text:
Talk:Socialist state

Somalia
British protectorate, and any others, are certain to be outnumbered in a certain position. By the order of law and the British protectorate, Somalia is a socialist state. Idk what a socialist state is, but Somalia was one in 1970, ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:649:100:D18E:5D0B:4422:CECF:B584 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So true and so was Yemen Nlivataye (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Radical change
Its not a radical change. Its literally a tone of sources—and text which is fully referenced—that explains what a socialist state is. To somehow say that an unreferenced article is better than a referenced article is contrary to WP rules. --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And this non-consensus article that multiple editors have said should be reverted back, still has 14 red links!!!! Of course no one realizes it because the tag keeps getting removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Huge change on the concept of Socialist state
I'm not sure I care exactly what terms should be used to describe a socialist state, but in reading the version added today it sounds completely different than what was written before. With this big of a change I think heavy discussion is warranted first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and important, as you see in the last section, I'm planning to write a section (and an article) called "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state"... This will ensure that the article discusses the same things as the former version. --TIAYN (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this amount of change requires more input than just you. It reads so differently than what it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise you, I really do, that it will feature the same topics, and discuss the same topics. I promise you—the lead is still not closed to finished, and as you see from the text, neither is the article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it should be written as a draft, for everyone to comment on "BEFORE" it is inserted in the longstanding article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defence, this article is already better than the previous versions... its more in depth, and its actually referenced (not by primary sources, but from third party sources).. Therefore its a win.. Secondly, it seems you've reverting before asking what the changes are, and what is identical. This article is way more informative. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you but I 100% disagree with this implementation. Even the first sentence has a different meaning now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To that, I'll say thanks! If you have any specific comments please share them. --TIAYN (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but with all the red links, with all the changes of meanings, with you not following standard wiki procedures of when you are reverted for a change you don't change it back, I'm too disgusted to even look at it anymore. I'm very disappointed with your edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are speaking in extremely vague terms, and still failing to write what the difference actually is. --TIAYN (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you're failing to be cooperative, and constructive, and have a proper discussion. You still havn't said anything other than vague stuff.. I'll show the similarities (italics words show identical meaning)

 * 1 Original A socialist state, socialist republic or socialist country (sometimes workers' state or workers' republic) is a sovereign state constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism.
 * 1 Newest It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states.
 * 2 Original "The term "Communist state" is often used in the West in reference to single-party socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism despite these states officially referring to themselves as "socialist states" in the process of building socialism and do not describe themselves as "communist" or as having achieved communism."
 * 2 Newest "It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states."
 * 3 Original A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism.
 * 3 newest "This article does not deal with countries with constitutional references to socialism and countries ruled by long-standing socialist movements (such as Venezuela for instance)."

 * I can continue, but this just proves that you are wrong. The only difference is that the current lead makes the differences clearer, and is much shorter. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should also note that Maoism is Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances, so stating "socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism " is superfluous.
 * Again, if you can point to anything specific then I will gladly change it.. But you are talking in generalities. This feels like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also reintroduced 3 of the old references... Currently only one part of the old lead is missing... This one

 * The concept of a socialist state is closely related to "state socialism", the political view that a socialist system can be established through the use of state action or government policies. As such, the concept of a socialist state is usually advocated by Leninists and Marxist–Leninists, but rejected as being either unnecessary or counterproductive by some classical Marxists, libertarian socialists and political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct of capitalism which would have no function in a socialist system and as a result cannot be used to construct socialism.[4]

I will be reintroducing it after I write "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" and maybe "Criticism of socialist states" (is it needed)? The former articles mentions those things very generally, but never goes into detail.. So I want to read way more on those topics before I write something stupid. It will be reintroduced. --TIAYN (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge communist state into socialist state [cancelled discussion for now]

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge request was: Merge discussion cancelled by author. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge communist state -> socialist state

Reasons.. See the current version of the socialist state article here. It clarifies what the term "socialist state" actually mean—yes, its a term with clear and concise ideological meaning. I want to merge for the following reasons:
 * 1) Sweden is not a socialist state, and neither is Venezuela or Nepal... Nepal and Sweden are liberal democracies. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a capitalist economy. It doesn't call itself a socialist state nor do Swedes in general.. Nepal is governed by communist parties that are democratically elected. The state is however not socialist—the institutions of the state are very much liberal and steeped in liberal institutions found elsewhere in the West. Venezuela is an illiberal democracy that is descending towards dictatorship.... Very much so, but the state isn't socialist and neither is the economy.
 * 2) The term "Socialist state" were used, and has been used, in more or less every socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party. Even more so, Soviet law even formally defines what "socialist state" legally means.
 * 3) There have been many theories about how the socialist state will and should look like, but there has only been one model of socialist state—the one conceived by the Soviets... The social democratic movement has never established a socialist state or a socialist society. They have, however, instituted the welfare state—very cool, but not the same.
 * 4) The old socialist state article was a muddle. It failed to define a clearly definable concept.
 * 5) The term and concept "socialist state" is in 99% of cases, in scholarly sources, used in connection with the Marxist–Leninist countries.
 * 6) Countries such as Egypt and Syria called themselves socialist states.. and the Soviet Union in turn called them national-democratic states.. These states instituted more or less the socialist state system in their own countries. Again, there are more similarities here than differences.
 * 7) The constitutions of Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Nepal and Portugal don't call themselves socialist states.... they say, very clearly, that the state seeks to develop into a socialist society... This is likely because (a) the socialist parties were strong earlier and (b) its hard to amend a constitution so the right-wingers are not able to remove them.... However, none of these states are socialist states and what they mean by socialist or socialism is anyones guess.
 * 8) Tanzania was a Marxist–Leninist inspired state.... It has been ruled by the same party since independence, and that party has no interest in losing power.
 * 9) Sri Lanka has socialist in its name, and has a pledge that the state shall establish a socialist society. Its also not a socialist state.
 * 10) Now lets look at the similarities.. Only socialist states (what this article refers to as communist states) use the term "socialist state".. No socialist state was finished constructing socialism. China is in the primary stage of socialism and the Soviet Union was constructing developed socialism.. Yes, the end goal was and still is communism, but these are small differences
 * 11) If you look at List of socialist states, only two non-Marxist–Leninist parties use the term "socialist state". Egypt, heavily influenced by Gamal Abdel Nasser (who instituted more-or-less the Soviet system in Egypt) and Tanzania (a former Marxist–Leninist state in which the Marxist–Leninist party never lost power).
 * 12) What are the differences? Westerners and non-communist use the term communist state and socialist state interchangeably... No ruling communist party, communist or the states themselves called themselves communist states—they called themselves socialist states
 * 13) .... The commmunist state article even admits that these two terms mean the same thing "The term "Communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states or workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism" ............ Note, even the sources the communist state and the socialist state article uses to source this are the same.

 * There exists no good arguments for having two separate articles on the same topic... The concept/article socialist state is not more broad than communist state. Since it literally means the same thing, it is the same thing... There might be alternative conception of the socialist state (or what socialism should be), but as far as I know, there has only been one socialist system—the one instituted by the Soviets, the system which still lives on in China, Laos, VIetnam, Cuba and North Korea. --TIAYN (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 * The current version of the socialist state article has over 100 references.. All references are third-party sources. All sources are produced by Western scholars (more-or-less). Therefore, the quality of that article and the referencing should be clear. That article, due to its referencing, is more reliable than this article.

Also note that a socialist state is different from the idea of establishing socialism. To some this might sound obvious. However, many movements (of all shades) have sought to establish socialism (as in the socialist mode of production, a socialist way of life or a socialist society—what usually connects these are that socialism is a vague and not a defined term)... The social democratic movements as well as libertarian socialist currents are of this kind. Wikipedia should create an article about this.... However, a "socialist state" is specifically an idea conceived of, and formulated, by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists... Very important that people understand the difference. Note, by redirecting communist state to socialist state Wikipedia is not denying that other conceptions of socialism does exist, however, the term and concept of "socialist state" was conceived by Marxist–Leninists. Establishing socialism or creating a socialist society are not synonymous with the concept of "socialist state".. They are however related, since they are usually influenced by the Marxist concept of the socialist mode of production (socialism).. Not everything is, however. For instance, Ba'athist socialism seeks to establish a Ba'athist state with a socialist society. And Libya under Gaddafi sought to establish an Islamic socialist state—again, very different altogether (the concept of "Islamic socialist state", as enunciated by Gaddafi, deserves its own article.) The same goes with Iraq's self-description "Arab State and the build-up of the socialist system" which does not mean "socialist state"... It means the Arab state, and that the Arab state should have a socialist system—the Arab state is not a socialist state, its the Arab world unified into one Arab state.

What I'm saying is this, the article is not about the socialism practised by the Marxist–Leninist per se. It is about the concept of socialist state (the term socialist state was conceived and developed by the Soviets), the theories and institutions needed and the role of the state in between the transition from socialism to communism. The concept of "socialist state" was meant to answer that question. This is why 16 out of the 18 constitutions that mentions the term "socialist state" in their constitutions were Marxist–Leninist. Tanzania was a formerly Marxist–Leninist state, and has kept "socialist state" in their constitution. Egypt is the exception (one exception).... The other states uses the terminology "socialist society", "socialist principles", "socialism", "socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state", "socialist republic" and "socialist system"...... It is important to note here that socialist state DOES NOT MEAN / IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with the following terms and concept socialist republic, socialist country, socialist principles, socialist society or socialism.. The Marxist–Leninist states did not use the term / very seldomely used "socialist republic" and never "socialist country". These are different concepts... Socialism and socialist state are not synonymous.

An article, with a proper title, should be written about the alternative conception of socialism (or the very least) socialism (as used in the broadest sense) by liberal democratic movements.. The socialism of other political movements, such as Arab nationalism and Ba'athism, deserve their own article. They theorised and tried to establish another system of socialism, and did not call their states "socialist states".

At last, the old version was not able to clarify what reform sought. Bernstein did not seek to establish a "socialist state", and neither did Kautsky and the others.. He sought to establish "socialism". Again, per WP policy, we are not suppose to interpret sources. What is clear here is that Bernstein never called for the establishment of a "socialist state" — he called for the establishment of socialism. Established socialism can mean many things; it can mean developed socialism of the Soviets, the primary stage of socialism of the Chinese, the revolutionary democracy of the Ethiopians or the national democratic revolution of the African National Congress.

In the previous discussions people have crossed hairs. Don't cross hairs. Socialist state is not synonymous with "establishing socialism", "establishing a socialist society", socialist society, socialist republic or any other kind of socialist + word or word + socialist. Socialist state, as I said previously, was a term conceived and developed by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists. By merging communist state and socialist state one is not saying that alternative conception of socialism to the Soviet model does not exist; we are merging two identical articles, too then make spaces for the "Arab state with a socialist system" / "Ba'athist state", the liberal-democratic states with constitutional goals to establish socialism, "Islamic socialist state" and other separate and distinct terms.

I am currently working on the following article: Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions. --TIAYN (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 * As nominator, merge into socialist states. --TIAYN (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose for the same reasons as the discussion from three years ago, and revert the article to this revision, before the nominator unilaterally decided to completely change this article from the general topic of socialist states to a narrow evaluation of only the oligarchic nominal "socialism" practiced by Marxist-Leninist regimes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not in any way changed the topic... Ivanvector, I am writing as we speak a section titled "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" which will include information on social democratic positions, anti-Leninist / anti-Stalininst positions, libertarian socialist traditions and other currents.... In addition, can you prove that other movements use the term "socialist state" and can you disprove the fact that "socialist state" is in most instances used in relation to the Marxist–Leninist state? --TIAYN (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION While other socialist currents often talk of socialism and the need to establish socialism, the term "socialist state" was conceived by Marxists and have been used by Marxist–Leninsts.. For instance, neither Marx or Engels used the term "socialist state", and neither did Lenin before the taking power (at least not much).. The term itself was also very rarily used by Bernstein, Kautsky and other Marxist / social democratic thinkers / thinkers of the left. This goes to show, that while we can have an article about a "socialist country" or "establishing socialism", "Socialist state" is a distinct concept of them... Presumably you are mixing socialist state with the concept of Socialism (Marxism)—which everyone seeks to establish (not everyone seeks to establish a socialist state). --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose - oppose and agree with editor Ivanvector that it should be reverted back to this revision before the massive changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag
I have restored the POV tag because it seems the article is being overly selective in its sources giving undue weight to critics and far to little weight to proponents of socialist states. Dentren |  Ta lk  18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good criticism! :) Can you specifically tell me what you consider as bias? ... And as far as I know I haven't written any criticism (or have scholars who are critics)... However, you said it. So please give me some specific examples so that I can fix it! :) --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I re-read the article and found it not biased in the way i first thought. However I find that much of the article takes the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. For example:
 * The state in Marxist–Leninist thought is a repressive institution led by a ruling class.[6] This class dominates the state, and expresses its will through it.[6] By formulating law, the ruling class uses the state to oppress other classes, and forming a class dictatorship.[6]
 * 1)While in highly theoretical circles this may be the case, I pretty sure the Soviet Union did not describe itself in an everyday manner as an "oppressive institution". We need nuances here.

 * 2) Then the article does not take into account non-Marxist-Leninist views of what a socialist state would be.

 * 3) Can we have the points of view of contemporary proponents of "socialist states" incorporated to the text? I find there is very much a historicist view here.

 * Over-all I find however the article good. Dentren  |  Ta lk  03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Good point. The state was repressive, but the socialist state is democratic since its the class dictatorship of the majority of the people—as they said.
 * 2) Like Trotskyist and liberals? I'm working on it :) The problem here is that "socialist state" is a communist term which social democrats never really used. They talked about socialism and not a "socialist state".
 * 3) In that I agree! :) ... I'm thinking of buying Where the Party Rules: The Rank and File of China's Communist State. I hope I find some good stuff there :)

 * If its fine I'll ping you when I've fixed at least 1) so I can remove the banner. 2) is a working project, but I'm planning to add a Trotskyist section by todat or tommorow.. 3) is important. The problem really is that, after the USSR collapsed, people "forgot" that China was a socialist state. China didn't really scream it out either, until Xi Jinping came. It has gotten very much attention recently so I hope more people will write about this in the coming years. China's political system is unique so we therefore need more works that detail what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban and Lao think! --TIAYN (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 * 1) Fixed. Added a subsection to "Socialist state" entitled "Democracy" and clarified in the new subsection "State".
 * 2) I'm working on adding more on socialist state... but as I said before, "establishing socialism" is not the same as "establishing a socialist state". Socialist state is a term and theoretical conceived by the Leninist (others have used it, especially before the 1917 revolution), but after that it was and has been developed by Marxist–Leninists... Because they have been the only movement which have been able to establish socialist states.... I reading some Trotskyist text and other socialist literature—to be precise, these don't know what a socialist state is, they do however know what its not. Criticism that is. You will see a small section by the end of today / early tomorrow :)
 * 3) Not done.

 * If you feel 1) to be sufficiently solved I hope you will consider removing the banner :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your edits. Albeit the article is still improvable, I tend to agree now after aquick look there no flawed POV here. Said this I will keep a watch on the page since I know these topics attract politically motivated folk. – Dentren |  Ta lk  05:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Red links

 * The article didn't have 18 red links, but 7. I've reduced it now to 5. If you want me to reduce to 0 I can do that as well... However, if you ask me, its good to have red links... Users then see articles that are missing, and needs to be created. That is good, not bad.... As for collaborative behaviour, you are showing none of it..
 * I've already created a bunch of articles, and made hundreds of edits.. and I've promised you that this article will take into account everything that was mentioned in the previous version.. Show some faith—that would be proof of collaborative behaviour. I'll add a section on Trotskyism and liberal socialism by today / tomorrow to the article. --TIAYN (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then our monitors are different in displaying red links. There are 9 in the "Articles and journal entries" alone! And I have no faith in an editor who has broken so many standard Wikipedia rules and protocol. Yes, you've gotten away with them so far... good for you, but that means I can't trust you to not do it more here and in other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't broken any rules. I improved the article. Instead of working with me, you're pressing you're POV on this article. You don't seem to care that 106 references from secondary sources speak against you.. You only care about yourself and you're view.
 * Grow up. If you want to help improve the article I'm always ready to collaborate. If you don't want to do it fine, but don't sulk. I, unlike you, am willing to compromise and turn this into a good article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, multiple rules have been shattered, things you've been blocked for twice this month already and 5x in 5 years. So don't act so righteous and collaborative. Trust has to be earned and I can't trust you. Plus you seem to have taken ownership of the article in not even allowing editors to be informed of red links that they might be able to help with. So do your thing and good luck to you in staying out of administrative eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I was not the only editor to revert that banner! I do collaborate, just see the section above. He gave me constructive criticism and trying to improve the article as he wrote. He actually told me what was wrong, and what needed to be fixed. And I'm implementing his changes... You haven't been able to say one clear thing other then 1) this is POV 2) this is not factually accurate and 3) you are impossible to work with... You never even tried to work with me....
 * I don't own this article, and I've tried several times to involve you in this article.. But instead of acknowledging the fact that this is not my POV (this is proven by the references) you refuse to even talk to me. You talk about trust—the way you behave is pathetic. I don't trust you, but I still try to work with you.
 * I am allowing other editors to be informed about the red links... They can read, can't they? They can scroll up and down the article, can't they? What in gods name are you talking about? You are in fact forcing me to remove red links, with youre banner, which makes it impossible for other editors to find them!
 * What is this? Are you saying I'm a bad editor? That I've not contributed to the community (or produced good articles)? Yes, I'm tempered and I rarely give up, however, this black-and-white view of yours is extremely simplistic. If you don't want collaborate, fine, but that is your decision. I gave you every chance to collaborate. Every! --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop the pinging! Yes, you are a bad editor as far as following wikipedia protocol. Very Bad in fact. It appears you are trying to take control of many articles on this topic... some of which you have been blocked. I'll let those in the political projects deal with it from now on. The red links, pov and forced acceptance is not worth my time. It sure looks like the topic has found a match made in heaven in you. Again good luck to you. 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * I have not been blocked from editing any articles....--TIAYN (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More pinging? Move along with you the articles you own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Socialist state
Very easy. Socialist state is what most scholars define it has. Most scholars define socialist state as Marxist-Leninist state. Alas, there are 2-3 exception to this rule. There are only two countries that have defined themselves as socialist state in their constitution and that are not Marxist–Leninist. Gaddafi's Islamic Socialist Libya defined their state as a jamahiriya state. Egypt's Arab socialist state (it introduced the socialist system more or less, Tanzania did the same) should be discussed in the Constitution of Egypt (or another place). The same goes with Tanzania. There are two exceptions, and these exceptions should have their own article.

As one sees here, no country (with the exception of Tanzania) considers itself a socialist state (even if has references to it in the constitution) Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions. There are other examples, such as Sudan, which writes in its constitution; "Preamble: "In the belief of our pursuit of freedom, socialism and democracy to achieve the society of sufficiency, justice and equality" .... This preamble doesn't call Sudan a socialist state.. People would also know that Gaafar Nimeiry was an Arab nationalist first and Arab socialism second.. He sought, similar to Syria, Egypt and Iraq, to establish an Arab state (that is, a unified Arab state).

The Marxist–Leninist movement is the only communist current that has managed to establish a socialist state, and the only socialist movement to have establish a socialist state in more than one country (the others are Libya's "jamahiriya state", Egypt's Arab socialism (Nasser talked about scientific socialism) and Tanzania's African socialism (the last two greatly influenced by Marxism–Leninism) . Other variants of socialism, such as reformism or libertarian socialism, speak about the establishment of socialism–it should be noted that establishing socialism is not the same as establishing a socialist state. Movements such as trotskyism have tried to establish socialist states, but have failed. However, this hasn't stopped other socialist movements criticising the Marxist–Leninist conception of the socialist state (or the idea of a socialist state).[6] The "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" section will try to summarise these arguements.

Wikipedia policy is to write what the sources say. For instance, a search in Google will only give you Marxist–Leninist states https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22socialist+state%22 ... Secondly, as I've proven to you over. With the exception of two counts, all the worlds socialist states, historically and current, are Marxist–Leninist... Hopefully, in the future, a good socialist movement will create better ones. --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:UNDUE --TIAYN (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick search on Google Books show that all the hits are on the Marxist–Leninist states (communist states)

 * The same goes with Google scholar
 * A search on Jstor every hit goes leads to Marxist-Leninist states, with the exception of a couple of hits for "National Socialist state" and one non-Marxist–Leninist article from 1909 on the "Socialist state"
 * A search on Google gives strange hits on the first page (3 for WP, one for Quora, a definition, an amazon and pro and anti-socialist propaganda).. However,from page 2 onwards nearly every link is about the Marxist–Leninist socialist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 * It is important to keep in mind that a "socialist state" is not the same thing as socialism (a socialist economic system) and the two concepts can exist independently of each other. I think lots of confusion arises from the assumption that a socialist state implies a socialism and vice versa. As far as I am aware, and based on the usage of the term by most scholars, the whole idea of a socialist state (using this specific terminology) is a Marxist-Leninist idea so this should be the major focus of this article. - Battlecry 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete list and definition of "Marxist-Leninist"
The distinction between M-L and supposedly non M-L constitution is at the very least implemented poorly here, and at most could never be wholly done. In addition to this, the list is in no way complete.

Prabhanda Thought would be considered by Nepalis as Marxist-Leninist just as Chinese people consider Mao Zedong Thought to be Marxist-Leninist in nature. This is owing to the root of these theories in Marxist and Leninist ideology.

Further to this, Juche can then also be considered Marxist-Leninist on the basis of it's root in this doctrine. Certainly it's advocates will say as much.

Does Algeria and Tanzania now fit this definition too? Arab Socialism is built on the foundations of Marxism-Leninism and specifically was influenced by the Soviet Union, arguably the first Marxist-Leninist state being the one Vladimir Lenin thrust into existence and indeed governed. Ujaama is based on Scientific Marxism with further influence by the Soviet Union, albeit less than Arab Socialism.

Does Syria not even get a mention in either column? The state considers itself Arab Socialist, is governed by an Arab Socialist party and has as one of it's ideological aims to build Socialism In One Nation. How far any of the other states have gone to stick to their constitution is just as debatable as with Syria yet has not warranted exclusion. Market reforms have entered every state on this list, all to varying degrees, some more than Syria.

How about Yemen? Rojava? Mozambique? Zambia? Angola? Zimbabwe? Belarus? Transnistria?

2A02:C7F:60A:A100:10FC:4B93:2AE0:2AF4 (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Move the map?
I think the map of all socialist states should be right in the first section below the red flag. 75.130.248.250 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The map would be more useful if it had a list of countries that are currently socialist, not just countries that had at any point in their history officially mentioned being socialist or working toward socialism.
 * (the map might also be improved if the color labels weren't in "years before present", but in actual decade range, since as it is the map either needs to be updated every year, or else the reader has to go through the article history to see when the map was posted.) 156.68.216.158 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela remains to be added to the list of socialist states.
Venezuela is a socialist state Leo7u7 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

North Korea
According article on wikipedia about North Korea, governmet is Unitary Jucheist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, so why is not on the list of current socialist states? They even still have a centrally planned economy, so together with Cuba they are more socialist than China, Vietnam and Laos. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Toward a communist society
The first paragraph is to prove my proposed change in italics.

Communist states are typically authoritarian and are typically administered through democratic centralism by a single centralised communist party apparatus. These parties are usually Marxist–Leninist or some national variation thereof such as Maoism or Titoism, with the official aim of achieving socialism and progressing toward a communist society.

This second paragraph (quoted paragraph) is taken from this article:

"The term communist state is often used synonymously in the West specifically when referring to one-party socialist states governed by Marxist–Leninist Communist parties, despite these countries being officially socialist states in the process of building socialism and progressing toward a communist society. These countries never describe themselves as communist nor as having implemented a communist society."

These sentences are clearly talking about communist states and referring to them as socialist states because the West uses the two terms interchangeably. The definition is obviously incomplete and is misleading. The ultimate goal of socialist states (communist states) is to reach a communist society -> in this context only, not in general. Leaving that part out would make the definition incorrect. I propose to add those in italics. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D5F7:A00B:1D83:C3FF (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Communist states call themselves "socialist states", but are frequently ruled by parties called "communist", so referring to those states as communist is hardly a misnomer. Communist states have a tendency to see "socialism" as meaning "Marxist-Leninist" (i.e. communist), disregarding the fact that there are numerous degrees of socialism practiced in the world that are not geared towards creating a communist state.I'm not seeing where any additional changes are needed in the cited paragraph. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "numerous degrees of socialism practiced in the world that are not geared towards creating a communist state" -> I'm aware of this. They include Algeria, Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Nepal Nicaragua, Sri Lanka and Tanzania in addition to some multi-party liberal democracies governed by a self-described socialist party (for example, some countries in Europe). The quoted paragraph does not talk about the kind of socialism within these cases, but it talks about a different kind of socialism (namely "Marxist-Leninist").
 * The quoted paragraph above is taken from this article and is talking about "communist states" (socialist states). Therefore, it's appropriate to mention the definition of socialism within "Marxist-Leninist" context. Socialism is not the final destination in "Marxist-Leninist".
 * You haven't provided any rationale on why my added info is incorrect besides providing some irrelevant comparisons. Your other socialism is irrelevant to the discussing matter. Other types of socialism are clearly mentioned afterward. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D5F7:A00B:1D83:C3FF (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and most of Europe are also, to one degree or another "socialist states" in the sense used by everyone except communists, so let's be clear on our vocabulary.Maybe I'm misunderstanding what change you would like to make. Please re-state it in the form of "change "x" to "y". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I did mention some countries in Europe. Second, the definition used by everyone else is mentioned afterward. Let's be clear on the definition used by communists. All definitions of socialist states are mentioned, so there is no problem. The only change I did is in italics. It's possible that we have been agreeing this whole time without realizing it. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my request, please show the material you want to change, and the version that you would change it to, so they can be A/B compared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of North Korea without consensus to do so
An editor wants to remove North Korea without consensus on the grounds that Kim Jung Il, the ruler of that country, has declared that juche, its official ideology, is not Marxist-Leninist. Unfortunately, though, dictators don't get to deteremine what the rest of the world calls their country, and the editor has not provided a single reliable source which supports the notion that juche is not simply a specific variant of M-L, as most of the world's scholars hold. Until a reliable source which says that NK is not M-L, North Korea should stay in the article, as removing it would be a major gap in our coverage of socialist states. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken, per WP:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I have provided policy-based reasons for my reverting, you have provided none and continued, so please self-revert until you can do otherwise. -Vipz (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You want sources that support the idea that juche is Marxist-Leninist? You got it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided four sources. The editor objected to one, and I've acquiesced in its removal.  The others stand.  I can provide 4 more, or forty, or 140, if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: First of all, #List of socialist states is the section with disputed content, not #Overview. The former contains an unverified claim that "Under the country's second leader Kim Jong-il, references to communism and socialism were removed from state and party materials, but his successor and son Kim Jong-un has since reversed these actions." So before we proceed discussing Overview, please reliably source the correct section, because it does not contain identical content. -Vipz (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes no matter where the information is sourced in the article, as long as its sourced in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: In your case, the information I requested sourcing for was not sourced anywhere in the article, until after the fact. That source does not adequately support the claim that any policies have been reversed, so you might consider looking for other confirmative sources or reword it according to what the source states? -Vipz (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: Now, separately from the above request and complaint, I want to touch on the topic of introducing undue weight by presenting only one scholarly WP:POV. Presenting 4 or 140 sources, what you're doing is searching for sources that support your prior belief (see confirmation bias), ignoring the vast number of sources that negate the view (i.e. see the Juche section). -Vipz (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll tell you what, you drop the condescending tone and stop Wikilawyering, and we can continue to discuss this. Until then, I'm out - and you are without a consensus for your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: What do you think you're doing by telling me I'm stuck without consensus for my edits (because you refuse continuing the discussion)? Or being so quick to ONUS and BRD me on my talk page? Is that not "wikilawyering"? I'm sorry if I came off like that, but these are all your tactics too. Please address my concerns of undue weight and don't derail discussion, thank you. -Vipz (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken, what was the problem with my latest edit that you've reverted? North Korea may have constitutional references to socialism (its constitution is literally called "Socialist Constitution" in the first place), but nowhere does it contain any references to communism or Marxism–Leninism anymore. References you've previously added were removed in the course of rewording the section, accordingly. -Vipz (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The user above keeps reverting good-faith edits from multiple editors without adequate elaborate policy-based edit summaries and refuses to continue discussion on this talk page, on basis that we're stuck with their preferred version if they do so, essentially gaming the system. -Vipz (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not multiple editors, just you, since you are the only editor attempting to remove North Korea without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mnid, he claimed to have played a perfect game of 18-hole golf. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

3O Response
3O Response: I've to note that the past discussion was mostly sparked by these two edits [Dec 3, 2022, 15:35][Dec 3, 2022, 05:22]. I've to point out that you have basically restored outdated sources that reflect on facts of early 2000 when NK was at hands of Kim Jong-il who departed in 2011. I coulnd't agree on the fact that North Korea is a socialist state because of its historical background that starts basically with a Stalin's and Mao's puppet leader Kim Il-sung which had established a ruthless dictatorship that unmatched many so-called socialist regimes around the world in severety and that increasingly resembled stalinism in all its ill-famed glory. IMO up until 1955 it remained socialist only formally. A close inspection of the (a WP:PRIMARY source) reveal that the the state's relation to communism is mostly superficial. The source itself notes that the usage of the communism referrings were removed in April 2009 and September 2010 from all formal documents and in the context of the discussed speech given by Kim the "communism" bears only superficial importance. This has little to do with socialism at all. This source cannot be used for the statement it stands for per WP:RSCONTEXT I have to agree with that we should remove the words. Further, I propose to request secondary sources so as to clarify whether it's considered a socialist or not in regards to statements about Juche ideology by using psc and outdated tags. Regards. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea that an article in a magazine by a university professor is a primary source? It is very clearly a secondary source. Further, you do not comment at all on the rest of the multiple sources I added which confirm that North Korea is a "socialist state" (i.e. communist). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the definition of the WP:SECONDARY. In order to be secondary the source has to scrutinize a bunch of primary sources and draw a reasonable conclusion. The source didn't do that.
 * As I said theses sources are 15-20 years old. As dictators come and go their adherence to Socialism remains unclear. All the three sources don't compare juche to socialism much and I have to say that the quotes provided to all three references are rather manipulative. If we read the second one, you learn that the qoute was taken out from a source discussing speech given by Kim Il-sung back in 1955 (!). I doubt that this work is relevant today. Especially given new invention called Kimjongunism made by current Kim. To me in early days of NK dictatorship the Socialism was a vehicle to trump up a bunch of individuals to power. When it was done, the need for this formalism was dropped and replaced by whatever convenient for the familial dictatorship.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexander Davronov, in my humble opinion, The Diplomat source article written by Isozaki seems to be an analysis of other sources using information that the author likely obtained from other sources. Although certainly because it is an analysis made by said author, it has elements of WP:PRIMARY. But overall, in my opinion this case is  illustrated by the example in WP:SECONDARY, "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."  Thinker78  (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It refers only to a speech it discusses and it's not seconary in anyway. It's not reliable to claim based on these judgements that it's "socialist" state. It would be best to bring evidence of social ownership in NK, which would define it as a social state. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProject listed above, plus that of WikiProject Korea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Socialism, communism and juche
Isn't a communist state & a socialist state, basically the same thing? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Communist states tends to refer to themselves as "socialist states", rather than "communist states", although they don't deny that they are intended to develop, eventually, into the perfection of communism. They ignore the fact that almost every state in Europe is, to one extent or another, socialist in aspect -- although not communistic.  Even the US has socialist aspects, although they are much, much less prominent than in European countries -- and Americans in general (especially those on the right) regularly conflate socialism and communism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay, @Beyond My Ken: This is getting off-topic, we have articles on all these things, please read at least their lead sections. No present European countries are "socialist", let alone the United States. They are social democratic welfare states at best (Nordic model) based on an economic model fully adhering and upholding capitalism. Governments adhering to the ideological current of communism have existed and still exist, states governed by these governments are sometimes referred to as "communist states", but no "communist" state has ever existed in the original meaning of "communism", which is why all former and present communist governments have ever declared their countries as "socialist" and not "communist" (correct me if you are aware of any exceptions). Let's get back to the case of North Korea in this talk section, discuss this elsewhere if you want. -Vipz (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Social welfare programs are, by definition, socialistic. (And BTW, I have absolutely no objection to them because of that, but that is the fact.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Socialistic" concessions within a capitalist system do not make countries "socialist". What are trying to argue here: They ignore the fact that almost every state in Europe is, to one extent or another, socialist in aspect? That we should add literally every capitalist country in the world with some kind of social welfare to this list? If not, then this discussion doesn't need to go any further. -Vipz (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, to some people, North Korea's Juche ideology is not pure enough to qualify as Marxist-Leninist, and they wish to exclude them from the club because of it. More neutral observers -- those not concerned with the purity of Marxism-Leninism -- will look at Juche and see the obvious Marxist-Leninist core of the ideology, layered over with Korean-specific elements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is extremely pertinent to the subject here, please do not attempt to hide it again. Any additional collapsing will be reverted, and continually doing so will provoke a report to admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but me trying to encase (in an expanded state, so it wasn't hiding) a discussion that was going off-topic (discussions of whether social welfare and modern European countries are "socialist", whether "socialist" and "communist" are exchangeable, etc.) not related to whether North Korea is ML - was done once, in good faith, so please don't act so aggressively, WP:BOOMERANG exists. -Vipz (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So does WP:NPOV, something you should keep in mind as you edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The Constitution of North Korea is the "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"? 사회주의 = socialism. Holidayruin (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, here is state-run KCNA talking about "our socialism" (watch out for the lack of SSL certificate on that site lol) and here is an article on how state-run 로동신문 Nodong Shinmun calls North Korea having "our socialism". I can find more if needed. Holidayruin (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose removing North Korea btw Holidayruin (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 * @Holidayruin: Fallacious argument and not helpful in this discussion at all. You'd argue that Democratic People's Republic of Korea = democratic too? Or that "National Socialism" = socialism? Wikipedia reports reality, not what parties call themselves. -Vipz (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion was started based on Kim Jong-il saying he wasn't Marxist-Leninist? Holidayruin (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Holidayruin: Nope, it is based on a variety of sources both asserting and disputing that modern-day Juche is ML. Axonov provided quality arguments in the section above which I suggest you to go dispute: outcome of this discussion is not based on "opposes" and "supports" but consensus and strength of arguments. Your argument certainly isn't. -Vipz (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Confused article
Hi

This article is very confused. A socialist state is a purported stage a communist state reaches when the state's ruling class is the dictatorship of the proletariat (or a variant thereof]] and established socialist property relations. That's it! Trotsky did not have a different theory of the socialist state, but he claimed that the Soviet socialist state had deformed. I have never read a work of Trotsky in which he redefines that meaning.

That Lenin created the "vanguard party" has nothing to do with a socialist state. The term "socialist state" does not mean "form of government" or "political system". It means the base (socialist property relations) and superstructure (class system). That's it!

Why does this article lits, in the lead, liberal democratic with constitutional references to socialism in the lead and then later in the lead say "A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party"? Its confusing to the readers! TheUzbek (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the following

 * "Constitutional references to socialism" — the lead clearly states that these states are not socialist states, hence no reason to have it in the article
 * "Other uses" — this section refers to "socialism" and not "socialist state", hence a different topic
 * "Terminology" — the term socialist state denotes base and superstructural relations that communists claim to have developed, and this is about what?!
 * "Reform and revolution" — It does not mention the term "Socialist state" and is about reformism vs revolutionism. But this article is not about that subject!
 * Trotskyist theory of the state" — Leon Trotsky never had an alternative theory of the socialist state. He had, however, a theory that explained Stalinism: the Degenerated workers' state. Not the same thing again!
 * "Criticism within left-wing movements" — moved to Communist state since it is not about theories criticising base and superstructural relations, but about how existing communist states sucked.
 * I moved this to "Communist state" and greatly shortened it... Why? Most of it is sourced from primary sources; WP is about secondary sources.

--TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Edited Article: Thick Style + Tonal Issues?
I think this article is doing a lot better after the recent changes to its content - there was a lot of cruft! I still see a few problems with the current one, though. Could anyone please give their two cents on these?

Style

This article seems to have a style more in line with a book of theory, but Wikipedia editors should use a formal, accessible tone.

For example, the article currently features this sentence: "Marxists trace the formation of the contemporary form of the sovereign state to the emergence of capitalism as a dominant mode of production, with its organizational precepts and functions designed specifically to manage and regulate the affairs of a capitalist economy."

The concepts within seem alright, but it requires prior knowledge of the theories that it's trying to explain! It may be worth watering down the terminology to make the article more accessible to newer readers. The introduction of the article is particularly prickly in this regard - it seems to get lost in the terminology. For instance, it says that "The base of the socialist state is the socialist mode of production," which is more like saying "the mode of production is the socialist mode of production." It also mentions China and the Soviet Union and makes statements without sources.

Tonal Issues

There are also a few segments with tonal issues. Some seem to explain a narrative, but in general, the site prefers a dispassionate, summative tone over an informative one for sections that have main articles. "Marxist theory of the state", for example, already has an article, so limiting its section here to a short summary may be preferable.

A Tiny Improvement

I also think a small (but significant) improvement to the "Remaining socialist states" list would be to mention that these are states that 'report' being socialist states.

I'd also like to source where they say so. For example, North Korea states dozens of times that it's a socialist nation within its constitution. It would be nice to cite that instead of talking about Juche.

Similar situations exist for the other nations. Onkoe (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with you; I'm working on re-organising the article!
 * My ambition is to turn the section "Political theories" into "Theoretical Outline". Socialist state as a term became a term with distinct meaning only during Stalin. Under Lenin and in the writings of Marx and Engels, it was synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 * Then, a section on "Stage theory and socialist economics" will outline why some communist states were "People's democratic dictatorships" while others were socialist state of the whole people or a socialist state in the primary stage of socialism.
 * I think that will do. The term "Socialist state" is, surprisingly, a very vague term, which few Marxist-Leninist Soviet and Chinese scholars have studied in depth. The practical forms of government is the focus of the communist state article. TheUzbek (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've revamped the theory section: is it more to your liking now? Next section will be devoted to stage theory and socialist economics. TheUzbek (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like your changes to the article so far! The Conceptualization section of the article does well to explain the history of such a topic.
 * If you're looking for suggestions, it does 'feel' like there's more context to tell, perhaps about how the concept of a socialist state has affected contemporary movements or any significant criticism/reactions to Stalin's view of the socialist state. The introduction section also has some missing context, mostly to replace misplaced discussion on the PRC and USSR.
 * That said, it's a great contribution to the article and does well to replace the Political theories section. Telling it more in the frame of one timeline was a nice plan.

 * The List
 * However, I still have issues with the "Existing socialist states" section. I think it's also important to consider the theory or reaching a base + superstructural model as applied to the list it holds. Let's take China as an example!
 * 1. Base: When the PRC established itself in 1949, it remained utterly committed to the socialist base. This involved social ownership of various state resources and the collective usage of those resources to create things that people needed - particularly, food. However, as time went on, these commitments faced political pressure, and China's current form of state capitalism soon flourished.
 * 2. Superstructure: Given the push towards outside investment and state-sponsored private ownership, the PRC's superstructure only serves the base in a nominal sense. The government and its laws seem committed to maintaining an image of socialism while continuing to integrate various forms of capital into the wider superstructure.
 * In this sense, the article clearly defines what a socialist state is, but potentially returns to contradict itself by mentioning nations that **identify** as having implemented socialism. I believe adding a quick disclaimer might help with the jarring difference. Something like: "The following states maintain that they are socialist states in some form. However, they may not uphold the base and superstructure model that socialist states should aim to meet."
 * What do you think?
 * Thanks for your changes to this article! You're great at wording things like this! 😄 Onkoe (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Socialist state


text:
Battle of Trippstadt

The Battle of Trippstadt was a relatively minor French military action in 1794 during the War of the First Coalition. The clash between the French Republican forces and the armies of Prussia and Habsburg Austria was fought over several days (13 to 17 July) in the lower Vosges Mountains in the German states west of the Rhine River. Fighting occurred across a wide front and included action in Kaiserslautern, Trippstadt, Schänzel and Neustadt and along the banks of the Speyerbach River.

The battle is also sometimes referred to as the Battle of Vosges, but most documented historical reports, including French- and German-language studies, refer to it as the Battle of Trippstadt. Some studies also mention Platzberg, but few studies call the action the Battle of Vosges.

Introduction
During the first two years of the War of the First Coalition, the north-eastern frontier of France bordering the Holy Roman Empire along the Upper Rhine served as invasion route for the enemies of France.

In 1792, the Duke of Brunswick entered France through the north-eastern frontier in his attempt to support and rescue Louis XVI. In 1793, coalition forces including the Prussians and the Habsburg Austrians attempted to capture French fortresses along the Rhine and attacked the French defensive entrenchments along the Lauter River. By the summer of 1794, conflict in this theater of the war had reached a stalemate with armies facing each other in the Palatinate Forest of the lower Vosges Mountains.

At that time, the French Army of the Rhine, commanded by Claude Michaud, occupied a defensive position along the Queich River while the French Army of the Moselle commanded by René Moreaux occupied a defensive position along the Saar River.

Directly across from the “Moselle” to the north at Trippstadt were the Prussians commanded by Field Marshall Wichard Mollendorf. And directly across from the “Rhin” stretching from the Vosges Mountains east to the Rhine River were the Austrians commanded by Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenlohe-Kirchberg and Prussians commanded by Prince Hohenlohe.

Given this standstill during the summer of 1794, the French armies were ordered to attack the armies of the coalition to prevent the Habsburg Austrians from sending reinforcements to the critical northern front in the Austrian Netherlands.

Battle
On 17 June 1794, General Michaud held a council of war with the chief officers of the “Rhin” to discuss plans for an offensive. Generals Moreaux and Ambert of the “Moselle” were also in attendance, as the anticipated action was slated to be a joint attack by both French armies.

Disagreement as to the best offensive punch ensued, and the council ultimately decided to attempt a plan favoured by General Desaix with the cavalry leading the attack on the enemy’s left by means of the Rhine flood plain.

On 2 July Michaud launched the agreed upon attack. On the extreme right, Desaix successfully pushed back the left wing of the coalition forces. Across the other fronts, however, the French armies were halted and then reversed through counterattacks by Prince Baden that inflicted approximately 1,000 casualties. This left Desaix’s division exposed and isolated. Ultimately, Desaix withdrew and at the end of the day, there was no substantial change in the positions that French armies held at the start of hostilities.

At Michaud’s next council of war, new plans were made to attack the coalition lines stretching from Kaiserslautern in the mountains, south to Trippstadt, down to the Rhine flood plain at Neustadt and along the Speyerbach River. In this offensive, the cavalry would be used at the outset only to hold the enemy in the front of the French armies while infantry units from both the “Moselle” and the “Rhin” confronted the enemy in the mountains.

On 13 July Michaud launched the second French offensive. In the center of the battle, French General Alexandre-Camille Taponier's division attacked the Prussian camp at Trippstadt. The attack was held off for an entire day, but overnight the Prussians pulled back to a position closer to Kaiserslautern. On the left, the French advance divided the coalition lines preventing the Austrians from supporting the Prussians. On Taponier’s right, French General Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr captured Johanniskreuz. Further to the right the Prussians held Schänzel against an attack from the west but were forced to retreat to Neustadt when the French attacked from the south via Albersweiler and Ramberg. Prussian General Theodore von Pfau was killed during the fighting at Schänzel.

General Michaud planned to continue the battle and attack the Prussians at Kaiserslautern on 16 July but overnight the evening before Hohenlohe retreated out of the mountains to Frankenthal on the Rhine. On 17 July Saint-Cyr advanced forward and the French occupied Kaiserslautern.

Aftermath
This victory gave the French control of the mountain passes across the lower Vosges, but in the end, the battle was all for naught. Later in July, Michaud was ordered to move west to attack Trier near Luxembourg. In mid-September the Prussians attacked the weakened French forces in the north-eastern frontier and reoccupied Kaiserslautern. The French returned and the fighting continued until the Austrians abandoned the Netherlands and withdrew to the Rhine at Coblenz. With their northern flank now dangerously exposed, the coalition armies in the Upper Rhine withdrew east to the fortified city of Mainz.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Battle of Trippstadt


text:
Talk:Benediction

Trivial mentions
I'm removing the Video Game references from popular culture. Sure, healing is important in many video games, but we don't put every RPG ever in the Popular culture section of healing. If benediction plays a prominent role in any such games, or has any significance besides naming, feel free to add it back in.08:16, 25 February 2010 134.173.61.246
 * I removed the items again. I can pretty much guarantee that no usage in gaming has any relevance here. Please, do NOT feel free to add any of the references back. same goes for song lyrics. The word is common, like "wood", are we going to mention every appearance of "wood" in popular culture? buffy the vampire slayer used wooden stakes. spongbob's spatula handle was rumored to be made of wood. SimCity 3000 features trees made of wood.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.134.115 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Benediction


text:
Talk:Unani medicine

Untitled
from VfD:

Foreign language dicdef. SWAdair | Talk 07:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with above. jni 07:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to Greece. "Other names for greece" Kim Bruning 09:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unani (in Hindustani, Urdu etc) refers to a form of medicine (like Allopathy or Ayurveda), as also to anything related to Greece. The article may be expanded by somebody. utcursch 11:46, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's substub now, but a genuine article about Unani could appear here -- GWO 14:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Correct name
I thought that this form of medicine was called Unani Tibb; if I am wrong, what does Unani Tibb mean? If I am not wrong, the title of the article needs to be changed accordingly. 149.171.241.237 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * wiki always uses the most commonly used name, which is usually the simplest, like this, which is about 100 times more common or more :) Sticky Parkin 14:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tibb" is the Arabic word for "Medicine." For example, in the Hadith Shareef of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) there is a chapter called "Tibb an Nabawi" - "Medicine of the Prophet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.106.125 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Tibb-e-Unani is the proper name in between the period of Golden age when Muslim scholars developed the science of Medicine. Muslim Scholar Abu Nasr Farabi is regarded second master in Hikmat (including science of Medicine i.e. Tibb) after Aristotle being the first master in Hikmat. Nannadeem (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

tibb yunani just means "Greek medicine" in Arabic. But this article is supposed to be about the Indian (South Asian) tradition under Mughal rule -- the article on the reception of Greek medicine in medieval Islam is at Medicine in the medieval Islamic world.

It is unclear (to me) why the term is transcribed as unani, when in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hindi it is always yunani (why is the initial y not transcribed if it is present in all relevant languages?) --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tib unani means the way of treatment with herbs described and initiated by unan (greak) Msuhail348 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

unani
what is motto of unani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purvenbhavsar (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no motto mentioned in the article, it may be because there is no universal motto. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Yunani medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223064405/http://indianmedicine.nic.in/unani.asp to http://indianmedicine.nic.in/unani.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226063741/http://ccimindia.org/index.html to http://ccimindia.org/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200812/http://www.hec.gov.pk/ourinstitutes/pages/default.aspx to http://www.hec.gov.pk/ourinstitutes/pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116114959/http://www.pmdc.org.pk/AboutUs/RecognizedMedicalDentalColleges/tabid/109/Default.aspx to http://www.pmdc.org.pk/AboutUs/RecognizedMedicalDentalColleges/tabid/109/Default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I have moved the page from "Yunani medicine" to "Unani medicine" as it is clearly more used in contemporary as well as scholarly sources. This can be seen from the Google results for the two terms: "Yunani medicine" (12,900 results) [where Google even asks Did you mean: "Unani medicine"]
 * "Unani medicine" (1,020,000 results)

It is evident by this that "unani" is clearly the much more used term. Even medical dictionaries such as Segen's and Mosby's list it as Unani: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unani

It might be even better to move the page to simply "unani" as the term is used. Gotitbro (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing Supreme court order
The article is vandalised by quoting a judgement made by the Supreme court of India against fake practitioners existing in India. The SC verdict was on a different topic and here somebody misuses the same for their ulterior motives and to tarnish AYUSH systems. I propose to delete the edition quoting SC verdit against AYUSH systems because it is unethical to do so. The news regarding the SC verdict clearly defines this and the original court order is also available. Please revert the edition: The Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard unqualified practitioners of Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine as quackery. to Indian Medical Association regard unqualified practitioners of Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine as quackery. Because here, Indian medical association only seems to have the same opinion. Further, as far as Govt. of India is concerned, the opinion of government is to Integrate Ayush in health services as a priority in India. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Please note that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia which is not at all what you're claiming (WP:VANDAL for more information). Without providing a reliable source that says so, editor arguments also have little value.  As for the state of the art as pseudoscience,  no government statement could change that anyway...  If government and medical associations are in conflict, it would be possible to mention that too, provided a reliable source discusses that per WP:RS.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The quotation from the Supreme Court was taken out of context. At the time that Mohanabil made this comment, the article had this claim: "Identifying practitioners of Unani medicine, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that 'unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions'" The claim that the Supreme Court singled out Unani practitioners did not have any basis in the cited source. In fact, the case in question was about practitioners of Ayurveda who did not have a licence to practice Ayurveda; the finding in general was that for each tradition of medicine recognised by the government of India, the practitioner must be registered for that particular tradition. DGG changed this in September to "Referring to practitioners of all medical systems".

Based on the IMA source, I have now added to the article that the IMA estimates there to be 400k quacks who are illicitly practicing allopathic/modern medicine, when they are only qualified to practice Indian traditional medicine. However, putting this in the lead section might amount to giving it undue weight because the IMA has not said how many of the 51110 Unani practitioners in particular are illicitly practicing allopathy (the statement was about Ayushists in general); i.e., there is no indication as to whether a significant proportion of Unanists are illicitly practicing allopathy, nor whether a significant proportion of the aforementioned 400k quacks are Unanists. So it is not clear how relevant it is to Unani.

To complicate matters, the government has in the past issued temporary orders, like in 2014 and 2017, that allow practitioners of traditional and homeopathic medicine to prescribe allopathic medications and even perform surgery (against the advice of the IMA).

--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Unani medicine and pseudoscience
the intro-sentence currently reads, "Unani medicine is pseudoscientific." However per WP:PSCI + WP:FRINGE/PS, "conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic." However the citation that was used for this statement in Wikipedia is not scientific in basis - it's anthropological and based on the study of religion. Perhaps we need some new citations to support this claim if it will live in the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooojay (talk • contribs)

 * It's published by a relevant expert in a book by a university press. And anthropology is one of the sciences. The book is a reliable source that unani medicine is pseudoscience; that is, the book is a reliable source for reporting that the scientific community has rejected it. Which is to be expected, given it is based on the four humors theory which has been discredited for centuries. Crossroads -talk- 04:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Anthropology is a social science, and that's not what is referenced in WP:PSCI. Do you have other citations to support this? Jooojay (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * When practiced today it's alternative medicine, not mainstream medicine. It relies on flawed and outdated tenets and does not conform to the scientific method, meaning it's pseudoscientific.  There are plenty of critical sources about altmed and by extension Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Acupuncture, Acupressure, etc.  There also are many on the history of medicine as well as outdated beliefs like humors.  Unani to all those is a single logical inference step.  As for anthropology, it's a little complex, it's the study of the human, including archaeology and biology and other subfields.  Ethnology in this case is indeed more social with some branches called social anthropology, it specializes on cultures and their comparison.  Nonetheless, this is a proper source published via a proper venue and by someone who's qualified to study cultures.  Attributing it as the claim of one person would be misleading per WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Johannes Quack is specifically a religious ethnologist. If Unani as a pseudoscience is so commonly known, as you both have stated, why is it difficult to find another supporting RS citation? Jooojay (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm agreed with PaleoNeonate; nevertheless, another source has been found and added. Crossroads -talk- 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, I appreciate the extra source added.Jooojay (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should look in the other direction, are there sources, (reliable), that suggest that there is any basis in science to validate this alleged system of medicine? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of sources treat "unani" as synonymous with Iranian Traditional Medicine. For example, the article "Science and Pseudoscience in Traditional Iranian Medicine" describes unani theory but only mentions it once (the author prefers his terminology of "quackery traditional Iranian medicine"). JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on fake journal of iran where not mentioned anything about Unani, how to put Unani as pseudo science DrTanveerA (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021
Delete sentence and reference “Unani medicine is pseudoscientific” 2A02:C7F:D869:7400:6428:75F:80AF:9A2B (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ We don't remove well-sourced material. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022
please don't write wikipedia if you don't know about unani medicine ..unani medicine is originated from Greece.it traveled from Greece to central Asia Dr.Junaid ahmed (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling Ayush practitioners quacks violation of law.
Calling Ayush practitioners quacks is violation of law, please correct it. Court order 19 Feb 2022. 2409:4054:506:D47C:0:0:16E3:A8B1 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The laws of other countries do not affect Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nitpick: The laws of countries. "Other" has no place in that sentence since Wikipedia is neither a country nor attached to one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Respected Sir You cannot quote what IMA said as quack to Unani Practitioner. Wikipedia cannot be biased by any association's view of saying quack. Indian Medical Association is not a government body to issue certificate to any system of medicine. As per Honourable Supreme Court of India in D.K. Joshi case of 2003, clearly mentioned that a person who is not having a knowledge of particular system of medicine and practices will call a quack. While Unani System is as lawful by Govt of India under the Indian Constitution as allopath and as other medical system. So please remove the word QUACK. 2409:4063:4B18:37F8:C4AC:EF70:976B:C400 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not subject to the courts of India. Sue in San Francisco County, California, if you seek legal action. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022 (2)
Remove the sentence "Unani medicine is pseudoscientific.[2][3] The Indian Medical Association describes Unani practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.[4]" And add Unani system of medicine along with Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Siddha are well recognised by Govt. of India under the Ministry of AYUSH. Presently more than 60 undergraduates and around 15 PG Unani Medicine colleges are running all over India. Lakhs of qualified Unani medicine graduates holding the degree of BUMS and MD are registered in different states of the Indian Union and serving mankind. Furthermore, the Govt. of India under the flagship of the Ministry of AYUSH is allocating huge budgets for the promotion of these traditional systems of medicine to improve the health care system through the AYUSH.

Hence, using words like "pseudoscientific" and "quacks" by IMA or other authors look arrogant, which is unacceptable and insulting to the qualified physicians serving humanity. KhaleeqR (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022
please remove a sentence -The Indian Medical Association describes Unani practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.[4] which is purely wrong Mohd Muzammil Ibrahim (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The IMA disagrees with you, and as a reliable source, it is stronger than you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022
Change "is psuodoscientific"to "scintists are graduallly believing that ot is 100%scientific". 103.22.173.55 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

- there is no WP:RS to indicate any change is needed. Zefr (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Unani is not a pseudo scientific medicine

 * 1) Unani is a part of AYUSH system ..
 * 2) BUMS is a degree 5-1/2 years of program in undergraduate..
 * 3) its equally treated with MBBS course.
 * 4) Unani have scientific approach.
 * 5) being a unani doctors we have our factual & practical knowledge in science,
 * 6) if it’s only a pseudo science, then how can our unani system survives?? How can patients be able to treated by the science…
 * 7) Don’t discuss on that topic which you don’t know,
 * 8) Am giving you instruction / warnon change that statement as soon as possible you can’t call unani system as a pseudo science, first check and re-verify your facts .. Dr Khazi Misba Ahmed (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed your formating because it did not do what you wanted it to do.
 * So what?
 * So what?
 * So what?
 * That is what you say. It is not what reliable sources say.
 * That is what you say. It is not what reliable sources say.
 * There are many cases where pseudosciences persist for very long.
 * reliable sources know, that is enough.
 * Empty statement.
 * Your case is not convincing. Even if it were, it would be pointless because you need reliable sources saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hob Gadling #8 is a clear threat and misspelled warning. (looks like he is implying legal threat). Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an "if... then" without the "then". You can think up a "then" WP:LEGAL if you want, but one does not have to. You could say I was being generous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment : I want a degree in bums. -Roxy the dog 20:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Information and Misrepresentation in Wikipedia Article on the Unani Medicine
Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment regarding the inaccuracies and misrepresentations present in the Wikipedia article titled "Unani Medicine." As a passionate advocate and follower of the Unani system of medicine, I find it crucial to address the misinformation propagated by this article, which does a disservice to both the system itself and its practitioners.

The Unani system of medicine, with its roots in ancient Greece and later developments in the Arab world, has a rich history and a strong foundation in traditional healing practices. Unfortunately, the article on Wikipedia appears to have several factual errors and misleading statements that misrepresent the essence and effectiveness of this system.

First and foremost, the article erroneously portrays the Unani system of medicine as an outdated and obsolete form of treatment. This characterization is not only factually incorrect but also undermines the continued relevance and importance of the system in contemporary healthcare. Unani medicine, with its emphasis on individualized patient care, holistic approaches, and natural remedies, has been successfully used to treat a wide range of ailments and has garnered recognition from various medical bodies worldwide.

Additionally, the article fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundations and principles of Unani medicine. It barely touches upon the concepts of the four humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) and their equilibrium as essential factors in maintaining health. The article also neglects to discuss the significance of Unani pharmacology, which relies heavily on herbal remedies and natural substances.

Moreover, the article presents a distorted view of the Unani system's efficacy and safety. It makes sweeping generalizations about the lack of scientific evidence and clinical trials to support Unani medicine's effectiveness. This overlooks the considerable body of research and studies conducted worldwide, validating the therapeutic benefits of Unani treatments in various medical conditions. While it is true that further research is needed in some areas, it is unjust to dismiss the entire system as unscientific without acknowledging the positive outcomes witnessed by numerous patients.

Furthermore, the article's tone comes across as biased and condescending towards the Unani system of medicine, often comparing it unfavorably to other medical systems. This bias undermines Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and objectivity, which are fundamental principles governing the content on the platform.

I kindly request the Wikipedia editorial team to rectify these issues and ensure that the article on the Unani system of medicine reflects accurate and unbiased information. It is crucial to include a balanced account of the system's principles, practices, historical context, and notable achievements, as well as provide references to reputable sources and research studies that support the claims made.

I believe that it is essential for Wikipedia, as a widely accessed and trusted platform, to maintain the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality. By addressing these concerns, you will not only rectify the misleading information but also uphold the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope that you will take the necessary steps to address these concerns promptly. I remain optimistic that together we can ensure that the Wikipedia article on the Unani system of medicine serves as a valuable and accurate resource for all readers.

Sincerely, Hakim Shabeer Ahammed Roy 2405:201:F006:802D:88EA:A4A2:3883:46CD (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * No changes to the article will be made based on what a stranger on the Internet, you, says. You need reliable independent sources that support your unsupported point of view. Roxy the dog 11:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * You may also want to read WP:PSCI, which is relevant to this article. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with him that this article is openly aggressive in tone towards Unani medicine. Wikipedia is not a place for name-calling either (calling them "quacks" is obviously offensive). I suggest going into detail in a separate heading under the article in a balanced way with a neutral tone.
 * On another note, a lot of Wikipedia editors themselves are uneducated folks on the topic at hand. Have you studied in any medical field at all? I have a Bsc. in Nutrition and Dietetics. I've done my time in hospitals. I would never call these people quacks and neither would any of my co-workers, except for a fringe radical himself. So let's be more careful with the tone of the writing we allow on Wikipedia, keep it professional and up to a high standard. DivineReality (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
Change The Indian Medical Association describes Unani practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.[4] To The Unani system of medicine is officially recognized by the Government of India and falls under the Ministry of Ayush, alongside other traditional systems such as Ayurveda, Siddha, and Sowa Rigpa.<[Ministry of Ayush. https://ayush.gov.in/ retrived on 20-01-2024]> Nevertheless, the Indian Medical Association labels Unani practitioners who assert the practice of allopathic medicine as quacks. [4] The government of India also discourages such inter-pathy practices. KhaleeqR (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Allopathy was Samuel Hahnemann's word for the medicine as it was usually practiced in his time. It was based on the four humours, so, "allopathy" is essentially Unani. What you mean by "allopathy" is "medicine". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Unani medicine


text:
In Memoriam

In memoriam is a Latin phrase equivalent to "in memory (of)", referring to remembering or honouring a deceased person.

In Memoriam may refer to:

Classical compositions

 * Overture in C, "In Memoriam", by Arthur Sullivan, 1866
 * In Memoriam: President Garfield's Funeral March, by John Philip Sousa, 1881
 * In Memoriam (Sibelius), a funeral march by Jean Sibelius, 1910
 * In Memoriam, a symphonic poem by Havergal Brian, 1910
 * In Memoriam, an orchestral piece by Arnold Bax, 1916
 * In memoriam (Moore), a symphonic poem by Douglas Moore, 1943
 * In Memoriam, an orchestral piece by Lepo Sumera, 1972
 * In Memoriam..., an orchestral arrangement by Alfred Schnittke of his Piano Quintet, 1972/1978
 * In Memoriam, a composition by Lewis Spratlan, 2009

Albums

 * In Memoriam: Hungarian Composers, Victims Of The Holocaust, a 2008 album by various artists
 * In Memoriam, a 2005 album by Living Sacrifice
 * In Memoriam (Modern Jazz Quartet album), 1973
 * In Memoriam: Margaret Thatcher, a 2013 EP by Chumbawamba
 * In Memoriam (Small Faces album), 1969

Songs

 * "In Memoriam", by Apocalyptica from the 2000 album Cult
 * "In Memoriam", by Evile from the 2011 album Five Serpent's Teeth
 * "In Memoriam", by HammerFall from the 2002 album Crimson Thunder
 * "In Memoriam", by Moonspell from the 2006 album Memorial
 * "In Memoriam", by Steve Hackett from the 1999 album Darktown
 * "Loss (In Memoriam)", by Saturnus from the 2000 album Martyre

Other uses

 * In memoriam (photograph), a 1902 photograph by Edward Steichen
 * In Memoriam (film), a 1977 Spanish film
 * "In Memoriam A.H.H." or "In Memoriam", an 1850 poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
 * In Memoriam (video game), 2003
 * "In Memoriam" (Homeland), an episode of Homeland
 * In Memoriam, a 2023 novel by Alice Winn
 * "In Memoriam", several satirical poems by fictitious writer E. J. Thribb for Private Eye
 * In memoriam segment, a memorial included in an awards show or other aired event
 * לזכר, the Hebrew word represented in the design of the National Holocaust Names Memorial (Amsterdam)

title: In Memoriam


text: Talk:In Memoriam

title: Talk:In Memoriam


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FinlandForum

FinlandForum
Advert for online forum. SWAdair | Talk 07:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert. Wikipedia is not a Web guide. jni 07:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yeah, what they said. Katherine Shaw 08:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, advert. — Bill 19:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: an ad. Geogre 00:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Konstantynów Łódzki

Untitled
According to http://jerzyjedrzejkiewicz.webpark.pl/str01/gabin-rcn.html the mast collapsed on August 8th, not 10th, and no one was killed. What is the source for the other version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.0.30 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2004

title: Talk:Konstantynów Łódzki


text:
File:SmithsRank.jpg

Summary
Cover of The Smiths live album Rank (1988).

title: File:SmithsRank.jpg