Talk:Serve the People (Norway)

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideology infobox[edit]

I am making edits to the ideology in the infobox to reflect:

The infobox on the page in Norwegian and the corresponding discussion (vis-a-vis "Stalinism")
The recent edits regarding Marxism-Leninism (i.e. including "anti-revisionism")

More on anti-revisionism:
While the wiki on anti-revisionism states that it "is a position within Marxism–Leninism" and "the term 'Stalinism' is also used to describe these positions, but it is often not used by its supporters," this is a vast over-simplification, further reinforced by the wiki's infobox section "variants", which includes "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". The reality is that not all Marxist-Leninists are anti-revisionists (e.g. groups that support Dengism), nor are all anti-revisionists Marxist-Leninists.

The need for this distinction is furthermore evident by recent edits to the wiki suggesting Serve the People is Marxist-Leninist. As stated in the change logs, Serve the People has written extensively on their opposition to Marxism-Leninism, and their criticism has particularly emphasized the anti-revisionist perspective in doing so (here is just one of many examples).

On "Stalinism"
One may refer to the discussion page for the Norwegian wiki for more on this.

AndersLeo (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Warning Template[edit]

I have removed the citation warning template for three reasons:

The new edits have introduced significantly more citations.
There were no parts of the original stub that were flagged for citation issues, besides the template.
The current page now offers a mix of secondary and primary sources, in line with the content and sources that can be found on the corresponding Norwegian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersLeo (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leader[edit]

I am reverting the edit made by User:Vif12vf. This is because the "leader" field in the political party infobox is reserved for individual leaders of a political party (as far as I can tell). This information is more appropriate for the organization structure in the main text, but it is nonetheless an unsourced claim. An anecdotal claim (one with an unspecified date, to boot) is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia.

AndersLeo (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox has now been edited to remove the leader field by User:Vif12vf since, as they point out, it is uncommon to indicate an unknown leader in infoboxes. I support this position. AndersLeo (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Misuse[edit]

This article has been edited twice now to frame "oppression of women" as a dubious claim, rather than a documented phenomenon. Had the organization or Wiki page made reference to some explicit incidence of the oppression of women, this might be a reasonable measure. However the original text, as well as the source that is cited, speak about discrimination of women in society in general. The only purpose these edits seem to serve is to push an agenda that suggests that oppression of women does not exist at all.

I don't want to make any concrete accusation of vandalism before the editor is allowed the chance to explain their edits. This is more likely a case of soapboxing. Given the anonymity and number of IP addresses used to make virtually the same edits, I recommend a healthy dose of skepticism, but would like to assume good faith from the start. Particularly because the editor(s) in question have made productive edits to the page here.

The first questionable edit made by 2001:8003:4023:d900:c491:259a:84da:b04c.

The second questionable edit made by 2001:8003:4023:d900:3c6b:3e7d:b118:1043.

AndersLeo (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is great. Serve the People Serve view women as oppressed, and claim that it is the result of a class system and that women's liberation is not possible within a class society. As the citation says. --2001:8003:4023:D900:D4E7:E8FC:E79D:62C6 (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say that Serve the People "views women as oppressed". The source, from Serve the People itself, says "as long as the class system has existed, women have been especially oppressed," i.e. they acknowledge the objective phenomenon of women's oppression and thereafter claim that class society as its cause. The issue I have with your edits is twofold: 1) You continue to ignore the primary point: that women are actually oppressed and that it is an empirically measurable phenomenon rather than a subjective opinion and 2) the phrasing you are consistently making in your edits suggests that Serve the People defines women by their oppression--that oppressed is something that women "are", when this is not the claim.

To compromise I have added the direct citation. Since you indicate that you are, after all, only writing what is found in the source, this must surely be satisfactory. I encourage you to take the issue up in the talk page rather than wage an edit war. But if you want to do that, then we will simply have to request arbitration and ask an admin to lock the page until we can find a resolution. I don't really think that's necessary though.AndersLeo (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the direct quotation is good. One more is needed I'll add it now --1.136.105.241 (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use quotation marks when it's not a direct quote. I just added the entire paragraph from the source as a block quote. Hopefully that resolves things.AndersLeo (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]