Archives

---

1. Archive I (2022–2024)

You sure its a good idea to come back after a block and go right back to the same thing that got you blocked that is opposed by all participants thus far. Perhaps best you show the community you can edit the project in different areas? Moxy🍁 12:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not editing Moxy; I am trying to get the two of us to work together. Instead of getting from you, "Yes, let's work together and find out what is wrong", you are declining, and I am wondering why. Why do you not want to collaborate with me to improve those articles? If the central problem was that I rammed through changes alone, why don't you want to work on ways to improve them collectively? I am trying to reach out to you and establish a "Wikipedia friendship" and a comradeship if you will, and I promise I will work fairly with you if you say yes. TheUzbek (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need concrete proposals for change like A vs B ...not walls of text implying we are all dumb. Many have explained many problems ...At Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Communist state or Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Requested move 18 January 2024. This was also covred by one of your puppets at Talk:Socialist state#Merge communist state into socialist state....with many more walls of text that community has rejected over and over. Best move away from the time sink for some time. Moxy🍁 13:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it might be best for you to Wikipedia:Clean start with a different approach so the past wont be a problem for you. Moxy🍁 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not implying you are dumb, but I am implying that when it comes to facts on the subject, my edits are not subjective but based on academic sources. And you of all people know that.

Secondly, "Clean start" my ass, a clean start begins when you instead of referring to the past actually says "OK, let's work together. I will give you a chance." You decide if I get a clean start or not.

Thirdly, you are wrong. I reached an agreement with C.J. Griffin (look at his talk page) and as for " Talk:Socialist state#Merge communist state into socialist state", you are correct, I probably did not know any more about the subject than you did at that time. Socialist state is a specific concept; communist state is a overarching term used by scholars that encompasses all communist ruled states. For example, Laos is not a socialist state, but it is a communist state. The Communist Party of China does not use the term communist state, but Robert Service, Archie Brown, David Shambaugh and on other leading scholars in the field do.

Again, are you interesting in working with me or are you just going to use the past to retain a terrible article? Do you really believe the article as it is now is in good shape? TheUzbek (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best go to these talk pages and make suggestions for edits like A versus B. You may be right in the majority of cases..... but avoid walls of text..... make a proposal and attach sources to it that people can review. Saying John Q and Smith J agree with you is not helpful. Moxy🍁 13:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always going to be push back when people see -73,143 bits or whatever removed from and article with what people perceive as a concept change and fake accounts trying to back up those edits. Go edit by edit in an honest manner. Moxy🍁 14:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I want from you, Moxy, is that you read the "Communist state" content you reverted and say explicitly what is wrong. How can I make edits but know what is bad when the one that has removed it refuses to say anything about the content of the text? I am talking about this version.

I can also promise to reword and even remove any sentence you object to, but you need to spell out what is wrong with the text that I wrote. Do you understand that gaining consensus is impossible if the one opposing it refuses to say anything specific? You are forcing me into a bind. Note that I am talking about the "Communist state" article; you have clearly said what you dislike about the "Socialist state" article. I did not remove any content in the sense of removing information; I shortened it. For example, I merged "Judicial organs and socialist law" and the "Constitution" section into "Unified power through the highest organ of state power" section, but it says the same thing.

"Always going to be push back when people see -73,143 bits or whatever removed from and article with what people perceive as a concept change". That is highly problematic because users have sandboxes for a reason, right? TheUzbek (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your merging the concepts ...when in fact communism and socialism are talked about in terms of their differences. Yes ...Karl Marx initially used the terms interchangeably, but today they are seen distinct with phase. The first phase is seen as a transitional system where the working class governs and controls the economy, but people are still paid based on their work effort, time, and quality. In this stage, elements of capitalism and limited private property still exist, which is commonly regarded as socialism. The second phase, fully realized communism according to Marx, features a society without class divisions, government, or private property. In this stage, the production and distribution of goods operates on the principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. ” This represents a complete shift from socialism to a society characterized by equality and communal ownership.very basic source Moxy🍁 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this since I wholeheartedly and totally agree with you. Communism (as in the communist mode of production) and socialism (as in the socialist mode of production) are not the same thing, and the "communist state" article I wrote makes that totally clear that that is the case: a communist state is one that seeks to establish communism.

In fact, my whole point with terms such as people's democratic state and socialist state is that these communist states often widened that transition. Not only from capitalism to socialism to communism but capitalism to people's democracy to socialism to advanced socialism and finally communism. I am not saying this is bad. Officially, they used Marxism-Leninism to interpret the universal laws of history to designate the correct development stage society was in.

If this is you're mean main argument, you cannot have read my text because I agree, and the communist state article that I wrote did not refute that claim. TheUzbek (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there are other concerns by others as per Talk:Communist state/Archive 6#Communist state. Again need to bring all this up on talk there. Must also understand many article have stewards that have been watching over the articles for a decade or more...although not FA articles they have WP:FAOWN applied because of years of debate. Moxy🍁 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said countless of times, I and he reached an agreement. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? Even if you refuse to acknowledge it, that means that you were wrong in reverting the article wholesale. You could have simply readded that section instead... This means if you are to logically conclude from what you wrote, we can simply read everything I wrote and include the section I removed in it. Why did you revert the whole thing when you could simply have readded one section? TheUzbek (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek, any big removals like that are going to raise hackles. You may prefer to exist in an ideal world where that does not happen, but that's not the one we live in, so you should reset your expectations accordingly. It's hard to convince other editors you agree with them when you're making drastic changes. But this article in particular - one you were willing to accept a pblock from - is probably one you ought to be staying away from voluntarily in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to make an edit there, asilvering; I was merely trying to reach a working relationship with Moxy, which he has refused to do countless times. A question for you: Would it be possible to have a neutral arbiter on this case? I feel like I have proven in this thread that Moxy never read my edits to begin with and opposed just because he could.

I also received countless compliments and thanks for my edits on the "Communist State" article. We are pretending that Moxy has a consensus here when he is literally using the WP:CONSENSUS rule to hack the system and get his way. Why is @Moxy:'s revertion so much more worth than the thanks and compliments I got for my edits? TheUzbek (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a neutral arbiter on content questions with just two people from WP:3O, but for something larger the options are a WP:RFC or WP:DR. DR requires the participation of parties on all sides of the issue, while RFCs don't, but RFCs typically work best only with simple, clear questions. If you wanted to try an RFC to resolve something where communication has totally broken down, my advice would be to ask a third party to draft the question so that you don't start out by shooting yourself in the foot.

Moxy's revert isn't worth more than any of your edits in principle (though in the standard WP:BRD cycle, a revert does in some ways have more "weight", since it's what forces the discussion). But if the discussion becomes a dispute, you'll be starting it off in a much weaker position - for one, policy is on Moxy's side (in general, reverting/deleting contributions by block-evading editors is acceptable and even encouraged), and for another, you're just now coming off a block and have a pretty lengthy rap sheet, while Moxy's block log is clean. In frank terms, the moment anyone makes this content dispute into a conduct dispute, you will probably lose, and it will be very easy for someone to frame it as a conduct dispute.

It's possible that Moxy is, in full awareness of all that, simply stonewalling your changes for the fun of it, but I don't see any reason (yet? please don't prove me wrong, Moxy) to discard the assumption of good faith. Best go to these talk pages and make suggestions for edits like A versus B. You may be right in the majority of cases..... but avoid walls of text..... make a proposal and attach sources to it that people can review. Saying John Q and Smith J agree with you is not helpful. is precisely the advice I'd be giving you (long before 3O/RFC/DR), if you weren't just coming off a block. Since you are, my suggestion is instead to go write a new article that hasn't got any baggage for you, which it looks like is your plan anyway.

(fyi, re: WP:CLEANSTART, Moxy's right there, too - read the link. Where I think Moxy is wrong is that it would be "best" for you - this is why I didn't think a TBAN would work as an unblock condition. Clean starts don't work where someone has a really strong interest in a particular topic and a distinctive way of communicating. I don't think I'd be able to do one. For better or for worse, I don't think you can, either.) -- asilvering (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct on every point. You are doing a good job.

1. I will wait at least half a year or more before I take it to these boards. I will first have to prove that I have turned a new page :)
2. Thanks for helping me, I appreciate that! :)

TheUzbek (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! How has it been off Wikipedia? It's been a long while since the last time we've interacted and I'm happy to see improvements and new work being done on articles pertinent to Yugoslav communist history. All the best going forward! –Vipz (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, a message of support was needed :) TheUzbek (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheUzbek:, I have removed the unsourced dates of death you added to both Abdulah Mutapčić and Ilija Vakić. Please note that adding such material without a source is a major violation of WP:RS and more seriously WP:BLP. If you have done this on other pages, please remove the content as soon as you read this. In future you must cite a source when adding death dates. No exceptions. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most death dates on Wikipedia are not referenced, and the Serbian and Bosnian Wikipedias list those years. But a quick search quickly gives results, for example Vakic died in November 2023; [1]. Maybe not be so fast in reverting edits? What good comes of that? TheUzbek (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I can't revert unless it's blatant vandalism, so I hope you revert your own edit on the Vakic page, at least since I have already given you the source. As for Mutapčić, he is, in all likelihood, very dead. The user who added his death date to Serbian Wikipedia said he got it from the Sarajevo Cemetery Register. I have asked for a source of anykind, but again, he is most likely very, very dead. Part of the problem is that Bosnia is a poor society, and not everything is available on the web yet, which makes getting death dates quite hard if they died in the era 1990-2015 because it's not on the web... And I mean, many of these men would have been someone if communism survived, but they are mostly no ones in the post-Yugoslav states... I would advise you to revert your own edit there and add an unreferenced banner. TheUzbek (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I revert your edits know since I have sources or do you want to revert them yourself? It would be lovely if I could take a response :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Can I revert and add the sources? He does not seem to want to respond, but I have the sources to back my edits up. What to do? --TheUzbek (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able to cite a source, you can add it back, that's fine. And you do have one revert (I just encourage you to act as though you don't, to keep as far away from edit-warring as possible). -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the source for Mutapcic: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/252497433/abdulah-mutap%C4%8Di%C4%87 TheUzbek (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian Social Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I've acquired more material about the 8th session of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia (the article that you've reviewed for GA status) and I plan on expanding the article with it and hopefully nominating it to FAC (because I'll nominate Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures first for FAC). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and splendid! :)

I am also looking forward to you're article on the 1st National Assembly of Serbia! TheUzbek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumption.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Communist rulers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 13:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World market.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Commission on Statutory Questions of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Joy (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? One of the highest level institutions of the LCY is not notable? This is controversial to say the least.... similar organs for other communist parties have pages such as 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and 8th Central Auditing Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea.

It also uses multiple references... TheUzbek (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to prove that by citing reliable sources, bearing in mind the notability guidelines.

There's hardly anything controversial in saying that all of the references in that article were either blatantly primary sources like 1982 Borba - the official paper of the same organization - or barely relevant to making conclusions about the specific body like Rajović 1970 - predating it by 12 years.

I noticed you added a reference to Miller 1982 which seems like a good start. However, clicking on the link brings up a 2021 article. Please fix that. Likewise, just because it's a good start, that doesn't mean your article is ready for main space. I will not move-war about it, but if this is not actually fixed, the article is likely to be nominated for deletion. --Joy (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borba'x was not the paper of the LCY in the given period so that is a hard no.

The Rajović references information regarding the individuals in question.

The CAC of the WPK was deemed relevant despite missing attention from Western sources since it is one of the leading institutions in North Korea. The same regards the Commission on Statutory Questions. There is a lot of attention to it in Yugoslavia and of course some in foreign language sources. You cannot claim one of thr most important institutions in Yugoslavia does not deserve an article because Westerm scholars and commentators did not devote very much attention to it. The fallacy of that approach is obvious! TheUzbek (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between Borba being published in the same circumstances of one-party rule, and the party itself, is just too strong, even if they dropped the notion of being the sole official paper. That's just not a proper, neutral, third-party, secondary source.

Moving an article to the draft namespace is not saying the topic does not deserve an article. It's merely giving you a more isolated environment where you can refine the article so that it abides by the standards. --Joy (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is liberal-centrism and Western-centrism that goes too far, especially when certain systems were established on the basis of anti-liberal values. Wikipedia is a liberal platform, that is good, but if it wants to actually represent things neutrally, pragmatism has to be implemented. The Commission on Statutory Questions already has a main article. TheUzbek (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's basic adherence to WP:SPS. There's nothing pragmatic about failing to understand the basic verifiability policy. --Joy (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is because, according to the logic of you're thinking, everything published in Yugoslavia is unreliable since it was a non-liberal state. And no one actually believes that.... TheUzbek (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody claimed that - there is a clear distinction in Yugoslav sources between scholarly, non-scholarly, news outlets strongly associated with the Communist Party, news outlets with less of a strong association with it, etc etc. --Joy (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, the party controlled everything. As far as I know, every central scholarly institution in Yugoslavia has a party committee. The whole point of communism is the uniform Party line.

For this to make any sense, you must prove that Borba had a media line that differed from other major Yugoslav news platforms. Everyone knows that Borba was a reliable source for the Party leadership line-up, but was it a reliable source on Tito's greatness or the superiority of socialism? Of course not. TheUzbek (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these things exist out of context. For example, medical research in Yugoslavia conducted at a university clinic had some level of reliability that could be gauged by comparing to the state of the art elsewhere at the time. Likewise, Borba's reporting on the Party leadership committees could be compared to other political reporting elsewhere. With the benefit of four decades of hindsight, we can now look for not just original medical articles or original political reporting, but WP:secondary sources that provide reliable coverage of such events. Can you can look for works by some political historians to source the article from? Such sourcing would clearly indicate that this is a topic of encyclopedic significance, as opposed to a database of forgotten politicians. --Joy (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not follow. This falls under WP:OBVIOUS and WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Of course, one of the highest bodies of the Party is notable in itself. TheUzbek (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no it does not. You need to think about the audience of a worldwide English-speaking encyclopedia. This is an entirely foreign historical topic that needs to observe the same rules as anything else. --Joy (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have pointed to precedence, as with the 8th Central Auditing Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea, but you don't seem to care... TheUzbek (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article about 2021 in North Korea does not implicitly establish precedent about an article about the 1980s in Yugoslavia. Each topic needs to be considered given its own coverage by reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Supervisory Commission of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia is notable? Even if it had inferior responsibilities? Moreover, the same institutions in one state, one would assume, are notable in both states.... Its like saying the government of Norway is notable, but not the government of Sri Lanka.... TheUzbek (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Commission on Statutory Questions of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia by term indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had a president, vicepresident, and general secretary. Juan Marinello was president in 1939 until ?, and again between 1944 and 1961. Juan was also a presidential candidate for this party. Blas was not the head of the party. Thanks.Lepidux (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In communist politics, the general secretary is a higher office than president.

Blas was the leader; that is why he entered the Politburo under Fidel and negotiated with them at first and not Juan Marinello. You need to reference you're edits. TheUzbek (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Miomir Grbović.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Double Day has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Double Day until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the work you did on unified power and legislature in communist states to be particularly useful. - Amigao (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad to be back! :) I'm hoping to continue my work on those articles at a later point in time. TheUzbek (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say welcome back to you! Your work really has been irreplaceable in numerous China articles. Also would be to nice to get your analysis on China's political system and ideology (especially during the Xi era), and improvements on pages related to that. The Account 2 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

With your old account of "Trust Is All You Need" and this edit to People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan at 14:03, 18 October 2017 you added a citation of "|Amstutz|1984|p=64" but failed to add the book to the bibliography. I noticed in the article their is a book by Amstutz from 1994 listed, was your edit for a different book or a spelling mistake? Gavbadger (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Revolutionary Communist Youth (Norway).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World market.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since you have read the article... do you feel anything is missing or something can be improved? TheUzbek (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's overlinked, and there are too many red links. All the best, Miniapolis 16:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem logical that Boško Krunić took office on 28 June 1987, while the term of Milanko Renovica lated until 30 June? Its very unlikely that both of them served at the same time, even for two days. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I saw it later. Surprising no one saw it during the FL nomination.

I will try to fact check in Yugoslav news for the actual date of election. Anyhow, thank you for creating that timeline: great work! :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 15th National Assembly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Emperor of Byzantium -- The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) TheUzbek (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Emperor of Byzantium -- The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. The request for comment at Talk:China involving the info box.

128.193.8.125 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Not made an actual edit on the China article, and I hopefully won't have to! TheUzbek (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really are living in unprecedented times, it seems. South China Morning Post is reporting that Shi Taifeng and Li Ganjie have switched jobs (which, as you likely know, is extremely unusual). The Account 2 (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad sign, indeed! At least, I interpret it as a move to weaken Li Ganjie's political base before the 21st National Congress. Good for the other 1964s! TheUzbek (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a week... this isn't even the biggest China-related news now, considering all that just happened...

I remember you saying you were Norwegian. Well, I'll send my regards to your loved ones in Svalbard and Jan Mayen who got slapped with a 10 percent tariff by the United States :) (especially Jan Mayen, considering no one lives there...). Hope your Danish neighbors are doing well too! Probably the first time they've been such a center of global attention... Truly interesting times! The Account 2 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we are doing fine, but the populace and most of the Norwegian elites are stressed out. I mean, we joined NATO and accepted American leadership to protect ourselves, believing that the USA was on our side. People are beginning to wonder out loud if that remains the case. We will have to see how this goes, but Russophobia (at least in the sense that people are scared of Russia as a state) still runs rampant, and most Norwegians agree with the general line emanating from Washington about China... So things have to become a lot worse for it to have a significant, long-lasting impact on American-Norwegian relations. I will say that most Norwegians hate Trump, and our national newspapers run stories (seemingly every day) of Trump destroying American democracy and seeking a third term. TheUzbek (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's been less than 24 hours and we already have another globe shaking event. Trump is now threatening to raise tariffs on China by 50% more (adding up to a total of 104%). We now even have the Chinese embassy in the US quoting Reagan against Trump (imagine going back 40 years ago to tell the US or the Soviet Union about this lol) These changes are all too dizzying...

Returning to your point, yeah, it seems Western Europeans in general aren't fans of Trump at all. I've seen polls that in Scandinavia, even supporters of right-wing populist parties (such as the Sweden Democrats) have highly negative opinions of Trump (and now, the United States). Seems like Trump's style is simply far too alien in northern Europe. It also seems like Trump's efforts to draw close to Russia is too much for most Europeans. Many in the American government seem to have a genuine dislike for Europe as well.

Fun trivia fact by the way, Pete Hegseth, the current US Secretary of Defense, is of Norwegian descent! He doesn't really seem to like Norway though... In his book American Crusade, Hegseth accuses Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) of being "socialist" and says "when was the last time that Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Denmark mattered in the international context? Are they known for their innovation or growth? Can they even defend themselves? And even if their half-baked version of socialism does “kind of” work, has it led to innovation, growth, or the power to defend their populations from external threats? Those countries may be running their own unsustainable and fake utopias, but they are on borrowed time. They have neither freedom nor power, which makes them irrelevant serfs floating through history."

In another page, he writes "I’m a fifth-generation Norwegian. I don’t speak a word of Norwegian, but my grandparents did, and my great-grandparents spoke primarily Norwegian. Over time, we became part of the melting pot, and now I have no allegiance to Norway. Sorry, Grandma. Sure, I’m somewhat fond of our traditions, and my parents would like to travel to Norway someday. But I’m not really interested." Damn... what did you guys do to him to make him hate Norway so much LOL. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Matt Gaetz, briefly the nominee for Attorney General (also known for other things...), are also of Norwegian descent. Interesting trivia! The Account 2 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I did not know that! We are functioning welfare states, but we were close to socialism. Einar Gerhardsen, our longest-sitting prime minister, was in Moscow for the 1st Congress of the Comintern in 1919, and tried to get Norway alongside Sweden and Denmark not to join NATO, but instead to establish a separate Nordic defence union. In 1977, he proclaimed that the Labour Party's task was to establish a classless society: "We have a vision of a classless society, where no one can be exploited or have the ability to exploit others, a society with freedom, democracy, and human equality." Trygve Bratteli, prime minister from 1973 to 1976, in his book What Do We Mean By Socialism? coined the term, "Houses are for living, not for speculation". I am not kidding, Bratteli said the exact same words in his book. So yeah, we were pretty socialist. But then the 1980s, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Labour Party slowly turned into a Third Way party. However, unlike Sweden and Denmark, we still have one of the most generous welfare states and have not privatised our educational system. We are also among the countries with the largest share of state-owned and publicly-owned enterprises. In the OECD, we are the country with the largest share of public employment, representing 30.9% of total employment.

... But are we socialists? No, we are capitalists, but compared to the United States, we are commies. So I kinda get it... TheUzbek (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you guys are renowned for your economic system. You have one of the calmest politics in the world too! (especially with how even countries like Germany and the United Kingdom are getting more polarized). I know that you have an election this year, so good luck to whichever party you're supporting :).

Wow, every time we write to each other another earth-shaking event seems to happen. Now America is freezing all "reciprocal" tariffs on each country except China, where he's raised them to 125%. China retaliated by putting tariffs of 84%. Meanwhile, Xi seems unfazed and more concerned about domestic affairs (though, as we know, he virtually never makes off-hand comments about foreign affairs). I wonder, do you think these info (such Xi's trips or work conference meetings) be added to a page somewhere (similar to, for example, US President's trips or timeline pages). It feels like useful info to have somewhere. The Account 2 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you mentioned US-Norway relations here. Well, there was a poll done recently and it apparently shows China has surpassed the US in popularity within the Norwegian public (by a 11% point margin too!). Truly amazing stuff. The Account 2 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... Last month, you helped review my FL nomination of European Figure Skating Championships. I currently have two similar articles up for FL review which seem to have stalled from lack of input: U.S. Figure Skating Championships and World Figure Skating Championships. If you have any free time, I would genuinely appreciate your feedback. Thank you so much in advance! Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can, especially if you take a look at my nominations as well :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely be happy to assist. :) Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you currently have any submissions pending, and if not, notify me when you do submit an article for review! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have started my review of U.S. Figure Skating Championships.

I also have two nominations: 12th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. TheUzbek (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look during my free time tomorrow! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance with the U.S. Figure Skating Championships lead. The process may have been frustrating, but I think the end result is good! I have incorporated those same suggestions at World Figure Skating Championships, which is also up for FL nomination. I will also look at your table again later this evening. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will begin my review shortly! TheUzbek (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have time to review this article?: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/12th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam/archive1 TheUzbek (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUzbek,

Please do not empty existing categories "out of process" just to place articles in brand new categories you created with slightly different names. If you want categories renamed, either nominate them for speedy renames at WP:CFD or put in a full rename at CFD. But the categories should be renamed, it's better to keep the old category page history than create new categories with only tiny differences in the category page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not change them to alter the names slightly. My point was to rename correctly. Alternate members is not a term in use, but alternates is. TheUzbek (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SPNewYork.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheUzbek. Following a request for comment in May 2025, the community has decided to implement an activity requirement for the autopatrolled permission. Because your account has not edited in the last three years, the autopatrolled permission has been removed from your account. This action is purely procedural and does not affect your ability to create articles; if you return to actively creating articles, you may request that the permission be restored through the normal process. When returning, please consider taking some time to re-familiarize yourself with common practices and how they may have changed over the past few years if you wish to request the permission back. Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and we hope to see you again soon. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I am an active editor; editing last time yesterday :P Do you mean Trust Is All You Need, a former account? I am all fine with these changes, just wondering :) TheUzbek (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89 pingaling Izno (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for any confusion. You got the message here since this is where that account's user talk page is redirected. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Dr. Blofeld is organizing a destubathon I think you would be interested, here's the message he sends people: "You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested!" Consider attending, thanks. Easternsahara (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what a destubathon is; is it a competition of sorts? TheUzbek (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you just have to find articles which are stubs (below 1500 bytes), expand them to start class or above (more than 1500 bytes). And then there are also prizes which you can find on the page about it. Easternsahara (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, TheUzbek! The list you nominated, 12th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National democratic state, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Soviet Union designated both communist and non-communist states as national democratic states? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National democratic state. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National democratic state), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Easternsahara -- Easternsahara (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia for comments about the article, and Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Easternsahara -- Easternsahara (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. For some time, I had a long term project in my mind of slowly bringing the Xi Jinping to good article status. I remember you telling me you didn't like editing present tense articles, but I would still like to ask, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me? There are only a few good article biographies of communist politicians that could work as a template for me. I saw you brought the Leonid Brezhnev to good article status, so you seem to have some experience in this area. Thanks in advance! The Account 2 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wrote that in high school, but it holds up pretty good! :) But I would rewrite and restructure it today!

I would write in accordance with terms and institutions. For example, I'd have the following structure in the leadership heading:

1. 18th Central Committee (2012-2017) 1. Consolidation of power 2. Anti-corruptio 3. Fall of Bo Xilai
2. 19th Central Committee (2017-2022) 1. Amendment of state and party constitutions 2. Covid-19 3. Xinjiang
3. 20th Central Committee (2022-2027) 1. You get the point

Each term would have its own article, like the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, devoted to that specific term. And then you could write specific pages for each term of the politburo and the secretariat as well. Liberal democratic politicians have articles on their preisdency, but the general secretary is not officially that powerful (he is only empowered to convene politburo standing committee meetings and set the agenda). There are other powers, but formally he is not that powerful. You don't have the clear structure of authority as in liberal democracy.

The point being, with this structure you can create a personal overview and write in depth about the biggest institutional events that occured in the country at that time under Xi while creating a structured myriad of sub-pages that deals with the topic at hand. You get this structure. The reader reads the main article (Xi Jinping) and understands the following:

1. If I want to learn more about Xi's tenure, I need to read 18th Central Committee article. And if I want to specifically learn about the top leadership, I should look at 18th Politburo article.
2. et. cetra, et cetra.

These are my thoughts: the clear benefits of this approach is that it will be easier to stop Wikipedia:Recentism and get a clear structure on what is important.

I don't have much time to help, '''''but I will if you want'''''. I am currently working on this: User talk:TheUzbek/sandbox1. And after that I will try to create articles on a certain level on the following topics: executive organ of the supreme state organ of power, permanent organ of the supreme state organ of power, highest judicial organ, highest procuratorial organ, highest supervisory organ et. cetra.

I am following a Maoist approach in my edits. I am trying to "surround the cities from the countryside". You are following the old CPC line by creating a base from the cities and then take the countryside. It might be wrong, I often am. TheUzbek (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your edits. Good job on the supreme state organ of power article! I hope we can collaborate on the National People's Congress article too as you mentioned before. Regarding separating Xi's leadership by terms, by this do you mean it should roughly be like the Shinzo Abe page (which separates by cabinet term)? My question regarding this is how to handle policies that are not related to institutions or top-level politics (such as foreign policy, economic policy, Taiwan policy etc) which may not fit an exact chronological timeline. I'm curious on which type of content you think Xi Jinping's own article should focus on.

"I am following a Maoist approach in my edits. I am trying to "surround the cities from the countryside". You are following the old CPC line by creating a base from the cities and then take the countryside." Hahaha I like that comparison. :) Well, I've always focused on the big articles first because those tend to the ones people click on the first. Considering how undercovered Chinese politics is, Wikipedia articles about them seems to make actual impact on how they're written in news and percieved in the public. Nevertheless, I've been trying to fill the gap by translating numerous smaller articles about Party ideology from Chinese Wikipedia (I'm sometimes just surprised by the lack of coverage of these topics on Wikipedia. Slogans like "Houses are for living, not for speculation" aren't just distant theoretical concepts; they affected the lives of a billion people!) The Account 2 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Shinzo Abe article, and how its structured!

I would say everything is linked to term (since all policy was discussed by the organs elected for that term), and I would propose highly generalised banner terms like "Domestic policy" instead of "Houses are for living, not for speculation" etc. Some things are term specific, for example, Xi's initial response to Trump's second term. It could be

1. 18th Central Committee 1. Domestic Policy 1. 1. Covid-19 (subchapter to "Domestic policy") 1. 2. Reforming the Central Party Organisation (subchapter to "Domestic policy") 1. 3. Anti-corruption campaign (subchapter to "Domestic policy")
2. 1. Foreign policy 2. Relations with the United States (subchapter to "Foreign policy") 2. 1. Obama administration (subchapter to "Relations with the United States") 2. 2. Trump administration(subchapter to "Relations with the United States")
3. Other things

The Shinzo Abe article is apt, but the Barack Obama and Donald Trump articles are even better. The Xi Jinping article should be short, general and lead to more specific articles.

Thanks for the compliments! TheUzbek (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, we can collaborate on the NPC article :) TheUzbek (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then my question is, do you think it the content should be split by leadership (i.e. one section for the 18th Central Committee and another one for the 19th Central Committee), or should it be continuous without any splits by term similar to the Barack Obama page? Currently, the article is structured in the latter fashion. The Account 2 (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would split it according to term since China does not have a presidential system. Despite instituting the separation of powers everything evolves around the presidency in the United States. In China, in theory, everything centers around the Central Committee and the National People's Congress. The general secretary's ability to dominate them has an immense impact on how this system actually operates. China is, on paper, a collective system where collective decisions wins out over individuals. In reality, we all know that it is a system in which individuals dominate the collective. This is why is Xi is the "core of the Central Committee". Without the Central Committee Xi is nothing: without the core the Central Committee is leaderless. TheUzbek (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek I saw you editing articles related to communism. Can you please tell your view on the sourcing of the ideologies of Communist Party of India (Marxist)? Communism^[1][2]
Marxism-Leninism^[3]
Socialism^[1][4][5]
Secularism^[6][7][8][9]
Anti-neoliberalism^[10]
Anti-imperialism^{[11][12][13][14]} I have also one more source which tells the faults of the critics who tells CPIM has abandoned socialism. https://www.networkideas.org/news-analysis/2008/01/the-cpim-and-the-building-of-capitalism/ XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the question: are you asking me if the references are reliable or what I would place in the infobox? I am for simplicity and I would simply add Marxism-Leninism. Why? Because Marxism Leninism is socialism, its anti-imperialist, secular and communist. As for the claim that they are neo-liberalist, I believe that is an accusation that comes from the left and should not be included in the infobox. It can, however, be included in the text. Its interesting that some accuse their policies of being neo-liberalist, and I see no problem (if reliable sources cover this discussion) why that should not be included.

I hope that helps! TheUzbek (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek I mentioned Anti-Neoliberalism. Besides don't you think ideologies should be clarified? Besides also tell me whether the citations are good to cite them. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it more vague: you are not clarifying anything. A Marxist-Leninist neoliberalist is a contradiction in term. No one that calls themselves Marxist-Leninist identifies as neoliberalist. So no, you are confusing readers, especially those readers that do not know much about these terms. TheUzbek (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek Please see properly. I told CPIM is anti-neoliberalist. I never mentioned that it is neoliberalist. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but again, I don't get it. A Marxist-Leninist is by definition anti-neoliberalism, meaning that its Wikipedia:Redundancy is good. No academic or scientific articles lists the ideology by adding five terms. They chose one. TheUzbek (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain the trimming in the edit summaries, not sure what is the problem you have with it is. In a nutshell, "Favoritism" is not official governing guildline and this section and other smaller removed parts have many POV issues, specifically WP:SUBSTANTIATE. The openning part of the origins are not actually relevant to the current organization. Ggrb (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you. Take it to the talk page. I see no biases in the article. TheUzbek (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given more details in the article's talk page. Ggrb (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The X-Files task force participants has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello comrade, I hope that you're doing well

Me and another editor are trying to get the Corrective Move article to GA status, and I thought you could provide us with your valuable constructive criticism on our work so far, since you're the most experienced editor on these kinds of topics. Best, 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that kind comment! :)

I will go over it, albeit probably a bit slowly. I just bought an apartment and renovation work starts today, but I will find room to read this article the coming week. I just given it a quick glance, and I have to say that you've done great work so far! TheUzbek (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyt and congrats on your new apartment! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Supreme state organ of power" and "Supreme executive and administrative organ". The discussion is about the topic Supreme state organ of power, Supreme executive and administrative organ, and Special committees of the supreme state organ of power. Thank you. Glide08 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Supreme state organ of power, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the supreme state organ of power of a communist state holds unified power unless it constrains itself through a constitution and laws? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme state organ of power. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Supreme state organ of power), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2] you are missing about 21 good article from your list on your user page 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 21:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, had completely forgot! :) I really did love The X-Files when I was young, but that is not really my area of expertise... and when I look at that list, I mean, I think the articles on supreme state organ of power and 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (I was planning to nominate this for FA after summer, but nobody is bothering reviewing it...) are way better. But yes, I have history here and its nice to be reminded of it! :D TheUzbek (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reviewed one of your good articles and looked through the other ones and I think they are definitely at or close to the requirements for Featured Articles. I don't have much experience on Featured Articles reviews, other than the occasional image review but I know that you need academic sources, which you have, and engaging prose, which is also there. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 22:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; you are giving me to many compliments :) TheUzbek (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unified power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Hungary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the Labour Party won again. What do you think of the results? I vaguely remember you mentioning you were a Labour Party member in your previous account once. The Account 2 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased enough, especially considering that the alternative was the Progress Party (Norway). Will this Labour government be one of change? Nope, but it's way better than the one the Brits have! TheUzbek (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the UK seems to be headed to a Farage premiership at this rate... The Account 2 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Central Auditing Commission of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany GAN, you asked for it to be expanded, which I promptly did on 2 August, after which you didn't respond for over a month and let the GAN expire. No, thank you, I'll obviously renominate it immediately. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwhollymoralground its better but still too short. To compare, I hope, for example, that if I nominated Permanent organ of the supreme state organ of power or socialist state (communism) I would want someone to fail it. They are way to short, especially when considering their actual importance. If I were you I would think less about the number of GAs and more about article size and quality. This is my advice to you; you can take it or leave it :) TheUzbek (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples and oranges, in this case "ideas" in socialist constitutions with a organization. Earlier you made a comparison with the CCDI, which is also a completely different organ more akin to the SED's ZPKK. Size doesn't correlate with quality at all IMHO. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwhollymoralground I only compared the size of the article, and adviced you to focus more on length and quality than GAs... I have more than 50 GAs and they mean, in reality, not that much. This was a friendly advice:) TheUzbek (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwhollymoralground I will, however, say that my point stands. You have the Direktive für die Tätigkeit der Revisionskommissionen der SED (PD !) at your disposel and its barely used in the article. TheUzbek (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek I did! It is quoted 13 times in the article, the most of any source. But as I told you on the GA nomination page, a lot of it is just not relevant to the article (which is about the ZRK, not the subordinate RKs) or party gibberish of no interest to a potential reader ("Die Beachtung solcher bewährter Formen und Methoden wie die Arbeit mit langfristigen Konzeptionen, massenwirksamen Aktionslosungen, Leistungsvergleichen und Führungsbeispielen"?!). In addition, I didn't want to give undue weight to this internal paper over sources by historians such as Thomas Ammer's Die Machthierarchie der SED oder the German Federal Archives page. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lower-level auditing commissions worked under the leadership of the CAC: that was important. I would also assume you can write about the personnel composition of the CAC, and the changes over time. If you literally believe that a page that is nothing more than two Microsoft Word documents is enough to describe an institution of that importance, fine. I would suggest you don't take this personally, but the article is too short. The Commission on Statutory Questions of the LCY is a length of 4 Microsoft Word document pages. I have milked the cow when it comes to English sources on it. But did I nominate it for GA? Of course not, because I know it doesn't, there are many areas it doesn't cover and cannot cover since a) I don't speak the language and b) I don't have access to them. But c) I am very pleased with that article, but again, I would never nominate it for GA as it stands now. TheUzbek (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take me long. The book Inside Party Headquarters Organizational Culture and Practice of Rule in the Socialist Unity Party of Germany has a great overview of CAC work. Both how it found corruption in the party press. Here is a paragraph from the book on the ZRK (and the article doesn't cover this, I see):

The Central Auditing Commission (ZRK) was founded in the summer of 1950. Its first director was Alfred Oelssner—the father of Fred Oelssner, who later became a leading Party ideologue—who had joined the SPD in 1902 (and was reprimanded in 1904 for acting as a strike leader for the Leipzig bookbinders). The ZRK’s only task at first was to assess Party finances. But then in early 1953 SED leaders issued their fi rst concrete work regulations for the Central Committee apparatus detailing for the very fi rst time its four core tasks: “preparing resolutions for the Party leadership,” “supervising the implementation of these resolutions,” “developing cadre,” and procuring information (“speedy, truthful information for the Party leadership”).36 Now SED leaders needed an organ to monitor the Central Committee departments’ compliance with these work regulations, so—following the model of the CPSU—it made the ZRK responsible for this task. In the 1950s in particular, the ZRK reported thoroughly on all manner of grievances and problems. Even if these can’t always be taken at face value—criticism of the apparatus could very well have had an exonerating function for the Party leadership, allowing them to shift responsibility to the apparatus for its own political failures—ZRK reports are nevertheless an incomparable source for this particular period, off ering insights into the inner workings, routines and informality of the apparatus

Do not take it personally that I did not endorse your article as GA. Take it as a compliment that I gave you serious feedback. TheUzbek (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BAyoufriend.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unified power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpringProof I think you are doing a good job. I became a father on Sunday so I don't really have all the time in the world, but I can do some checks here and there :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: Thanks. :) And congrats!!! I'm taking my time with the article, so don't worry. ^signed, SpringProof _talk 17:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very thoroughly read through and copyedited the article; changed all spelling to British English, which you seem to prefer; corrected hyphens/dashes; added/removed wikilinks; changed section titles; cleaned up references; changed to logical quotation; and just generally simplified the prose. The article at first was very difficult to read and used quite technical words. ^signed, SpringProof _talk 07:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpringProof Thank you! Its not the easiest type of article to write since one has to use Marxist vocabulary that is alien to most Western readers. I am working on creating articles on state form, state type, state power etc so that Wikipedia at least has more accessible info on this topic.

You did great work! Its hard to translate from Marxist to liberal speak without losing valuable information, but I think you managed it :) TheUzbek (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek: Thank you so much for the compliment! Yes, I suspected that it used special vocabulary, so I tried to keep the meanings while using easier words.

I'd be more than happy to collaborate on more articles in the future. You're a great writer (even if your writing is very academic, haha). I've never had an article that I worked on be nominated for anything, let alone win, so I think that'd be fun. ^signed, SpringProof _talk 21:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC) (edited ^signed, SpringProof _talk 22:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I think this is the beginning of a great collaboration between us! :)

Thank you for the compliments: I try to write as neutrally as possible. TheUzbek (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Easternsahara -- Easternsahara (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been working on the review of your nominated article but I was just wondering if you knew any academic sources that talk about the historical background of communism, its key thinkers and the pros/cons of it. Thanks 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking a difficult question. To be honest, I don't know of any Western academic work that discusses the pros and cons of communism, but there are several works that try to comprehend it. Comparative communist works from the 1970s until the dissolution of the USSR are good: they actively tried to understand what made communism work and not work, and I believe it accomplished by producing a ton of very neutral and academic level work on it. However, with the collapse of the USSR and the resurgence of the authoritarian/totalitarian school and the perceived liberal victory over communism I would say that there are thousands of good work, but the best works treat communism as an historical phenomenon that did not work.

As for the pros/cons of communism, it really depends on what your point of study is. If you want to find out if communism is for you, I honestly don't think studying the pros of cons of actual communism is that important. If you think these are good values to be defended, you should defend them. I, mean, honestly, I believe European communism could still have been a thing if a) they had instituted clear rules on term limits (Khrushchev tried, but failed), b) if they had been able to break with the economic aspects of Stalinism, c) accepted a role for the market earlier and d) made strong governining institutions based more on transparency than closed doors. I would say Yugoslavia and Vietnam, especially Yugoslavia post-1980, shows that term limits can function and regulate politics, but so long that it is not combined with administrative decentralisation (or at the least the way it was implemented in Yugoslavia). I would say modern-day China, and why Xi has been able to be repeatedly elected, is that it resembles Brezhnev's Soviet, just with formal regulations. All power is vested in the Politburo; in Vietnam and in Laos, the central committee's role is much stronger.

The problem is, and was, that the European communist states failed to enact proper political and economic reforms. In Romania and North Korea, institutions decayed and were replaced by nepotism. Nearly happened in Bulgaria as well. In the other states, no term limits and the fact that no formal rules regulated the roles of the central committee, politburo, secretariat and the general secretary usually lead to an oligarchic leadership in which people stayed in office until death. They lacked what China (despite Xi not retiring), Cuba, Laos and Vietnam have: orderly transfer of personnel, which by extension, leads to new approaches, new ideas and usually, a more opened minded approach to governance.

I could write more, but this is what I came up with. As with authors: Robert Service and Archie Brown are good. I mean, they are not communist and do not write glowingly about it, but good summaries. I find Brown's pre-1991 work to be the best, but its not his fault that European communism collapsed. Before the collapse, his main intention was to understand why communist states functioned. Ever since their collapse Brown shifted his focus to why communist states were established and why they survived as long as they did, but that is thesis on the end of history for you. TheUzbek (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and detailed response. As one would expect of someone who edits on socialism, I am already on the left. I haven't read that much theory yet but I have been convinced by conversations and the like. The reason I originally asked is because I have a research assignment on the political theory of marxism. My teacher seems to be biased towards anti-communism as we are reading an anticommunist novel about the Chinese Cultural Revolution from the perspective of a bourgeois girl and Nineteen Eighty-Four (which imo doesn't even condemn socialism). The prompt for the research is literally "Provide a definition, some historical background (including key theorists and documents), and a description of where communism took root. When looking at past and present Communist regimes, comment on their perceived attractions, and also their negative realities. You can also explore Marxism, as a political theory". I don't really care if the sources are neutral or not as long as they paint a more nuanced or positive view of socialism so I can challenge the views of the teacher. But you have already helped me a lot and this is just an explanation of my motive. By the way, I will be somewhat busy until the coming Monday so I will probably not finish the GA review or edit Wikipedia at all until after Monday. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 23:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No stress on the GA review! :)

As for the assignment, it seems that your teacher is a firm believer in the communism is dead trope. Marxism is materialism, naturalism. It is a belief that everything is made up of matter and that we humans interact with matter continuously. First, Marxism is a method and not given set of policies. As Marx and Engels wrote in the preface of the 1872 edition of The Communist Manifesto: "the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some details might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II." The set of policies outlined in section II, of course, were nationalisation of industry, for example.

But if we look at the quote, Marx and Engels says that "the general principles" outlined in the manifesto are "as correct today as ever". Marxist-Leninists (communists) have tried to systematise this train of thought: claiming Marxism to be the opposite of dogma. For example, Lenin, writing in 1910, states, "It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life." And Xi said the very same thing in 2022: "Marxism is not a set of rigid dogmas, but a guide to action that must evolve as the situation changes. Whether Marxism can serve its guiding role depends on whether its basic tenets are adapted to the conditions in China and the features of the times. In a fast-changing world and a fast-growing country, we cannot be fettered to old conventions and rigid thinking, and we must be bold enough to update our theory." This leads us to the obvious question: What are the basic tenets of Marxism?

Marxism is a materialist philosophy, and argues that humans are the product of internal physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain, and that humans are a product of their natural physical environment. For human society to develop, individuals have to work. Work is when individuals transform natural material resources (such as animals, metal, wood, etc.) to procure the means of life to sustain society and social development. This act of transforming material resources is called production. In other words, everything that exists is a physical object, and these physical objects are constructed on matter interacting with each other.

When Marx and Engels set out to build their theoretical system, Western philosophy was largely dominated by idealism—the claim that objects don’t exist apart from human sensations. In that view, for example, a stone exists only if it can be sensed. Many leading thinkers embraced it, from Johann Gottlieb Fichte to Richard Avenarius. Idealism continued the religious idea that the earth was made for humanity; even where God was omitted, nature was still treated only in relation to humans, not as something independent of them. Alongside this stood a second current, which Marxists called agnosticism, represented by Immanuel Kant and David Hume. Rather than taking a definite position, it concluded that we can’t know whether an objective reality corresponds to our sensations. As Lenin put it, "The agnostic says: I do not know if there is an objective reality which is reflected, imaged by our sensations; I declare there is no way of knowing this. Hence the denial of objective truth by the agnostic, and the tolerance — the philistine, cowardly tolerance — of the dogmas regarding sprites, hobgoblins, Catholic saints, and the like." Marxists, therefore, tried to shift attention from sensations to the material conditions that shape them, introducing what they regarded as a new form of materialism.

All this leads to what I consider the fundamental question of Marxism: Politics or matter in command? Politics in this instance means human agency, while matter means nature and objective laws of development. Mao, if we are to simplify greatly, believed in humanity's ability to enforce change on matter. The present-day CPC, on the other hand, believes that politics can be nothing more than an attempt at interpreting the material circumstances at the given point and instituting correct policies. Xue Muqiao critiqued Mao's understanding:

"Some comrades were not sufficiently aware of the importance of studying and observing objective laws and were confused about the relationship between the Party line and objective laws. According to them, the line is the key link and the accuracy of our knowledge of objective laws should be judged by its conformity with the Party line. This was an inversion of cause and effect. It is the laws that determine the line, principles and policies, not vice versa. The Party’s line, principles and policies should be formulated in light of the requirements of objective laws and their correctness should be judged by their conformity with these laws. Some other comrades fear that observing objective economic laws would mean an abandonment of politics. This is a misconception. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics; violation of objective laws of economic development hinders the growth of productive forces and may even undermine these forces, doing serious harm to the fundamental interests of the labouring people as a whole. How could we have such politics?"

This leads to another essential key of Marxism: practice. Most people have heard of the slogan, "Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth". However, many Westerners ridicule it, claiming it has nothing to do with Marxism. This is plain wrong. Marx wrote the following in his Theses on Feuerbach: "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." Marxists/communists believe that one can only advance as a human being (as a society) by interacting with matter (or nature), and the only way to determine whether a proposition is correct or incorrect is by interacting with it. This is why Stalin said;

"Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are still not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice."

... and Mao said:

"Marxists hold that man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man’s knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice."</blockquote">

So what are they saying? For a society to form, humanity must labour, and correct practice (that is, correct labour) produces necessities that maintain society's integrity. In this sense, Mao and Xi are not that far apart since Mao also said practice was the criterion of truth, "The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth."

But again, and I believe that is the major fault with Marxism/communist states, is that there has been a constant conflict between taking a gradual path (present-day CPC) of instituting policies that fit with the material circumstances and the revolutionary approach of instituting socialism immediately (As Stalin said, if we don't institute socialism know we should "to surrender power in one way or another and to pass to the position of an opposition party").

I could not help myself here! :P I have now introduced you to materialism, and indirectly dialectical materialism and historical materialism. TheUzbek (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I was reading a Xinhua article about Xi and I noticed this: "In 1979, Xi traveled to the Nordic countries as part of the entourage of a vice premier. In Norway, he was quite impressed by the social welfare system." Interesting trivia! (Also calls into qeustion whether Xi is as "anti-welfare" as some claim) The Account 2 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not interpreted Xi as being against welfare per se, but rather about instituting comprehensive welfare policies at the stage of historical development that China finds itself in. Of course, what does this all mean? This is abstract and vague level Marxism. They have recently rolled out a bunch of welfare policies in regard to child support and kindergardens so they are obviously moving in a direction of improving their welfare coverage. I read sometime ago, I think in the People's Daily, that a goal of common prosperity was to make a more equal society than the most equal capitalist societies. Of course, it wasn't a high flyer who said that, but the article was in the People's Daily so that shows, I think, that certain segments of the CPC leadership clearly have a specific goal in mind. TheUzbek (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Easternsahara -- Easternsahara (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A hook about the people who served while being older than the age limit would be good, I can nominate it for you if you are too busy Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 16:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of what you mean :) Are you thinking about DYK? Sure thing! TheUzbek (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by hook I was referring to WP:DYKHOOK. I have now nominated it Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 20:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara Great! Thank you :) TheUzbek (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, it took quite a while for this hook to be reviewed and then passed. However, the hook was deemed to not be sufficiently related to the topic so I just wanted to ask if you had any better hook ideas, as you are likely more familiar with the topic. Thanks, User:Easternsahara_{review this} 19:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello comrade, hope that you're doing well. Do you mind helping with fixing the article about the failed M-L revolution of Oman (Dhofar rebellion)? It's currently written from an entirely British POV and I need help with fixing it (That is, after I'm done with my mid-term exams lol) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would love, but I neither have the time nor knowledge to contribute much! :P TheUzbek (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you some books whenever you feel like you want to try and help. A media blockade was placed on Dhofar during that time, which is why most sources we have on the revolution are pretty much British propaganda pieces, and I doubt that anyone outside the Arab World would've heard about the revolution from the Dhofari side if it wasn't for Heiny Srour's 1974 film, The Hour of Liberation Has Arrived, about the revolution and Fred Halliday's activism 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly receive some books :)

Well, I haven't heard of the film either. TheUzbek (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well yeah cus the film aired in 1974 and only in Paris lol. Check ur email for the book 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the film to Commons since it came under PD a year ago https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hour_of_Liberation_Has_Arrived.webm 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for undoing your change here. I have no opinion on whether it should be "communist state" or "socialist state", but there was a disruptive IP adding "West China" to a bunch of China-related articles to refer to the PRC. Mellk (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big news! For the first time in a long time, a currently-serving Politburo member has been expelled from the CPC. It was announced today that Central Military Commission Vice Chairman He Weidong has been expelled from the Party. (On a side note, from North Korea abandoning peaceful reunification to the 2024 South Korean martial law to Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) losing its majority and its coalition partner, its certainly been a few interesting years for East Asia). The Account 2 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the first sitting vice chairman of the CMC in decades. The last sitting Politburo member to be expelled was Sun Zhengcai in 2017. The Account 2 (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 Interesting, I agree, but I am not sure what it all means. The CMC is powerful, but a pure military figure has never dominated the CPC nor threatened its leadership (unless one believes in the official narrative of the Lin Biao incident). It goes to show the strength of Xi, and his support. Of course, the question is if this is real support or the fact that his peers are afraid of him.

I have no clue, to be honest. But it shows the power he has, and the power of his cause. But, of course, Xi protects his own. Zhao Leji survived the Peng Shuai scandal, Peng didn't. If I was in the PLA I would be worried. In one thing is certain it means that Xi is coming for every shady crook in a military uniform! TheUzbek (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: it was Zhang Gaoli (who is seen as closer to Jiang Zemin), not Zhao Leji who was implicated in the Peng Shuai scandal. I think that's a very special case, honestly, as PRC politicians at the top virtually never recieve any kind of allegations from wrongdoings (especially at a personal level such as sexual misconduct) from the grassroot/non-Party level. The CPC probably didn't want to be seen as sending the "wrong message" by doing something to Zhang.

Regarding the CMC, yes I agree, since the Party has went through great pains to ensure absolute CPC control over the PLA. Soldiers being required to go through political lessons shows they see control over the PLA as the biggest priority, even more than combat efficiency. I also noticed that in the world of Chinese politics where personalities are already downplayed, CMC and PLA officials in general are kept especially out of the limelight (PLA seems to be among the most secretive institutions in China, maybe only second to the Ministry of State Security). PLA doesn't even publicly announce personnel appointments. You're right that Xi does indeed protect his own, but what's interesting about He Weidong and Miao Hua is that they were thought to be close associates of Xi, having worked with him in Fujian (this does show us the limits of analysing "factional patterns" from far away; there are limits in being able to tell how much Xi and other Chinese politicians view each other, especially at a personal level for example).

These removals do suggest Xi is taking corruption very seriously, if he's willing to remove his own former associates. The amount of people removed in the PLA in the last two years or so is notable though, including several current and former CMC members. Makes me wonder if the CPC found an interconnected case there or something.

On a lighter note, your Swedish friends will now be able to visit China without a visa! Norwegians already got visa-free access in 2023. The Account 2 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 Thanks for correcting me! My Memory did not serve me correctly this time! I was not even close, haha :p

Xi is interested in building institutions, and to regulate power (but not limit it). He seeks to increase accountability at lower-levels and create a rule of law culture (where officials rule in accordance with regulations/laws/the constitution). None of this is new.

As for the factionalism hypothesis. It was overblown in the USSR and is overblown in China, especially China where leaders are removable (they can be removed peacefully and without controversy).

Xi can remove anyone, and will retire when he wants. Its not because he's all powerful. Its because of Trump and the fact that no one in the formal party structure can (unless something spectacular happens). He has seniority, experience and informal powers none of the newbies. Bring on 2027, and all his peers will have retired. He owns this game, and he knows it.

As for the Peng Shuai scandal, you have a point. I will add that the CPC has been a male club for years, and thus is probably the norm and not the exception (minus the rape, of course). Powerful people using their power to get sex is nothing new. However, considering the growth of female members, especially under Xi, one wonders how long that can continue. I am pretty sure the membership statistics published in 2026 for 2025 will say that female members make up about 33% of the membership total. It will end up by 50% in the forseeable future if the trend continues. TheUzbek (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, despite claims about Xi "weakening institutions" (as compared to the very strong institutions of the... Hu era?), I noticed Xi is really emphasizing doing things within an institutional framework. You can argue that even the removal of the term limits fits in this, as Xi could've easily retained power without holding the presidency (which would've arguably weakened institutionalization). The Communist Party has been drafting more and more regulations and passing more laws, shrinking the grey area in governance (for example, clarifying the roles of various institutions).

Regarding factionalism, the talk about Xi appointing loyalists always felt a bit funny to me because... isn't that what any politician tries to do? Politicians who appoint non-allies or potential rivals to their administration generally do it as political compromise (i.e. coalition agreements), not out of the goodness of their hearts. Actual crony politics would've been Xi appointing complete political outsiders (such as personal friends) or outright family members (such as how Azerbaijan's Ilham Aliyev made his wife vice president). All of the current Politburo members at least entered politics before meeting Xi. I agree that Trump makes Xi's political life easier, and I'll go further and say he makes CPC's whole life as an easier in that he's basically everything CPC has criticized about the Western system. I don't think you'll find many advocates for liberal democracy among Chinese people when Trump is the most representative example of it (many of my Chinese friends call him 川建国 aka Trump strengthening China).

Regarding women's rights, I agree with you, and I personally talked to many young Chinese women, including those that want to join the Party, about similar topics. At this point, most of them seem to see gender inequality as a general societal issue rather than something to be blamed specifically on the Party. They're nowhere as near as anti-CPC as Western media sometimes can portray them to be (in fact, many I met are very patriotic/supportive of the CPC and Xi), but they absolutely do care about women's rights. The Account 2 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The media says many things. Xi has actively gone out of his way to strengthen institutions at the local level. He has done it at the central level, but it's not as discernible. The "Regulation on the Work of the Discipline Inspection Commission of the Communist Party of China" and the "Regulation on the Work of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party" are steps in the right direction, but they have also retained emphasis on the core and somewhat weakened democratic norms. For example, the CCDI regulations say the CCDI's main responsibility is to safeguard Xi's core position within the Central Committee. As I see it, Xi resembles Tito in many ways (he actively strengthened party regulations and laws, and went further than Xi). Xi has three alternatives;

1. Do as Tito, institute a system of clear rules that safeguards collective leadership when he is gone (I assume Tito did it because he believed no one else could accomplish what he did; there is a chance Xi feels the same)
2. Do the opposite of Tito, and appoint a successor who will rule as long as Xi
3. Die in office, and let the party hack it out.

I think the first alternative is most likely. I doubt he will find the perfect successor and that he will either end up like Nguyen Phu Trong or like Tito. Tito would be the graceful exit, and Nguyen Phu Trong the disgraceful one.

I totally concur. The totalitarian-authoritarian theories always make it sound that only non-liberals do it. It's the name of the game. You could even say it's worse in liberal democracies. The American president appoints his own cabinet by law. In contrast, Xi, as general secretary, cannot appoint anyone, and as president, he can only nominate the premier. My point is, the communist system is in some ways very simple: to get a stranglehold on the system, the leader needs to get his supporters appointed to key positions (for example, get a supporter to head the organisation department). That way, he can get his picks elected/appointed to important positions. But it's hard, and Hu Jintao never managed it. But, as history has shown, once a communist state leader has accomplished this, it's quite difficult to dislodge them.

Similar to liberal democracies, I presume the general public is critical of certain segments of the system, but not the system itself. I mean, how many times have I heard people in Norway complain that politicians are only in it for their self-interest? But if you ask them to compare it with any other system, we all know which one will win. I presume it's the same in China: they are critical, but replacing it is a whole other ball game.

We will see. Fixing the women's issue is not impossible. It hasn't been fixed because no high-ranking CPC leader has shown interest in fixing it. Raúl Castro managed to do it in two electoral terms. I mean, Xi certainly has the tools. But it's too early to tell. Female membership is on the rise, but female cadres in top positions is barely increasing (and has decreased at the Central Committee level under Xi),. TheUzbek (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki Thank you so very much! TheUzbek (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What template do you think should be used for various organizations of Communist Parties? (i.e. the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party). The pages for CPC organizations generally use Template:Infobox organization. Do you think that template or the Template:Infobox government agency should be used? (Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Template:Infobox organization; I just don't think it looks good) Or maybe you can create a specific template for Communist Party departments, similar to how you created Template:Infobox Central Committee outline (considering how unique Party departments are, this might be warranted). The Account 2 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 I can fix the Template:Infobox Central Committee outline if there is something that is missing TheUzbek (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about that template; that seems to be suited for Central Committees (as its name says). Rather, I'm asking whether you could create a specific Infobox template for various departments of Communist Parties (such as Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party or the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission). Due to their unique nature, it might be a good idea to create a specific infobox template for these types of organizations. The Account 2 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used that template on several articles, see Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Commission on Statutory Questions, Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam etc etc ...

My point is that the infobox is supposed to work for all communist institutions. If there are any parameters you think are missing, I can add them. TheUzbek (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm let me try to use that template. Do you think it could be used for permanent bodies too? (For example, specific subordinate institutions of the Central Committee) I'm thinking of something like the Publicity Department for example (for a permanent body like that, calling the headquarters "meeting place" can sound a bit weird for example). I'm curious what ideas you got. The Account 2 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix that. If there are any special fields missing I will add them :) TheUzbek (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into it.

By the way, great work you did in the politics section of the North Korea article! It's much more readable now. If it won't be trouble, would you like to rewrite the Government and politics section of the China article at some point as well? I'm curious if you think there should be anything more added there. The Account 2 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have been thinking about it. The China politics and governance section is in way better shape than the North Korean one ever was, so I don't feel like I am in any rush. I am thinking of updating them all: the governance and politics section of the existing communist states and the former communist states of Europe. TheUzbek (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legislature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Viktor Chebrikov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portal-Class The X-Files pages has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that He Weidong has now been officially removed from the Politburo, how should the 20th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party members list look like? Should He be removed completely or added in some way to indicate he was a member but was later removed? You created these Politburo articles so I would guess you would have some ideas about it. The Account 2 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best would be to create a note similar to Members of the 10th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (see Dong Biwu in that article). TheUzbek (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you back in January if you would be willing to give more comments on this topic as I plan on nominating it for FAC in 2026. I closed that peer review due to inactivity but if you're still interested in giving feedback, feel free to drop it on the talk page. Cheers,

I think that we are close to comprehensibility - I've only not obtained VIII sednica CK SK Srbije: nulta tačka "narodnog pokreta" but it's very cheap so I'll try to buy it in 2026. I think about removing the latter two "further reading books" as they are not books per se but rather collection of works. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good article, but many things can be improved. For example, "In Vojvodina, however, Milošević had a negative reputation amongst the political establishment due to his comments at a party session in November 1984". What was said?

The section, "Election of Slobodan Milošević", is good, but its vague. You speak of a session, but of which organ? The Presidency, the Central Committee, something else? You know the answer.

Milosevic was elected at the close of the party congress you write (on 28 May), but his Wikipedia article states that he was elected on 31 May 1986. There is three days between the end of the congress (28 May) and his election (31 May). Something is off.

"In the aftermath of the session, a purge inside SKS occurred to allow Milošević to be elected president of the SKS Presidency." Again, what session? The Congress, the central committee, the presidency? Alas, purge is not the correct term here at all.

And purge is wrong. Purge means, "remove (a group of people considered undesirable) from an organization or place in an abrupt or violent way". Can also mean, "rid (someone or something) of an unwanted quality, condition, or feeling.". But it usually implies illegality. Milosevic just got elected; I doubt everyone just accepted his proposal to purge the party. There is something illogical about it. But the answer is simple: It wasn't a purge.

I also find sentences like these strange: "Milošević was considered to be a technocrat, but inside the City Committee, he began initiating campaigns against liberals and dissidents". The LCY was an anti-liberal party; do you mean reformists?

This sentence is good: " Miloš Vasić [sh], a journalist and co-creator of the Vreme magazine, described Milošević's actions as Stalinist, saying that he "talked about 'people's democracy', 'great steps forward in the service of socialism', no other Communist leaders used this jargon"." You are not calling him Stalinist; you are saying someone else is. I like that very much.

When that is said and done, it's a good article. I see no problems with it becoming an FA. But it's either you or the sources that you use don't really understand the Yugoslav system of government, and that kinda shows a few places. But this won't stop this article from becoming FA since the reviewers will probably lack that knowledge. It really depends on your goal: whether you want to get an FA or create the "perfect" article. You can, of course, do both.

As a sidenote, I think one should be careful to use liberal words to describe illiberal systems. The term purge or coup might be correct from a liberal standpoint, but not from a Marxist-Leninist one. That is why, I think, we should try to avoid those terms, and if we do use them, explain them appropriately in the article to give it context. It's like only using Marxist-Leninist terms to describe liberal democracy or historical events in liberal democracy: you could probably get a good understanding, but you would also miss a lot because the terms themselves limit your own understanding. They have been conceived and given understanding for one specific context, and translating them to other might help you understand them better, but will distort that understanding as well. But don't get me wrong: one always has to follow what the sources say as well.

Good luck, I believe in this article! TheUzbek (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I will start working on this next year and I'll try to obtain the last book I need in January. I have bought Stojšić's book but still haven't fully read it, therefore there still might some information be missing. Happy holidays! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 70 high-ranking party officials were disciplined under the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a group of like-minded individuals on here and was curious if you wanted to join :) It is me, @Matrose-von-Kronstadt and @Hej, Tachanka from Nitra!. Kommandant-Brot (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! :)

I use the label social democrat, and have voted for social democratic parties my whole life. I have also read a whole lot of Marx, and I admire him. I am not an anti-communist, and I do respect the communist project. But, I cannot condone Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung etc. There are clear institutional reasons why those events happened, and I don't think China has instituted enough safeguards against that. I also would like to see more democracy and less centralism, and more specifically, institutional safeguards that protect the right of members of collective decision-making organs at the expense of the general secretary. I am theoretically fond of the post-Tito system of collective leadership: no leader sits for more than one year (see leader of the LCY) while also constitutionalising the rights of members of the collective decision-making organs. However, they coupled that with decentralisation that weakened the centre, resulting in policy decay and eventual collapse. It's not inconceivable that Laos and Vietnam develop in that direction, and that is a model I could theoretically support. Sadly, most communist states have been low-grade institutionalised states in which the general secretary can weaken the collective organs, and the collective organs are unable to defend their institutional position. I hope Xi takes a Tito.

Good answer? Bad answer? ... an OK answer? TheUzbek (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tito is a neat case and it's allways important to laern. Cool answer, its chill Kommandant-Brot (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National People's Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Military Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the infobox stuff off of the advice of a contributor, as it could have fell under WP:NOTAVOTE. Furthermore I feel an RfC would be more appropriate for such a broad change across articles.

I think a good compromise would be "Unitary Marxist-Leninist republic" or "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state" as it removes the redundancies of "Socialist" and "One-party" in the infobox, given that both are inherent to the ideology. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed on the talk page, communist state is a term used by scholars. Marxist-Leninist state is barely used. It can be unitary communist republic, but as long as the article is named communist state the infoboxes should reflect the actual name of the article. If you fail in your bid to move the article you will have to accept that communist state is better. The reason communist state defeated Marxist-Leninist state on Laos was that the external admin considered it illegitimate to use a different term that redirect to an article by a different name.

You will have to accept the results. Have a merry good christmas in the meantime! :) TheUzbek (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest you came off as intentionally demeaning here. Also, a Page Move is not the appropriate place to discuss, let alone enforce mass page changes, and it seems the 2 others who have thus far contributed agree, as they haven't committed to the "4 options" originally there. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 03:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not arrogant or demeaning: demeaning is starting a thread at another user's page and accusing an external user not part of the conversation of cheating when he has followed the procedure.

However, my policy is to let bygones be bygones. I propose you withdraw your RFC on communist states, and I can propose another RFC: propose moving it to either "Communist state system" or "Communist system". The first, "Communist state system" would clarify the article topic, and the second would be best from your perspective: "communist state is an oxymoron". OK? TheUzbek (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry christmas and a happy new year to you as well! :) TheUzbek (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from me to you as well! Thanks for all of your edits. Learned a lot about communist states thanks to you. The Account 2 (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this a bit late, but Merry Christmas to you as well! :) Yes, we are indeed good collaborators! TheUzbek (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Trump's claims on Greenland are creating an uproar in Scandinavia (and seem to have created an unease, coming just after America's operation in Venezuela). I'm curious, what are the reactions in Norway? The Account 2 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like Keir Starmer said, we won't shed any tears for Maduro. Unlike Starmer, both our prime minister and foreign minister have called it a breach of international law, with no buts. We are closely following the situation in Greenland. In response to comments made by Trump and people in his administration, our prime minister said, "This way of speaking, by saying that one 'needs Greenland', brings to mind that the United States is planning to take Greenland." But we are still 100% behind NATO, and hope this all will go away somehow... but can the status quo hold if they take Greenland (or kidnap Mette Fredriksen) the way they took Maduro and Venezuela? The answer is obviously no, the United States has breached international law on several occasions, but never at the direct cost to Western liberal democracies. Taking those actions will, of course, transform our mindset accordingly. If nothing happens, we can continue to believe the problem is the head and not the country nor the international system it leads. TheUzbek (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit surreal all of this has come to this point, frankly. I don't think the Western liberal democratic alliance system was ever seriously tested like this before, both internally and externally. As you said, US has breached international law before obviously, but actually considering seizing a territory of a Western ally? Truly interesting times... We'll see if the EU decides to be more than "deeply concerned" at that point :) The Account 2 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they will, but we'll see how the United States Congress reacts to this. Mid-term elections also seem to be going one way, so if he wants to do this, his timeframe is slipping. But, of course, the president is powerful. The great strength and weakness of the separation of powers is the separation. If the executive becomes too separated from the legislature and the judiciary, the other two don't stand a chance. This is why presidential systems collapse more often than parliamentary ones. Marx was right on the money when he wrote, "This constitution, made inviolable in so ingenious a manner, was nevertheless, like Achilles, vulnerable in one point – not in the heel, but in the head, or rather in the two heads it wound up with: the Legislative Assembly on the one hand, the President on the other." Two competing elected heads mean two competing poles of legitimacy.

But this is all conjecture. What do you think? Where in the world do you come from? TheUzbek (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree though Trump seems determined to test the whole system to its limits. As you said, Trump's strategy seems to be the executive overwhelming the legislative and judiciary.

Regarding where I'm from, it's actually more than one. Primarily two countries at around the most southeastern flank of NATO (which don't exactly get along extremely well), I'm curious if you can guess them :P The Account 2 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Turkey and Greece, but it could be Greece and Macedonia or Turkey and Bulgaria (though relations between these two have improved greatly since the end of communism, so it is highly unlikely). Better to have a conflict with someone at your level than a Danish mouse standing up against an American giant. TheUzbek (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo for the first one! I actually have a pretty complicated family history origin (I have partial origins in Germany and France too, for example) lol. These two countries both being in NATO calms their conflict down somewhat luckily.

Regarding Scandinavia, correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time in decades that you guys have felt directly militarily threatened by a foreign power? Regarding Greenland, apparently the reason Trump is interested in it is because it looks big on a map (I presume he saw the Mercator projection version of it, I wonder if he would care that much if he saw a smaller version...). Truly interesting times. The Chinese were right it seems, we really are seeing great changes unseen in a century. The Account 2 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Both being members of NATO has probably neutralised the chances of conflict, and if NATO disappears, it might increase them. Good point. Multicultural, me as well. I have Caribbean roots as well, but I don't have any family there presently.

We always feel threatened by Russia :P I remember when I did my obligatory military conscription around 2011, the military officers still referred to Russia as the Soviet Union. Of course, as a joke, but it says something about our mentality. Northern Norway has a more positive view of Russia, since the Soviets liberated Finnmark (and left without controversy). We had the pro-Russian Communist Party of Norway, which was very influential after World War II. But it toed the Soviet line without criticism. It purged the party of many of its wartime heroes because of perceived "Titoism"... And then it began to split, and eventually became Red (Norway) and the Socialist Left Party (Norway). Still, neither of them has any inbuilt ideological sympathies for Russia. So, the pro-Russian contingent kinda fucked it up for themselves, and now they are minuscule.

Maybe, maybe. I don't think Trump is as stupid as they say, and he has glaring weaknesses, but still. The fact is that the Democrats respect international law most of the time, and the Republicans don't. Would the world be better with a Chinese hegemon? At least they wouldn't be poisoned by American exceptionalism (and the Soviets also had their exceptionalism as well: since it was the first communist state, they believed they had the right to meddle in the affairs of other communist states)... If you live in Greece, you probably know a lot about Chinese investments. Do you feel it's an example of imperialism or just normal investment activity, just this time from a communist giant instead of a capitalist one? TheUzbek (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot about the Russia part haha. I have some connections to Sweden so I know they're afraid to death of Russia there (and I presume Norwegians to be the same). Regarding Norwegian politics, I actually had checked it out in my free time so I have a vague understanding of it. The Red party has always been a bit interesting to me, being one of the few major communist parties that doesn't espouse Marxism–Leninism (I'm curious though, how communist is it? I heard there was a debate some time ago on whether to remove communism from their charter but I don't know if that got anywhere). I have had a few questions that have interested me. Communist Party of Norway today only seems to get around 50 votes. Do many communists (including Marxist-Leninists) engage in tactical voting for the Red, considering just how much bigger it is? I mean I know communism might not be the most mainstream ideology in Norway but I still have doubts there's only 50 communists in a country of 5.6 million (especially considering they got thousand votes two decades ago). Secondly, what differentiates between Socialist Left Party and Red voters?

i also don't think Trump is stupid as people say (I mean becoming a president requires certain intelligence doesn't it :p) but he personally doesn't seem to be invested in America becoming a hegemon everywhere as previous presidents seem to be. I feel like the vision of his and his administration seems to make America a bit like UAE; a place to get rich and make money while the state intervenes around home to guarantee the country's interests. Many people around him seem to make the Americas the number one and overriding priority. I don't think China would come rushing to replace America as the global hegemon as well. They seem to be very allergic to opening military bases abroad for example (I mean they only have one official base now, and could've opened many more if they really wanted). China's overriding priority seems to be achieving their economic and technological goals by 2049 (100th anniversary of the PRC), with everything else (except Taiwan likely) being secondary.

Regarding Chinese investments, yes, there's been a lot of them in Greece, especially with the Piraeus port, though the new US ambassador, who btw happens to be the president's son's ex-girlfriend (lol) has been complaining about it recently. China has been making some big investments in Turkey too. Two years ago, they announced a big BYD factory, which is expected to also export to the EU market in general. Tourism from China has also been increasing, and I expect it to rise further since Turkey has recently removed visas on Chinese passport holders. (fun trivia; in 2018, a song called "Let Me Take you to Romantic Turkey" became viral in China, which significantly increased tourism. Somehow the perceptions of the song stuck, and its still often one of the first things many Chinese tell me about Turkey). Regarding how to view the investments, I'll say that even though some view it as imperialism, I feel lt's much harder to make people angry about economic investments (especially compared to military activities). The Account 2 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Red is the successor to the Workers' Communist Party, which broke away from Socialist Youth League of the Socialist People's Party, the key predecessor organisation to the modern-day Socialist Left Party. These communist groups that broke away from the Socialist Youth League were at first members of the Communist Party of Norway, and the Socialist People's Party broke away from the Labour Party. And, of course, the Communist Party originally broke away from the Labour Party. So everything starts with the Labour Party.

Ideologically, Norway is a very monolithic country. All these parties are liberal, with Red having a radical faction within its ranks. While it's true that Red still, in the party programme, professes to construct "classless society, what Karl Marx called communism," it's all very vague. The leadership in Red have referred to Mao as a fascist. The Socialist Left Party was established as a social democratic party with a Marxist programme. Today's programme is very social liberal: they don't oppose capitalism per se, and the leadership is on record saying what Norway has is socialism. Marxism-Leninism is a spent force in Norway and is considered authoritarian and backward. The last defenders of it were the Workers' Communist Party. The Communist Party of Norway lost most of its votes this election to the Peace and Justice (Norway), which was headed by the former deputy leader of Red. This party is probably the worst; it lacks a clear ideological perspective and borrows the worst aspects of its predecessors. It's completely conspiratorial. And yes, while American imperialism is terrible its hard to see why that makes Russian imperialism less terrible, which seems to be their position (there have been some debates where that is literally what they say).

I agree on both points. China's number one priority is to become as advanced, or more advanced, than the advanced capitalist countries, and to become self-sufficient from them. If they reach that level, everything else will come with time (that is how I interpret their strategy). This American administration is on record stating that we live in a multipolar world, and it seems they understand that their policies must change accordingly.

Haha, didn't know that! I agree, especially if the workers are well paid (or at the very least, paid well enough). In Norway, we are very skeptical of the Chinese. Doesn't go a day by where people don't say Chinese investments threatens our security...

Communism in Greece is alive and kicking, but rather reactionary? They like Stalin more than Xi, from what I can gather. As for Turkey, they have the Workers' Party of Turkey and the Labour Party. But, I mean, Marxism-Leninism became a developmentalist ideology, and I see why it's more popular in the East. Everyone in Norway considers Russia to be poor, and when the Communist Party of Norway ruined itself, there was no one in the mainstream who defended these ideas. TheUzbek (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read briefly about the Peace and Justice party before. Funnily enough, we have a similar party here in Turkey called the Patriotic Party. In fact, this party goes even further than the likes of Peace and Justice; literally only hours after Russia's invasion started, the party's leader went on TV to say "the weapons Russia uses are the weapons that bring peace and tranquility" (I mean uh...) This guy has been a fixture of Turkish politics for god know who long and has plenty of interesting moments admittedly (he once had a one on one meeting with Kim Il Sung himself and got into trouble in Switzerland for denying the Armenian genocide).

Well, regarding pay, the inflation in Turkey is so bad that... let me give you an example. Just out of curiosity, I compared the prices of some goods from Turkey to ones in Norway and California and found out the prices aren't that different in many cases... truly excellent economic management.

Yes, for some reason, I noticed that Scandinavian countries tend to have relatively poor relations with China, even compared to other European countries. There's Sweden, of course, whose relationship with China has been exceptionally poor since the whole incident around Gui Minhai. Finland had its own recent scandal around racism with East Asians. Denmark also didn't have the best of relations with China. From my understanding, Norway still seems to be relatively closer to China than other Scandinavian countries? If I understand correctly, Jonas Gahr Støre seems to belong to those who want to keep at least some kind of cooperative relationship with China.

Regarding investments, well, the political Overton window in Turkey especially regarding China is completely different compared to almost every other NATO country (only NATO country to participate in BRICS and SCO summits!). Something interesting to note, I think Turkey is the only NATO country (maybe except Montenegro) to not have imposed any kind of economic sanctions on China or Chinese officials, a move almost no one here suggests. Chinese investments are almost never mentioned as a national security threat, and there's virtually zero talk about China being a threat of an ideological nature (against democracy). Basically zero talk over things like Taiwan either. There were previously some complaints about Xinjiang but even that died down a lot these days. In fact, even the most ultranationalist and the most religious parties in Turkey have maintained links with China's Communist Party. Huawei even has a research center in Istanbul, while ICBC owns a local branch in the country. And interestingly, China maintains good ties with both the government and the opposition.

The Communist Party of Greece, well, they're very conservative on most social issues basically. Greece had a very bad economic meltdown a decade ago or so, so it's not surprising anti-establishment parties can gain popularity here. In Turkey, the Workers' Party actually tends to be more popular in the more developed parts of Turkey, as well as among younger people. They're boosted by having a charismatic leader as well. Most opposition voters tend to coalesce around the main opposition party, especially with the arrest of the popular Istanbul mayor recently. Small fun fact, the government hasn't even managed to remove all posters related to the arrested mayor in some very prominent places such as passenger ship ports even after a year. This feels like the most amusing form of authoritarianism possible. :p The Account 2 (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems even worse. That Marxism-Leninism has decayed to such an extent that someone actually supports North Korea astounds me, and why would a Marxist-Leninist support Russian imperialism? Lenin, a Russian, even opposed his own country in World War I.

Haha, that sounds terrible! Stuck with our prices, but a lower paycheck sounds terrible. Price and rent increases here aren't making our lives any easier, but hey, I can't complain.

It's ideological. As I said, the pro-Russians were crushed, and the pro-Chinese transformed into Red. We also love NATO, and are 110% loyal. We are pragmatic. We understand that we need China, and we also understand that China is not going away. But our understanding of China is low, and the discourse is accordingly. It is slowly changing, however. China probably prefers a non-liberal Turkey and sees it as a gateway to Europe that is also independent of it. China is pragmatic and can make good friends with any state. Pakistan is proof of that. But this article by the ILD head Liu Haixing also proves the CPC is slowly changing. They want the world to look like them, but won't do as the Soviets did: come into conflict, become isolated, and then poor. Instead, they will get rich, take Taiwan, and export their model. China is pragmatic, but ideological.

Haha, lazy authoritarianism is the best authoritarianism: at least you can have fun with it! Is the Workers' Party of Turkey like Red? Divorced from the Marxist-Leninist movement and no relationship with the CPC? In contrast, the Patriotic Party clearly does maintain party relations. Modern-day Marxism-Leninism seems stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either condemning the past a 100% or embracing it a 100%. The KKE has survived, and that is impressive, but it's also sad that they are not evolving their views to fit society and reach the youth. I mean, even communist Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam have legalised and accepted homosexuality, why can't they? It might now sound like this is something I care a lot about, and the answer is no. But's probably because I live in a society where this isn't even a debate.

So why are you interested in Chinese politics? TheUzbek (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol sorry for the late answer, got a bit busy.

I mean whatever you think of their governments, I can at least understand why someone could support countries like China or Vietnam. But countries like North Korea? God why... While we were talking about this, it seems the situation in Iran is getting serious too.

Regarding understanding of China, lol I do feel like Europe in general has a way to go on that. The fact that China rose very quickly relatively recently explains the gap too (an amazing statistic hard to believe today; in 2000, China's economy was only as big as Italy and nearly four times smaller than Japan, as well as 10 times smaller than America. As recently as in 1991, Norway had an economy one-fourth big as China's. Fast forward to today, China has an economy that's roughly five times bigger than Japan's and four times bigger than Germany. The cities of Shenzhen and Chongqing have economies big as Norway itself. The world can change very quickly and all of a sudden!) I feel like since China was frankly a pretty distant concern for Europe including Norway until like a decade ago, there was also little interest in understanding it. Now, with China as one of the two global powers, I expect understanding to increase. After all, it seems Norwegians are even buying electric vehicles from China these days!

Well, its more about the fact that China is seen as a very distant country in Turkey. Most discussions here are about Europe as well as US, along with regional countries sometimes. People have the perception of China of "high tech economic superpower that's far far away", which also inevitably leads to parties like Workers' Party not putting much focus on it. Ties started developing in depth relatively recently after all. (To give an example, one ultranationalist politician who a decade ago openly said certain racists things against Chinese people openly called for a military alliance between China, Russia and Turkey last year to oppose America. I mean........)

My interest in Chinese politics stems from my interest in China overall. I also have very close relationships with many Chinese people so that helps as well :) The Account 2 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; China, Laos and Vietnam are functioning states that deliver results. But the Communist Party of Norway is less skeptical of North Korea than China. They say North Korea has another culture, that we must understand... blah, blah, blah. I don't know nearly enough about Iran, but if the Islamic Republic goes, I expect either a pragmatic dictatorship or liberal democracy.

I agree: people have been denying this for years. But now it is becoming inescapable. China matters more than we like. These "trade wars" that are occurring are the last attempt to stop China, but it seems that the EU knows it's too late. China is leading in several technological fields and gaining traction in others. We could isolate the USSR because it lagged behind us; we cannot isolate a country that is a step or two ahead.

Aha, you do not say? To my mind, it sounds absurd that someone could suggest that. But, hey, I live in Norway. Anti-liberal politics is more common in other countries. And, of course, Turkey has never really become liberal either. Your founding father was not a liberal, and neither is your sitting president.

I am probably interested in China for many of the same reasons you are. + I am very interested in the study of institutions, both in liberal democracies and non-liberal states, particularly communist ones. That is one of the reasons I write here. Too many people have a poor grasp of the institutions used to govern these states, and I am trying to showcase that. I think my current draft on the supreme judicial organ will be a good one. TheUzbek (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Comparisons between China and the Soviet Union (in an economic sense) have also felt very shaky to me. I mean, the situation in the USSR had gotten so bad by 1989 that Yeltsin was visibly shocked for visiting what's basically an average supermarket. The same scenario is completely unimaginable in China. Xi Jinping actually visited supermarkets several times and his reaction was... normal. I also agree it's far too late to contain China like the USSR. I mean, China now produces one in every 10 cars sold in a country like the UK! I would also argue that in most Western countries, China has still not been really internalized as the "big baddie" if you get what I mean. Even today, if you asked random Westerners who the most evil world leader is today, I would expect many to say Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un (or Trump lol), but very very few to say Xi Jinping. He simply doesn't feel that threatening to many people, whatever you think of him.

Yes, I mean I can see why in a place like Norway, most people would support status quo policies (I like that once Bloomberg wrote Norway's problem was being too rich). What's interesting to me is that these days Norway seems to doing better compared to its Scandinavian siblings too (Sweden, for example, I heard isn't doing as well as before). Its also one of the few European countries to have stayed competitive GDP per capita wise versus America after the Great Financial Crisis. Is it due to good economic management? Oil? Something else? And I'm curious if/when the world transitions to post-oil world, would it be sustainable? Is the government preparing for this through its wealth fund?

I also am interested in institutions. I agree that Wikipedia's coverage of China's politics is/was lacking (I mean until recently, there weren't even articles of local governing bodies....). I feel that the coverage of even Japan is actually pretty lacking a lot of times (despite being the most well-known East Asian country in the West). I recently created the List of trips made by Xi Jinping (2022–) (arguably more important than many of his international trips!), as well as articles for the presidential orders he signed (one of the main public activities he does!). I've also been working to improve the pages of the Chinese political offices, such as the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the President of China, the Premier of China, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, etc etc... I'm curious, which sources would you recommend for these?

I saw your draft on the supreme judicial organs; it's pretty good. I'm curious, are you focusing on creating broad articles for communist state institutions first, and then plan to focus on individual institutions in individual countries? Also, I read Liu Haixing's article. What caught my eye is that it's the first time I saw so far that the Party seems to have promoted specific political concepts from China as a possible model for other countries (such as adhering to Party's centralized leadership, seemingly implying Parties in other countries should be organized in a more Leninist fashion). Is the Party gonna subtly promote some kind of one-party led model of leadership system to other countries in the future? I think some contents of that article can be incorporated to the Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (which I hope you can update at some point). The Account 2 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if you ask Westerners what country is amongst the largest threat to the liberal international order China invariably comes up.

We have the largest (or one of the largest) Government Pension Funds in the world. That helps. We have more or less kept the old welfare policies going. Sweden have thrown them in the dustbin. We have taken in immigrants, but we are not close to the Swedish level. Low inequality, albeit going in the wrong direction. We are a small, but very open market that is endowned with a lot of natural resources (the complete opposite of Cuba). But, I mean, there are problems here as well. The cost of living has been a problem since Covid-19, and while we generally haven't become poorer, but we are struggling more than before. That Krympflasjon (Shrinkflation) is the worst of our struggles says a lot. It means the phenomenon in which manufacturers reduce the quantity or size of a product (e.g. fewer slices in a package, less content) while the price remains the same or increases, in order to hide a real price increase from the consumer. Otherwise, the rent is high and the price of property is increasing way faster than pay. So if you want to buy an apartment you need help from your parents, and if they can't help you need to me a partner who can attain help form her/his parents.

For the presidency, the best book in English is The Constitutional and Legal Development of the Chinese Presidency: The Emperor's New Clothes? (albeit its poorly translated). Jiang Jingsong's book, The National People's Congress of China is very good, but old (2003).

As for an up to date book that describes the NPC, I don't that exists yet in the English langauge. There have been several institutional reforms in the NPC under Xi. However, for the general structure, The National People's Congress of China is still good. It describes the basic unchanging features well + gives a good historical overiew. Despite its name, Making Autocracy Work: Representation and Responsiveness in Modern China, is also a good book. But I always use Google Scholar if I don't have a work in mind, and the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is of great help to access these sources if they are behind a paywall.

Yes, first time in a long time. Its obvious, we human beings like to preach and share our gospel. It would be absurd to think that Chinese leaders are somehow allergic to those basic human needs. Xi Jinping views himself as the leader of the world communist project, and communism, as he once said, is in essence the struggle for total liberation of mankind. Of course, they might not push revolutions at first. Their main focus now seems to be trying to persuade the MPLA, ZANU PF, ANC, Party of the Revolution, FRELIMO etc to revert back to Marxism. We'll see how that goes.

Thank you! Well, I want to do everything, but I feel my biggest contribution is creating articles on the constitutional architecture of these states. So after the supreme judicial organ article is done, I'll shift focus to the supreme procuratorial organ, supreme supervisory organ, system of state organs of power, state ideology of communist states, central committee, central leading organ, politburo, secretariat of the communist party, control organ of the communist party, general secretary of the communist party etc. I am never going to bother to improve all the articles on communist states, but I can make the basic framework that connects all of them. We also should create page for specific organ types in China, such as deliberative coordinative organ, just like you created the democratic life meeting article.

You do great work, and Wikipedia is lucky to have you! :) I would love, to some day, improve the basic coverage of China's political system here. My aim is to fix the article Government of China. The first move in that step is to translate the corresponding article on Chinese Wikipedia and expanding it. Then no one will revert. TheUzbek (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Republic of Madagascar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist states.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like To Lam wants to move Vietnam's model more in line with China. Several news agencies are reporting that he wants to be appointed president of Vietnam in addition to being general secretary. It looks like everyone wants political centralization these days! The Account 2 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will have much impact on decision-making. Especially considering the recent moves to strengthen the Permanent Member of the Secretariat, which means the gen sec gets even less control over the Secretariat but more control over a weak presidency. As president, however, To Lam will be able to go on state visits with a correct title, which makes it easier for Western countries to invite him. Vietnam's communist institutions have, compared to the average communist state, strong deliberative institutions were plenary sessions of the Central Committee regularly go against Politburo decisions. You don't have that in China; it barely meets, and while discussions take place, they firmly take place within the remit set by the politburo and its standing committee. Same system, but different culture equals different outcomes. TheUzbek (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. What do you think To Lam's goals seem to be? He's doing a lot of reforms since he took power, especially in the bureaucracy (which Wikipedia should cover better). The Account 2 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Side note lol it seems Trump is gonna impose tariffs on you guys. Fun world! The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 Sorry late response. I received comments on my academic draft paper from Perspectives on Politics so my focus has been their.

Luxkily nothing came of it. TheUzbek (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck and congratulations on your paper! I've been kinda busy with some stuff these days too.

Yeah I agree with you, seems like Trump backed down in the last minute. Meanwhile, big things seem to be happening in China. Zhang Youxia, the top-ranked Central Military Commission vice chairman, has formally been put under investigation. The Account 2 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 Incredible, and I think there are only two credible interpretations. Either it shows that the anti-corruption work has been institutionalized to such an extent it can take down anybody but Xi... or it shows that old conondrum: power corrupts, absolute power corrups absolutely. The military has never been a threat in communist governance. Jaruzelski served in the Politburo and his move was supportes by the Soviets. Other than him no military has ever threatened a communist state system from within. There have been cases of leading military men holding power, but they always had a seat at the top party collective organ (military influence was not enough). I cannot understand how Zhang was a threat to Xi's grasp on power. TheUzbek (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol this is certainly turning up to be an eventful year. My feeling is that Xi seems to be trying to throughoutly cleanse the PLA once in for all by trying to strike as many suspected corrupt people in a short span as possible. I'm curious to what exactly triggered this one though, as Zhang was said to be close to Xi. This is the official verdict btw. "腐败是党和国家事业发展进程中的拦路虎、绊脚石，反腐败是一场输不起也决不能输的重大斗争。党的十八大以来，在党中央、中央军委和习主席坚强领导下，全军部队坚持全面从严治党、全面从严治军，深入推进政治整训、正风肃纪反腐，坚持深挖彻查、除恶务尽，坚决查处军队高层腐败分子，着力消除政治隐患，党领导的人民军队在淬炼锻造、革弊鼎新中牢牢守住了根和魂。" So basically, Zhang is accused of having trampled on the Chairman responsibility system, aka ignoring and directly violating Xi's orders (践踏 is very severe wording, it literally accuses Zhang of actively going against Xi's orders).

Regarding military in communist states, I agree but I think it can be said that the Central Military Commission assumed a larger role in politics compared to military institutions in other communist countries? New article exactly about that just got published coincidentally; I think you can use it to expand the Central Military Commission and Civilian control of the military in communist states articles. After all, there's a reason why the chairmanship of the Party CMC seems to line up very closely to who was the leader of China since 1949.

In the other communist country, Vietnam, To Lam got re-elected as general secretary. They will also amend the Party Constitution (Wikipedia should really have a page about that...), meaning To Lam will indeed likely become the state president. Probably will make his international travel much less awkward. The Account 2 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 Interesting read. As for if the military, or the leading military organ, is more powerful in China... I think from an academic research perspective its difficult to firmly answer. There has been very little scholarship on the USSR Defense Council, and even less after the state's collapse. But is the military more powerful in China since its a party organ? I don't necessarily think so. The USSR Politburo was full of military men and the defense ministry was commonly headed by one. The gensec headed ex officio the Defense Council + every military unit had to have a party organisation, which part of a long line of organisations finally reported to the CPSU Central Committee. The LCY had the League of Communists Organisation in the Yugoslav People's Army, which had fixed representation from 1974 onwards. Of course, it clearly understood it was the party's gun, and was why it supported Slobodan Milosevic at the beginning: he was one of the few ones, at the beginning, that did not talk openly about dissolving the LCY and the SFRY.

All the Asia communist states have established a party military organ. China, Laos and Vietnam from their inception; North Korea was influenced by them. But Cuba is heavily militarised, and it follows the Soviet model. But in the CPC it has played a special role since Mao cemented his power through the military, and Deng, being the pragmatic he was, was willing to delegate other officers to juniors as long as he was military head. Jiang also kept his military office longer to signal that Hu was not the only leader in town. But I see that more as a culture thing; I don't see the CMC being in competition with the Politburo or the Central Committee for attention in Chinese media. I have never seen it in under Jiang, Hu or Xi take decisions that the Central Committee & its leading organs should make.

Because he will maybe become president? I don't think the CPV charter will be amended to say that. TheUzbek (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. CMC's domain seems to be strictly military, and it doesn't seem to involve itself in other domains. The article I sent notes that CMC, while powerful, has only showed its influence in very rare situations. China keeps civilian and military affairs strictly separate for understandable reasons (they do have a recent history of the country getting messed up when civilian and military affairs merged together). i think the one period in PRC history where the military held decisive influence was during the Cultural Revolution, as it was the only institution left that was not decimated.

Among the communist countries, I think what makes China's CMC unique is that it seems to be the only communist country that seems to fuse state and party bodies together the one institution with two names model. I'm curious if there's any example similar to it. Vietnam's state and party military bodies seem to have different compositions (one is led by the president and other by the Party General Secretary). Ditto with North Korea. Soviet Union didn't have a party equivalent to the state Defense Council. Yugoslavia seems to be unique too. Is the League of Communists Organisation in the Yugoslav People's Army equivalent to what are local Party Committees/Branches in China?

I've also read academic research that communist systems are maybe one of the most coup resistant systems in the world (even the failed 1991 Soviet coup happened after the CPSU and communist system was basically unravelling). China also built its whole military organization around the fact that the Party should have absolute leadership over the PLA. After all, as Mao himself once said, "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and we will never allow the gun to command the Party".

Lol my mistake, I misremembered. They will amend the party regulations, not the party charter, which I think currently prohibits both offices being held by the same person? Regardless, Wikipedia really should have an article on the CPV Charter. 102 million people are governed according to what it says! The Account 2 (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the Wall Street Journal is now reporting regarding Zhang. Damn, looks like some serious stuff. The Account 2 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful counter analysis here regarding the WSJ piece here. The Account 2 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you asked a very interesting question, but as I see it, there is even less participation by security and military officials in Chinese politics than in Soviet politics, or, for that matter, in Laotian and Vietnamese politics. The Politburo is usually limited to two military figures, and the last time it had a military figure in the PSC was the 14th (?). Security officials are barely represented. This is unlike the present-day CPV, where To Lam rose through the ranks in the security apparatus. If we now include the fact that the CMC is under the chairman responsibility system (it should have its own article), what are the roles of these two politburo members? They cannot contradict the CPC general secretary since he is concurrently CMC chair. Of course, the CPC Politburo is not a voting machine, but a consensus machine, so they probably can have some discernible influence. But all this leads me to conclude that military and/or security officials are not dangerous within the CPC; the party, through civilian party members, firmly controls them. And since term limits and turnover of personnel are the norm, these civilians don't have the same control as they did in, let's say, the USSR. The exception, of course, is Xi. In other words, I concur with the counter-analysis's assessments. I doubt that Zhang would sell nuclear secrets to the US: he might be corrupt, but he comes from a revolutionary family. There is corruption, and there is corruption...

The fusion tactic is unique to China in its intensity of use. You also see it with the National Supervisory Commission, which is accountable to the system of people's congresses but under dual leadership of party committees at the corresponding and next higher level. In the USSR, the Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Soviet Navy was a state organ with party rights: "[it had the same] rights of a department of the Communist Party Central Committee". The CPSU rulebook explicitly states, "The guidance of Party work in the Armed Forces is exercised by the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. through the Chief Political Administration of the Soviet Army and Navy, which functions as a department of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U." That was the exception, not the norm. I do not know of any other dual Soviet organs.

Indeed, somewhat. LCY-YPA represented the entire party organisation in the Yugoslav People's Army. Unlike the republican branches, its organisation were under the direct supervision of the LCY Central Committee and the LCY Presidency, but yes, you are right. It, however, did not have policy powers, since that was a civilian prerogative, but it elected military officials and ensured they were represented in the LCY Central Committee. It was the only party organisation that was not decentralized into republican or autonomous provincial lines, so it never sought to increase its autonomy. It was a great centralizer.

That is probably true. No communist state has been toppled through a coup or through military intimidation from within. The August Coup of 1991 was a badly organized plot in which the plotters wanted to safeguard socialist legality and have it their own way. They lacked a leading figure willing to step up and take the hit when push comes to shove. I mean, they gave up just because some people put up resistance; this was the opposite of the logic of the Tiananmen crackdown.

We will see what To Lam does, but people are misrepresenting his policies. Resolution 68 on private property did not say private property was the leading or dominant property form; it said it was an important property relation in the context of the socialist-oriented market economy. In contrast, resolution 79 said that state property played the "leading role" and the "dominant role" in the "national economy" (no historical limitation), and that it needed to improve its efficiency and planning mechanisms. Resolution 68 should be interpreted as a sign of high self-esteem: the CPV is saying that we believe our economic foundations and our communist state can lead the private sector to fulfill our progressive goals through establishing party organisations in their midst, and the state plans and coordinates them. From a liberal vantage point, resolution 79 looks like a retreat, but from a Marxist perspective, it makes a lot of sense. This is the sacralization of public property at the expense of private property.

So what is To Lam doing? Pretty much the same Xi was doing early in his first term, signalling that private property should play a more important role, but only within the confines of the state. There is a reason why China says it's a market economy within the bounds set by the state through planning and macroregulations, and it's a reason this system is called a socialist market economy. TheUzbek (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a small side note, I created an article about the chairman responsibility system. Hope you can help me expand it. I'll respond to the rest of your response soon. The Account 2 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, side note, it seems there's a big shock in Norway over Crown Princess Mette-Marit's links with Jeffrey Epstein. How's the debate in Norway regarding this? I saw some people say the whole institution of monarchy is under threat; do you think the abolition of monarchy is a real possibility? The Account 2 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates of the Central Committee of the 4th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Volkskammer. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Chrisahn (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]