Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 14 April 2012

Right-wing socialism

Some tool has pretty much deleted your article on http://en.wikipedia.org/Right-wing_socialism

The moron hasn't bothered to read most of the sources, since he seems to think that Peter Viereck and Werner Sombart are Austrian School economists. I recall upwards of 40 citations in the article of which only 2 came from Austrian School sources. Arguing with people who are clearly clueless about the subject matter is a drag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

iraqi people

Sarah,Ninsun,Kubaba,Semiramis and Nazik Al-Malaika All of these women

Sarah wife prophet is sacred in Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Ninsun is the mother of a great king

Kubaba Is the Queen was brought to the rank of gods

Semiramis Is the Queen And the wife of King And the mother of King

Nazik Al-Malaika,Is a great poet and The Foundation School in Arabic poetry

These women are more important than women that you want to put them in the list

February 2012

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give Spanish people a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sicily was under the control of Arabic-speaking Saracens and indiginous north-African Berbers (generally considered Caucasians)for about 3 centuries. The Saracens made incursions into mainland Italy (and southern France) as well, and established an emirate in Bari that lasted about 30 years. None of this would have contributed significantly to the "olive complexion" of mainland Italy, and probably little to the complexion of Sicilians either. Italians/Sicilians are a composite of Roman (Latin), Etruscan, Greek and Celtic peoples, together with the indiginous Siculs in Sicily and southern Italy. Incursions of Goths Lombards, and Normans further added to the racial mix. The concept that southern Italians have an olive complexion due to the admixure of African Moorish blood is not historically accurate, and is the typical "theory" advanced by racists. Whether inadvertently or not, your contribution advances a totally racist theory. Many who would read the article would make no distinction between a racist theory and reality. Philantonia (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if my partial removal of your material, and my comments were offensive to you. I agree that a great deal of the prejudice and hostility exhibited toward Italian Americans has been racially motivated. This had already been clearly stated in the article, since it is an indisputable and important fact regarding the roots of anti-Italianism. My issue is in taking this to the next level and providing a reason for it based on a very questionable racial history of Italy and Sicily. There has been much discussion of this in the literature and the internet, and there is convincing DNA evidence that would counter the argument put forth (by some) that Italians must have strong genetic roots in Africa in general, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. I believe Italians and Italian Americans have a right not to be defined (racially or otherwise) by others. We know our own history and have a right to see it accurately represented. The reference you site is not guaranteed to be free of cultural biases toward Italians and Italian Americans, and must be judged against other available sources. My opinion is it simply perpetuates (perhaps inadvertently) tired old and contrived ideas originally advanced to discriminate against Italian Americans. Also, as I stated earlier, anyone reading the article is presented with what appears to be racial reality, as opposed to a racial theory. Philantonia (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

American nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nativism

British nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nativism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Far left

Could you please explain your recent edits to Far left at Talk:Far left#Recent edits. TFD (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pleasde see Far left politics#Political parties. The article is about political parties that are to the left of social democracy and mostly to the right of Communism. Your description does not apply to these groups. TFD (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

Hello R-41

you have started the article Right-wing socialism, and seem to be its main editor. This article has a big problem: "right-wing socialism" is a term that is almost exclusively used by authors of the Austrian School and their "Ludwig von Mises Institute". Remember, Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute are the guys who claim that "Nazism=Socialism". (See here, here and here). While this is an interesting theory about which scholars may argue, it is not acceptable to write a complete Misplaced Pages article based on this POV. You cannot present a minority theory as if it were fact or somehow authoritative. But as the only link between the very different and distinct movements, currents and ideologies the article assembles is that Jesús Huerta de Soto and Murray Rothbard (who are both exponents of the Austrian School and disciples of Mises) call them "right-wing socialist", the whole concept of the article collapses if you apply the standard of NPOV. --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you take away the Mises sources, it becomes WP:Original research, because only the Mises guys use the term "right-wing socialism" for phenomena like "Conservative socialism" or Spengler's "Prussian socialism". Mises and his disciples tossed all these together with fascism, and Nazism, and Christian social teaching to make their point in proving that "everyone who isn't for free-market (like us) is a socialist". --RJFF (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be more helpful to incorporate paragraphs about Sombart's and Spengler's ideas where they belong: at Conservative Revolutionary movement, instead of trying to establish a term that is only used by Austrian School and Anarcho-Capitalist thinkers (and which reflects their ideology, because right-wing socialism describes exactly the opposite of their free-market libertarian ideals), but not by mainstream historians. --RJFF (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I wanted to propose, too. Explain the Mises group's theory of "right-wing socialism" there (we could keep what currently is the lead section), create an extra article for Conservative socialism, and present the views of the conservative revolutionary thinkers Sombart and Spengler at Conservative Revolutionary movement. So we avoid lumping different terms together in an OR and/or POV way. --RJFF (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Third way

Hello R-41,

I have posed some questions for you at Talk:Third Way (centrism)#Merger proposal. Would you be so kind and answer them? Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,
could you please bring yourself to join the consensus on merging the two articles? Your objections could not persuade me at all. I would feel better if you would agree to the inevitable. I don't want to do this against you. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HHistory of socialism in Great Britain

Hi, I've read the Ethical socialism article that you're the main contributor to, and it looks good- could probably be expanded more. Do you think you could write a very short section on the History of socialism in Great Britain article? If ethical socialism has been an important ideology in the Labour Party then it's obviously important to the British history of socialism. You could just condense the last two paragraphs of the Ethical socialism article perhaps. Thanks! --Peter (Talk page) 13:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again: Right-wing socialism

Hello R-41,

as you have been the main contributor to this article, I would be glad if you could join the discussion on how to unbundle the article (as we agree that it lumps together some subjects, that shouldn't be). I have put forward some propositions and I would appreciate if you could comment and help implementing them. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for German socialist patriotism

Some articles that you have been involved in editing, German socialist patriotism, Chinese socialist patriotism, Ethiopian socialist patriotism, and Vietnamese socialist patriotism, have been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RJFF (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

R. H. Tawney article - question

Hi (again). First, I just want to say that your editing has been really impressive - you've created so many articles, all fully sourced (which is almost unheard of). So thanks very much for your work.

Secondly, I have a question, or rather a request, about R. H. Tawney; the Liberal socialism and Ethical socialism articles include many references to him and his work, but his own article includes very little mention of both theories. This is understandable because your articles are new and Tawney's article is relatively short.. do you think, when you have time, you could expand Tawney's article and also include information about his work with Ethical socialism - his article could definitely benefit with the same work that's been put into the articles you started.
Thanks! --Peter (Talk page) 22:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Yes, they are indeed important to Iraqi culture, however the article isn't Iraqi culture it's Iraqi nationalism, and simply, the article already has nine pictures, which are being pushed down to the latitude of the references section. That is the only reason why I removed it. Now, since you have removed it yourself, what is the purpose of this duplicitous message? Adel (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liberal socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Equality, Amoral and Rentier

Ethical socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rentier

French nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National hero

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Greater Yugoslavia

Hi, R-41. About the case with the article Greater Yugoslavia. There was a discussion on the issue and it was closed with a conclussion: merge to Balkan Federation. Also stop oppening it again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, that Yugoslavia was a form of realisation of the ideas for Balkan Federation. However, if you disagree, please, reopen the discussion and wait for the next consensus. At this monment the consensus is for merging Greater Yugoslavia into the Balkan Federation. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: How do you know the picture of the ORJUNA is on Mount Triglav

Hey! It's a famous picture, I know it. Among others, it was published in the textbook by Branimir Nešović & Janko Prunk, 20. stoletje. Zgodovina za 8. razred osnovne šole (Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1996); and in Bojan Balkovec et al., Slovenska kronika 20. stoletja, vol. I (Ljubljana: Nova revija, 1995). Of this I am sure, I would have to look up for the exact pages, though. Cheers, Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Plus, if one looks closely, one can clearly recognize the Aljaž Tower on the top of the Triglav. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Québécois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

swedes

hi , there is a ongoing dispute whenver the swedes should be described as germanic or not , given your exprience and deep knowledge about the subject i invite you to join the discussion on Talk:Swedes#The_Swedish_people_are_a_germanic_ethnic_group thanks 118.168.98.47 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazism

noticed that you make a lot of changes in a short period of time to a few articles. It isn't a rule, but is suggested that you try to consolodate your edits into fewer if possible. Making many edits may get you warned by a moderator. --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Right-wing politics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Enterprise and Merit

Christian socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadbeat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Swedes" again

i read your arguments on germans talkpage and the quality and effort is much better than in the swedes talkpage , why is einstein german or jewish more important on whenever swedes are germanic , please continue on the swedes talkpage 220.136.15.205 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Christian socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadbeat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

did you forget about the swedes dispute ?!

did you forget about the "swedes" are germanic dispute ?! read the other "swedes" sections on your talkpage please 118.168.102.38 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - a new scope for fascism task force

I have proposed a new scope for fascism task force. Please express your opinion in the task force's talk page. Thank you!

Sapere aude22 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Right wing

I am watching that discussion but not closely, so thought it might be interesting to just drop some ideas around. You are right that right wing is a term that is not always defending tradition. Consider Nietzsche and the Nazis. But then again they were defending some old things from the left. Maybe in some extreme cases right wing sometimes simply being "being opposed to whatever is left wing"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Greater Iraq Qassim aims.png & File:Fertile Crescent union Qasim.png

Note: I posted this message on your commons page yesterday.

Hi there R-41. I respect your effort in creating these images; very few people bother contributing anything towards Iraq topics, however, you have misread a source; the 2nd source does not say anything about Qassim 'claiming' Iranian Kurdistan. This is what it says:

It is interesting to note that the attempt on Qasim's life brought measures of sympathy and protest not only from all over Iraqi Kurdistan, but also from the Kurds of the neighboring countries. One such message, forwarded through "the well-known struggler Mustafa Barzani," came from "he Kurdish strugglers in the Kurdistan that is annexed to Iran."
The phrase "Kurdistan that is annexed to Iran" caught on and began to be frequently used by Iraqi Communists as well as by Iraqi Kurdish newspapers. What significance this phrase had and what it portended was not clear. Was this just another cliche enjoying a temporary vogue, or was Iraq preparing to play the role of claimant to neighboring Kurdish lands? This irredentist reference to Persian Kurdistan was rather puzzling.

As highlighted: the phrase was used by Iraqi Communists as well as by Iraqi Kurdish newspapers, not by Qassim or the Iraqi Government.

The italicized line, which was the author musing - as opposed to relating objective information, doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense in the context; How does a fad slogan picked up by the ICP and some Kurdish newspapers have any bearing on the Iraqi Government? They were not part of Iraq's government, they had nothing to do with Qassim.

These images should not depict Iranian Kurdistan.

Also, on the subject of Khuzestan, I haven't checked the reference yet, but I believe that any Iraqi claim on Khuzestan implies only a claim on the lowland Iraqi Arabic-speaking western half of Khuzestan, as opposed to the whole province within its Iranian provincial borders. The northern and eastern parts of Khuzestan are highland areas where Luri is spoken. Adel Tigris (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

20th century history of Iraq articles

R-41, since you regularly edit Iraq articles, could you read the dialogue on my talk page and give your opinion about this matter please. Appreciated. Adel (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascist albania listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fascist albania. Since you had some involvement with the Fascist albania redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascism section on "Sorelianism"

It was not you, who "accidently deleted it" :) It was me, who moved it to Fascism and Ideology
I did it because the article's focus on ideological aspects makes the article unbalanced. DancingPhilosopher 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Soviet China (1927–1949) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fourth Encirclement Campaign, Lushan and Fifth Encirclement Campaign

Stewards (paramilitary organization) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Truncheon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Far left

Hello R-41,

please check at least what you counter-revert if you have to. I've changed the structure. There is a section 2. Extreme left and violence, where I've put your Jacobins. You re-entered them, now there's a redundancy. You better revert yourself. If I do, someone might piss me on because of 3RR. The Gus Martin source is misrepresented by you. On page 28, there is no mention of Marxists. Either it's your personal interpretation, or you've cited a wrong page. And do you abbreviate a single page with "Pp." in Canada? It looks quite unusual. I always thought that p. would stand for page and pp. for pages. Am I wrong? Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

SVG

Do you have vector data of files like File:BlankMap-World-1962.png?--Antemister (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Italian Fascism and racism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Slovene and Race

Nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alienation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with merging Soviet China articles

While I definitely think this Soviet China article is very useful in consolidating the history of Red-occupied china 1927-1949 into one article, its not necessary to simply remove the Soviet Republic article. I think it might be artificially consolidating different political entities. A centralized article is a useful organizational tool but it shouldn't come at the expense of forcing historical squares into circles. The differences between Soviet China and the Yenan base-areas were not just formal but also reflected a change in orientation. The post-Long March Chinese Reds never referred to their government as "Soviet" since they wished to play on Chinese nationalism and disown any foreign influences. The term Soviet China is never used for post-1935 base areas. Especially during the World War II period there was a common illusion agreed on by the CPC and KMT that there was one unified Chinese state against the Japanese. There are plenty of examples on wikipedia of one general article covering a large scope, and then more specific articles covering more detailed aspects. Especially in military articles we have articles about wars, campaigns and battles in decreasing size. So I think there is room for both a Soviet China and Soviet Chinese Republic article.

As of now this article seems to be entirely a copy and paste of the Chinese Soviet Republic article anyway. The current Soviet China article is already fairly long only currying the Soviet Republic period. It doesn't make any sense to replace an article on the Chinese Soviet Republic which actually existed and called itself that, with a vague article on "Soviet China", a term that is never used by historians to refer to 1935-1949 Red areas. It also gives the misleading impression that the People's Republic directly succeeded the Soviet Republic when in fact there was a 15 year gap. So perhaps the solution is to focus this article on 1935-1949 Red China or perhaps start new articles on the Yanan base area or Communist resistance bases during WW2. --Gary123 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I think there are 2 separate issues here. On the issue of deleting the Chinese Soviet Republic article, there is absolutely no reason to do that, even if there ever is a decent article covering Communist-controlled China 1927-1949. Many foreign language wikipedias also have articles. There is no reason why there can't be subdivisions along with the centralized article you proposed. I think the centralized article is a good idea, but it doesn't have to mean gobbling all the specific articles up. As you see the current Soviet China article covers entirely the Soviet Republic and is already very long.

The 2nd issue is using Soviet China for 1935-1949. I have never heard the term Soviet Zone used for it, but I certainly accept that its possible that some sources have used it. Still I think its problematic in many ways and might teach readers bad history. I think it would be very misleading for readers to get the idea that anything called Soviet China merged directly into the People's Republic. The use of the term Soviet China would have been very problematic during the CPC-KMT united front against Japan. After 1935 the Communists no longer claimed to be creating socialism or "soviets" but instead referred to their regime as a New Democracy, meaning that it would unify classes as opposed to a class-based soviet. Its for this reason that in 1949 the PRC was called the People's Republic and not Soviet Republic. See Finnish Democratic Republic and this quote "This government would not be Soviet but a democratic republic. Nobody will set up soviets there, but we hope that it will be a government that we can reach agreement with on safeguarding the security of Leningrad." for an example of the importance in difference between People's or New Democracy and Soviet regimes. In Marxist-terminology a people's republic is actually a step-backward from more advanced class-based soviets. I think its important that people realize that this retreat took place after the Long March, and played an important role in the more moderate and nationalist CPC successes during WW2.

The policy of calling Communist movements "Soviets" was the result of the ultra-left Third Period in which it was imagined world revolution of the 1917 model was imminent and cooperation with other classes and parties impossible. For example the CPUSA called for a United Soviet States of America. The decision for Comintern parties too abandon the term Soviet in the 1930s was a self-conscious one, and geared towards cooperation with other parties in Popular Front against fascism. After the 1930s the only time you will see the term Soviet used on Communist movements is when their enemies accuse them of wanting to sell the country to Soviet Russia.

I think the best term for 1935-1949 Communist China is Red China since that was used by both the Reds themselves and the foreign media.But your original title Communist-controlled is also more accurate than Soviet China. The reason I find it so problematic is that active policy decisions took place which were explicitly based on Red China NOT being called Soviet China, and might have been impossible otherwise.

I did a google books search for China "Soviet Zone" and the only reference that came up was from The Soviet Union and communist China, 1945-1950: the arduous road. And in that book Stalin was using "Soviet Zone" to refer to those territories in China he wanted to secure for Soviet RUSSIA. Which just underscores the point that by 1940s, Soviet meant Soviet Russia and was never used for Communist movements outside Russia. --Gary123 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

When you say that the Soviets used the term "Soviet Zone" in China, I assume your referring to the reference in "The Soviet Union and communist China, 1945-1950" which you listed as a source and which is the only source I found on google books to use that term. The thing is that in the context of the book, Stalin was warning the USA to recognize Soviet Russian interests in Manchuria. This was actually a bone of contention between the CPC and USSR. One of the reasons that Stalin was so unenthusiastic about Mao coming to power, is that he had already secured such a great deal from the KMT over the Soviet-zone of influence in Manchuria. So as I've said that example just underscores the difference between Soviet (meaning Russian) and native-Communist movements by the 1940s.

The term Red China took on derogatory meaning during the Cold War period when it was used to de-legitimize the mainland regime. However during the period covered by the article, Red and White China was very commonly used to refer to the CPC and KMT occupied areas of China. Having abandoned the term Soviet, CPC documents usually referred to their territories as "Red-base areas". I only proposed the word Red, because historically it was the most direct replacement for the term Soviet.

This is the footnote from Mao's official works "The organizational form of China's Red political power was similar to that of Soviet political power. A Soviet is a representative council, a political institution created by the Russian working class during the 1905 Revolution. Lenin and Stalin, on the basis of Marxist theory, drew the conclusion that a Soviet republic is the most suitable form of social and political organization for the transition from capitalism to socialism. Under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, the Russian October Socialist Revolution in 1917 brought into being for the first time in world history such a socialist Soviet republic, a dictatorship of the proletariat. After the defeat of the 1927 revolution in China, the representative council was adopted as the form of people's political power in various places in the mass revolutionary uprisings led by the Chinese Communist Party and, first and foremost, by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. In its nature political power at that stage of the Chinese revolution was a people's democratic dictatorship of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, new-democratic revolution led by the proletariat, which was different from the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union. "

I have no problem with your proposal to simply restore the name Communist-controlled China from 1927 to 1949. Again though I still don't see the need to merge the Soviet Republic article. The Soviet Republic claimed to be a legitimate government with its own constitution and recognition as the legitimate government by the Communist world. The post-1935 CPC made no such claims which is what made possible the diarchy as you call it of WW2. There are tons of articles on wikipedia about even more short-lived governments, and I see no reason to delete this one, which certainly has more than enough content, has been widely edited, and is on multiple foreign wikipedias.

I agree with you that wikipedia needs an article on Communist-controlled China from 1927 to 1949, and think its a good thing that you created it. But I don't see why creating a centralized outline page, means that the more detailed coverage of specific areas can't eb covered in more detail in other articles. 1927-1949 is a long period. It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze such a wide and diverse period into ONLY one article. This article is already very long and no work has been done whatsoever to cover the Yanan, Popular Front, WW2 and Civil War aspects of Red-occupied China. Covering all that with proper detail and depth in one article could run hundreds of pages. Its the equivalent of trying to shove every battle and campaign and theater of world war ii into one world war ii article and deleting Battles of Normandy and Stalingrad as redundant.

Right now the whole article is just a copy and paste of the Soviet Republic article except that it misleadingly extends that period till 1949. So merging the articles might seem manageable. But wait until this article actually does cover the entire 1927-1949 period. To cover this period with sufficient depth and detail and also forbid any spinoff articles on more specific periods or aspects will create a mammoth article. The current Soviet Republic article does not attempt to be a history of the Civil War, but rightly acts soley as a government-article covering issues like stamps, flags and administration. A proper article would have to do the same thing for Yanan, and the WW2 resistance pockets, and the territories during the Civil War. Those were all effectively separate governments established in separate geographic areas. So shoving all that together is unnecessary clutter. Theres no need to merge the Republic of Texas into Texas. Take a look at List_of_former_sovereign_states, and you'll see many states which controlled far less territory and population for a far shorter period of time.

Again I like and agree with what your trying to do. I just don't think we should remove good articles that deserve to be here and cover independent information to be removed in the name of tidyness of having everything in one gigantic article. --Gary123 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your understanding. And I agree with you that there should be a unified article on Communist-bases in China 1927-1949, especially the Yenan 1935-1949 period which is virtually uncovered on wikipedia. And I commend you for taking the initiative in creating the article. I just disagreed that we needed to remove legitimate existing articles in order to create a new one. I look forward to seeing your new article grow and become a valuable contribution to wikipedia. --Gary123 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD at WQA

I included some diffs of some of his attacks on you at a WP:WQA complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)