism was within Nazism, but rather how important Nazism is/has been within anti-communism. My answer is, even if anti-communism was very important to Nazism, Nazism is not very important to anti-communism. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The poor quality of the introduction[edit]

The introduction of an article should briefly summarize the contents of that article. The current introduction of this article, as it stands, does not really do that. The article is about anti-communist movements and their history in various countries, and the introduction says almost nothing about them after the first paragraph - instead launching into a vague series of statements along the lines of "some anti-communists say X, many anti-communists say Y", etc.

So, in regards to the recent edits by User:Denarivs, I agree that the introduction needs a lot of work - in fact, we probably need a completely new introduction (the first paragraph is good, but the others do not summarize the content of the article). However, Denarivs, I respectfully believe that your edits are not an improvement. You have made the paragraph shorter and less descriptive, and used non-neutral and non-encyclopedic language (we should say "argue", "assert", or "claim", not "point out"; and phrases like "subjugation of human freedom" belong in an op-ed, not an encyclopedia). A proper encyclopedic phrase would be something like: "Many anti-communists argue that communism reduces individual freedom."

But like I said, the introduction probably needs to be completely rewritten based on the actual content of the article, and when I have the time I hope to be able to do that work. -- User1961914 (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I have with the introduction as it is now is that it leads with a concept – historical materialism – that is never again mentioned in the article, and is in fact hardly ever mentioned outside of Marxist literature. When anti-communists discuss why communism is bad, they invariably focus on its effects in the real world, not high-level critiques of marxist theory, so I tried to reorient the article to better reflect the consensus of independent sources. (I'd agree that the introduction, and the article in its entirety, are not in great shape and could use rewriting.) Some of the language I used might have been a little polarizing so I'll try to phrase things more neutrally. Denarivs (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Critiques of Marxist theory should have a place here. One might add additional material but should not delete important information. Though it might be "high-level", one should keep in mind that wikipeadia is not only written for simple-minded people and that oversimplification should be avoided. 84.187.156.156 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We must be careful not to fall into presentism and give undue weight to present-day forms of anti-communism at the expense of important historical ones. It is true that in the present day, anti-communism comes almost exclusively in the form of arguments that communist governments did bad things and therefore communism is bad, with theory largely dismissed as irrelevant. But this was not always the case in the past. Some forms of opposition to communism, such as for example Catholic anti-communism before 1917, were based entirely on philosophical objections to materialist worldviews. Fascist anti-communism in the interwar period was also to a large extent based on opposition to Marxist theory.
However, I don't think the introduction should lead with either arguments about Marxist theory or arguments about communist practice. I think the introduction should be organized in some sort of order. For example, we could have an introduction composed of a number of paragraphs where each paragraph presents one type of anti-communism, as follows:
[first paragraph same as now]
Conservative and classical liberal anti-communists claim that...
Left-wing and socialist anti-communists argue...
Religious anti-communists believe that...
Fascist and far-right anti-communists assert...
etc. In other words it would basically follow the structure of the section on anti-communist movements in this article. Another option would be to follow the structure of the section on different countries and have the introduction summarize anti-communism based on location instead of ideology, but I don't think that would be a good way to do it. A third option would be to have the introduction go in chronological order and summarize pre-1917 anti-communism, interwar anti-communism, Cold War anti-communism and so on. I actually think this third option would be the best, but it would probably have to wait for a complete reorganization of the article, because right now the article does not go in chronological order. -- User1961914 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposal of having "an introduction composed of a number of paragraphs where each paragraph presents one type of anti-communism" is good idea. One could start with the theoretic critique and continue with the other types, possibly taking into account the chronology for the ordering. 84.187.159.91 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. We should do the first proposal, where the article discusses anti-communism from different ideological perspectives. Theory is fine if it's in the appropriate (e.g. leftist) section. Denarivs (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that adopting the first proposal doesn't mean that the theoretic critique should be deleted. 84.187.158.251 (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like there are two competing versions of the second paragraph now (this one and this one), I just wanted to mention that I'm okay with either one at the moment. Neither of them fix the major problems with the introduction or the article in general, of course, but they're ok for now, until a major rewrite can be undertaken. So I think they're equally acceptable. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P2 Masonic Lodge?[edit]

I am surprised that the Propaganda Due Masonic Lodge is not mentioned and Operation Gladio more generally, as we touch on Operation Condor. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 66: Tried to write global div."[edit]

There's a big red error sitting on very first paragraph of thsi page at the moment. I don't know how to deal with it, but I hope that someone notices and changes it.

167.206.19.2 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finland is not a Scandinavian country[edit]

The article says "Anti-communism in Scandinavia was at its highest extent in Finland between the world wars", but Finland is not part of Scandinavia by any definition. It is officially a Nordic country, so the simplest thing to do would be the change it to say "Anti-communism in the Nordic countries was at its highest extent in Finland between the world wars", but I'm actually not sure if that'd be true. Something has to be done, though... VHGW (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations[edit]

As I read the United States section of the article, I'm floored at how few citations there are throughout most of the piece. Surely we must be capable of producing some sort of source for this information, even if it is subjective? Then it can be attributed to some sort of author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnorton4 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a political party anti-communist?[edit]

This is coming up in some other pages, so I wanted to ask people: what makes a political party anti-communist? For example, many political parties are opposed to foreign or domestic political parties which are communist. Does that automatically make them anti-communist? Or it is necessary to have explicitly adopted some anti-communist language into a party platform? DrIdiot (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here[edit]

Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

  1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
  2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Anti-communism[edit]

I'm planning to contribute to the Spain section, and through my research, I've found two great sources that may help other editors to supplement the under-written Catholicism section. If you can gain access to these, please check them out!

The Vatican, Nazi-Fascism, and the Making of Transnational Anti-communism in the 1930s A Twentieth-Century Crusade : The Vatican’s Battle to Remake Christian Europe

Auggie456 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-communism/Archive_2&oldid=1136524190"