Talk:Social democracy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Compromise proposal for this article's lede section

Davide King, it is about time we resolved this long-standing edit war between the two of us, especially since the constant back and forth changing of content every few hours severely disrupts the stability of this article. With this in mind, I have drafted my first proposal to hopefully establish a new consensus and resolve this dispute once and for all. Said proposal is as follows:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, it has been seen by some commentators as a synonym for "European socialism", and became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.

Social democracy is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups, and eradicating poverty, including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation. The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions, which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.

Social democracy originated as an ideology within the socialist and labour movement, whose goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in evolutionary socialism, or the establishment and support of a welfare state. Social democracy's origins lie in the 1860s German Empire as a form of revolutionary socialism associated with orthodox Marxism. By the 1910s, it had spread worldwide and transitioned towards advocating an evolutionary and peaceful change from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the late 1910s, socialist parties that were committed to revolutionary socialism renamed themselves as Marxist-Leninists, causing a split in the socialist movement between these supporting the October Revolution and those opposing it. Social democrats who were opposed to the Bolsheviks later named themselves democratic socialists to highlight their differences from Marxist-Leninists, although sharing some common ideological roots. In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a Keynesian compromise between capitalism and socialism.

In the post-war period, social democrats embraced a mixed-market economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services being under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (as manifested in factor markets, private property and wage labour) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system. With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s, many social democratic parties incorporated the centrist Third Way ideology, aiming to fuse economic liberalism with social democratic welfare policies. By the 2010s, social democratic parties that accepted austerity and centrist triangulation experienced a drastic decline in Western Europe as the Third Way had fallen out of favour in a phenomenon known as PASOKification."

This lede section adheres to the 3-4 paragraphs requirement while also incorporating your expansions of social democracy's history and grammatical corrections. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? If you disagree, feel free to state your objections. 78.98.54.148 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What part of being blocked for a week don't you get? I used IPs after I was blocked once with this account because I didn't know how to appeal it and what to do; and I didn't edit war but used the IPs in good faith to show I could make good contributions and that the block was no longer necessary (I didn't know or realise I could actually still edit my talk page and appeal my block). But I have been warning you many times not to edit anymore, even in the talk page, during the whole duration of the block; yet you continued and even edit warred about it. Still, I don't understand what's wrong with the way the current lead is structured. I already shorted paragraphs in the whole article, just leave the lead and the Overview sections alone; they're fine as they are. "Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes" should be at the start of teh second paragraph and there's no need for "thus", just like there's no need for adding "it has been seen by some commentators as a synonym for "European socialism"; "within political circles" already does that. Just keep it like it is now.

P.S. It wasn't an edit war between you and I. You have been reverted by another user too and I clearly explained that the page should remained the status quo, i.e. before your edits; and only after discussing in the talk page and reaching a consensus would your edits be accepted.--Davide King (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Davide King, "They are fine as they are" is unfortunately your subjective opinion and possible WP:STONEWALLING, but this is a topic for another discussion. Like I said, I have presented a compromise proposal that will incorporate both of our edits in a proper manner, while correcting any residual issues with the prose's quality and wording. We can subsequently add in your further edits (Such as the one adding Olof Palme's picture) afterwards if neccessary, and I am willing to resolve this dispute in good faith, but I first need to hear a clear yes/no answer from you on this proposal. 78.98.54.148 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just my subjective opinion as it seems you're the only one to have a problem with it. Your edits have been reverted by another user too. What's even wrong with "Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, it is seen as a synonym for European socialism and became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century" this? Also, you kept making the exact same edit, keeping some typos or bad wording from before in the Unites States section, or editing quotes when I explained why they should like this; I at least tried to incorporate your corrections, you simply kept doing the same edit. I also told you that there's no need to make so many short paragraphs in the United States section, especially when they're still talking about the same argument, hence why it didn't start a new paragraph yet. Either way, you should be blocked and should wait until the block expires to edit again and be able to discuss it.--Davide King (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide King, I have put the "European socialism" phrase in quotes because "European socialism" is not recognized as a distinct ideology by reliable peer-reviewed sources to the extent it can be reasonably described in a encyclopedic tone and is merely the subjective description of certain political commentators, and also because the segment is merely quoting what said commentators stated. And per WP:DONTREVERT, only unambiguously harmful revisions that directly damage the article should be reverted:

"Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing." 78.98.54.148 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to put European socialism in scary quotes. European socialism is literally the name used to refer to social democracy and not just a word that necessitates scary quotes. While I greatly appreciate peer-reviewed sources, Wikipedia doesn't use only them or consider them the only reliable sources. Your edits were harmful, that's why they were reverted while I kept some of your improvements. Don't even try to lay the blame on me (I know the rules) when you have been reverted at least twice by another user too and when you kept engaging in edit war after being blocked for a week and continue to evade your block by writing here rather than wait for it to expire. I was actually blocked for doing exactly the same edits you just did; I didn't think they were harmful or that they make the article worse off, yet they were reverted. That's why I reverted your edits. You also didn't start a discussion here to reach a consensus first when or after you have been first reverted (other edits of yours on other articles have been reverted too, but you continued engaging in edit war instead of discussing in the article's talk page).--Davide King (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Davide King, unless the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe social democracy as "European socialism" (Which they don't) to the point it qualifies as a consensus, then the phrase should be put in quotes and properly attributed to the outlet making that claim. And once again, there is a good reason for why anecdotes are not counted as reliable evidence, Davide, because your story isn't applicable to completely different individuals and situations. My proposed compromise has none of the edits you were blocked for, and neither does it violate Wikipedia policy, nor does it damage the article in any way. It is specifically designed to be the definitive lede section for this article, upon which there shall be no major changes without legitimate cause. The question is, do you agree with its potential implementation, or do you have major objections against it? 78.98.54.148 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I redirect you to what @The Four Deuces: said. "Socialist, democratic socialist social democrat, are usually interchangeable terms, although some writers distinguish between the three. [...] First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is not an ideology, but an economic system. [...] You are not describing socialist ideology, but the system that Communists implemented. IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test." How isn't that applicable to you? Once I was told to not edit even in talk pages with IPs, I stopped, while you continue and don't wait for your block to expire. I'm not talking about your proposed compromise here, but all your edit warring and you continuing making one big edit in which you move paragraph in a way that it's not understandable what, if any, words or anything else you changed, etc.--Davide King (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide King, TFD did not cite any sources for his claims, nor did he provide anything indicative of a scholarly consensus that socialism is a synonym for social democracy (From where does his "hundreds of parties across the world are routinely described as socialism" claim even come from? Who described these parties as socialist? How many describe them as such? And so on), which is needed to describe "European socialism" in Wikivoice without attribution or scare quotes. And once again, I am sorry about my earlier edit warring and hostile attitude towards you, Davide. Especially given the sheer level of disruption it caused to this article with the constant changing of content. The lede section's view was distorted because I viewed it from a phone and it appeared excessively long and bloated, which I now realize it wasn't so when I viewed it on a laptop, and I apologize for my erroneous and improper division of paragraphs. I won't make such edits to this article from now on, nor will I significantly modify the lede if we reach a proper consensus. Speaking of which, would you allow me to implement this proposal into the article itself? Assuming you have no major objections of course, in which case we shall address them. 78.98.54.148 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not very kind of you to assume that of @The Four Deuces: I'm sure TFD has the sources to back that, citing for example the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. These "hundreds of parties across the world are routinely described as socialism" include most socialist or social democratic party in the centre-left. You shouldn't have moved paragraphs just because to you they look "excessively long and bloated"; millions of people read Wikipedia, not just you; and what may look good or bad to you may not look the same to someone else. I repeat I have sympathy for you, but unfortunately this wasn't really a sign of good fath (you didn't even keep my adjustments like Oxford spellings; you literaly just copied and pasted your same edit). Just because I didn't reply earlier, it doesn't mean the discussion is over or that you can continue with your edits. It's also not about just you and I, but also other users' opinions. There can't be no consensus as long as your block last and you continue doing this. If you truly want to show good faith, then self-revert your last edit and stop editing any page or talk page until your block expire; and then notify yourself to the user who blocked you that you evaded your one week block, further engaging in diruptive behavior and edit warring, despite my warnings and explanations. Once you do this, we can discuss it and see what's the consensus. Until then, the page should remain as it was before your last edit.--Davide King (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You just did the worst thing. I wish you would listen to me this time and not doing anything until your block expired, but I actually had too much good faith in me. You could have just replied me here (it still would have been bad because you're still supposed to be blocked, no matter that you have dynamic IPs), but no. You had to edit the whole page again. And yes, sorry, but it's hard to look closely and understand what exactly did you changed about the article. Still, you kept parts of your same edit, like use British English|date=May 2019, "While the revised version" (double blank space), "an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent" (an left-wing), etc. and you kept moving the United States section and change the Overview section when I told you the lead and these sections should have remained like I edited but in turn I moved the paragraphs like you did to make them shorter. Also why did you keep moving paragraphs when even you said "The lede section's view was distorted because I viewed it from a phone and it appeared excessively long and bloated, which I now realize it wasn't so when I viewed it on a laptop, and I apologize for my erroneous and improper division of paragraphs"? Now I will have to revert you again and try to keep some of your improvements, because you're still blocked, there's no consensus yet and so your more problematic edits shouldn't be in the article. You also continued editing quotes like this:

The method of this great philosopher Kant can serve as a pointer to the satisfying solution to our problem. Of course we don't have to slavishly adhere to Kant's form, but we must match his method to the nature of our own subject socialism, displaying the same critical spirit. Our critique must be direct against both a scepticism that undermines all theoretical thought, and a dogmatism that relies on ready-made formulas.

The method of this great philosopher [referring to Kant] can serve as a pointer to the satisfying solution to our problem. Of course we don't have to slavishly adhere to Kant's form, but we must match his method to the nature of our own subject [i.e. socialism], displaying the same critical spirit. Our critique must be direct against both a scepticism that undermines all theoretical thought, and a dogmatism that relies on ready-made formulas.

when the quote itself doesn't say "this great philosopher Kant" or "our own subject socialism", that's why there was [ ] in the first place. Finally, stop changing "In the late 1910s, socialist parties that were committed to revolutionary socialism renamed themselves communist parties" to "In the late 1910s, socialist parties that were committed to revolutionary socialism renamed themselves as Marxist-Leninists". Now that's just wrong as Marxism–Leninism was something made up by Stalin in the 1920s and your new wording doesn't make sense because their socialist parties literally became communist parties (they changed their name from Socialist or Social Democratic to Communist party); and the source itself says "communist". Just like in the source used to reference this quote "committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a Keynesian compromise between capitalism and socialism", there's no reference to "Keynsesian", so that's original research on your part. Also factor markets should be wikilinked as [[factor market]]s, not as [[Factor market|factor markets]].--Davide King (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I didn't keep the "Use British English" template in my last edit. In fact, I went to great lengths to change it, first to "Use British English with Oxford Spelling", and then to "Use Oxford spelling" when I realized the first change was erroneous. Once again, I didn't copy my previous edits, and it would have been clear to you if you actually took a closer in-depth look on my latest revision before reflexively pushing the undo button. And the "Democratic socialism is defined as an left-wing anti-Stalinist and anti-leninist big-tent" is not an incorrect sentence grammar-wise, so I don't understand why you keep reverting it to "anti-Stalinist and anti-leninist leftwing bigtent" even though the previous segment was correct and flowed perfectly. You do not own this article just because you claim yourself to be an socialist, nor does that make you an infallible authority on what this article should look like. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative project with millions of individual editors, and hundreds of thousands of them are active on a daily basis. But if you insist on me staying away for 7 days before you are willing to discuss anything with me, then fine, I will humor you, but promise that you won't insert any inaccuracies or prose errors into this article while I am gone in return. That will be everything for now. 78.98.54.148 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the "Use British English" template, but just in the edit before that and all edits before it, you went back to "". Before your last edit, you kept doing all that and I was referring mainly to that. It's not my fault you made so much edits and changes, moving paragraphs so much that it makes it hard to understand what exactly you changed. You make fun of my typos, spellings, prose, whatever, yet you can't even see that error, i.e. "an left-wing [...]" when it whould be "a left-wing [...]". It should be like that because the big tent is the left-wing, not the anti-Stalinist or Leninist part. Still, you kept editiing the lead when our discussion wasn't over yet and you kept editing and moving paragraphs in the Overview and United States sections when I clearly told you earlier that my compromise for shorting the paragraphs in the History section was to let the Overview section stay as it was, besides correcting any typos or better wordings; I believe to have been very much forthcoming in adding over time part of your edits that were correct or better. You're clearly violating my good faith; when did I say I own this article? I'm just following the praxis of keeping the article to the status quo until a full, through discussion about it has been held and a consensus has been reached; you're the one who got blocked, evaded the block and edit warred about it. And when did I even ever claim to be a socialist or why would that matter? We all have biases; I at least know and recognise mine, I'm not so sure about you though. Don't try to play the victim and take an accusatory tone against me; you shouldn't have been editing anything ever since you were first blocked. I also suggest you not to immediately restart this when your block ends, because it's likely going to be extended in light of your block evasion and disrupting behavior, even if you think you're in the right and believe that your edits are the right ones and thus should be implemented no matter your one week block.--Davide King (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. There are many edits happening on this article at once, yes? For every new addition that is contested, I recommend reverting to the existing version and starting individual threads on this talk page. If there are many contestable edits to make, it's better to discuss them one at a time. 78.98, if you were previously blocked as 178.40, please observe the block or, better, appeal it. In general, reverting back and forth ("edit warring") is unproductive as content disputes are only resolved through discussion and sourcing. If you can show that you understand that, you will likely be unblocked. As for other aspersions in the text above, please focus on the content, not each other.

Politics/socialism are a controversial part of the encyclopedia and thus require greater patience. Edit slowly, build consensus, take breaks, and don't take it personally. czar 18:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"social democratic parties that accepted austerity and triangulation experienced a drastic decline"

This suggests that social democratic parties which rejected austerity and triangulation have not experience a drastic decline. Also, what social democratic parties (except the Greek and Italian) put in place austerity measures, and who are the scholars who attribute the decline of Soc Dems (in general) to austerity? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally, its the Third Way form (i.e. the strand that favours free market capitalism) of social democracy that is attributed to austerity and triangulation, and the main figures of the Third Way are Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, Costas Simitis, Wim Kok, António Gutteres, Matteo Renzi, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Francois Hollande, George Papandreou, Romano Prodi, et al. And these specific sources attribute the Third Way's decline to austerity/deregulation and neoliberalism, along with other reasons:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/goodsociety.22.1.0044.pdf?seq=1

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/populism-and-the-decline-of-social-democracy/

https://www.socialeurope.eu/averting-the-death-of-social-democracy

https://www.politico.eu/article/matteo-renzi-martin-schulz-italy-germany-who-killed-european-social-democracy/

https://www.ft.com/content/a1f88c3c-d154-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5

Symes2017 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

But the way it's phrased suggests that social democratic parties will not decline so long as they refrain from employing austerity and economically liberal policies, which is not what these sources are saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not the way I see it and nowhere it's written in that phrase in the lead that social democratic parties will not decline if they reject such policies. It's merely describing what happened according to sources, with their shift from the left to the center on economic issues.--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The line "social democratic parties that accepted austerity and triangulation experienced a drastic decline" suggests a counterfactual where those parties did not adopt austerity and triangulation. I don't see this wording as better than "Scholars have linked the decline of Social Democratic parties in Europe to the declining number of industrial workers, greater economic security of voters, and a tendency for these parties to shift from the left to the center on economic issues," which is more careful in its wording in terms of causation and vaguer as to what precise actions that social democratic parties took (there's a difference between austerity and being supportive of free trade, yet they could both be included in a shift to the economic center). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You are leaving out the fact that Social Democrats also lost votes to left and left-wing green parties and that the traditional parties of the right have faced a similar problem, i.e., losing support to parties of the Extreme Right. It's only in first past the post countries such as the UK where the major parties have managed to remain broad tents. It's easy to imagine that if the UK had proportional representation, there would be a political realignment. TFD (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, isn't the decline in Soc Dems primarily a European a thing? That seems to be the focus in most RS that cover the decline. For example, this study[1] focuses primarily on the decline of Soc Dems in Europe while it speaks more generally of the decline of "the left" (as opposed to Soc Dems who are one part of the left) in other parts of the world. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: That's because social democracy in general isn't that very influential outside of Europe (With the notable exception of Latin America and their so-called Pink Tide, although the continent is now being dominated by right-wing to far-right parties and politicians by now), and hence said sources primarily refer to Europe as an example when they are mentioning the decline of the centre-left. The previous paragraph also explicitly mentioned that the decline known as "PASOKification" is happening in Western and Southern Europe, so no problem there. And as Davide King said, the line never claimed that socdem parties who refused austerity are guaranteed to succeed (Indeed, the Unidas Podemos movement in Spain is currently stagnating after the PSOE recovered from its crisis and soul searching in the early to mid 2010s), it simply stated the fact that indeed, social democratic parties which moved to the center/centre-right on economics have suffered a loss of popularity and influence, and that is backed up by multiple sources which I've already cited in my previous response. Symes2017 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The source is expressing an opinion and it should not be presented as fact in this article. It should be mentioned as well that where social democratic support, has fallen, such as Greece, it has been matched by increased support for Left and left-wing green parties, which meet this article's definition of social democratic. In any case, I don't think that the source's analysis can be boiled down to one sentence. Symes2017: Social Democratic parties are major political parties in most parts of the world, except where they are banned. TFD (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"It should be mentioned as well that where social democratic support, has fallen, such as Greece, it has been matched by increased support for Left and left-wing green parties, which meet this article's definition of social democratic" And hence we specifically stated that "social democratic parties which adopted austerity and deregulation experienced a drastic decline", since their PASOKification gave rise to populist alternatives on both sides of the political spectrum. That includes leftwing populist parties such as SYRIZA, Podemos, Die Linke (The Left), La France Insoumise, Zivi Zid, and the Red-Green Movement in Iceland. In short, it was the parties that adopted the Third Way and austerity measures which suffered said decline, often fuelling the rise of leftwing or rightwing populist alternatives. Symes2017 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

@Symes2017: Please discuss here your proposals and give me your reasons why, so we can reach a consensus. Please, let's avoid editing the page until this discussion is over. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: I revised the paragraph separation because on second thought, if one looks at it from a PC (Personal computer) perspective, then the sentences appear to be too short, and are quite disproportionate with the rest of the text. I am sorry, I was quite mistaken back when I edited from a tablet smartphone, and I wanted to fix my past errors. As for why I capitalized the word "PASOKification", it is because the acronym of said Greek party is in all caps (PASOK), and the acronym was never written as Pasok with only P being capitalized.

In the infobox, I also removed several words which were redundant (Such as in the Eduard Bernstein segment, who was already described as a reformist socdem, and I have also revised the hyperlink to trade unions, not [trade union]s, given that a redirect for the plural already exists), and as for the image captions, I revised them to be proper sentences describing their subjects in more detail, and likewise, a dot was appended to them for that reason. After all, we don't leave captions describing a picture in a news article without a dot, so why should we wantonly delete all dots from the image captions here (Even on Mahatma Gandhi's picture and the Parisian barricades, which clearly show a proper sentence!)?

It is a pretty petty dispute to be fair, especially since the captions do not violate Wikipedia policy, even with my revisions and dots inserted. Lastly, the words which feature a "ise" ending can be individually fixed by you so it adheres to Oxford spelling, which is far more efficient and precise than just completely undoing my entire edit altogether. Symes2017 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: Thanks for your reply. I understand you, me too had a fixation with paragraphs and moving them like that, etc. It also doesn't help in explaining or showing exactly what we're changing and the differences. You're right about the party being PASOK, but the term itself isn't capitalised like that and I have never seen it capitalised like that, so it should be Pasokification, the name of the page itself.

I think Starting in the 1890s, there was a dispute between committed revolutionary social democrats such as Rosa Luxemburg and reformist evolutionary social democrats such as revisionist Eduard Bernstein who supported a more gradual approach grounded in liberal democracy, with Karl Kautsky representing a centrist position. is fine as it's now. I think there should be a wikilink and mention of Bernstein's revisionism, hence why revisionist Eduard Bernstein. I thought the hyperlink was fine as [trade union]s since it redirects to the main page and not to a redirect; in cases like thease, I have seen put the s out, unless it's part of the title itself, that's why I did that. As for the captions, my understanding is that dots should be included when it's like NAME, who was a TYPE OF SOCIALIST. NAME advocated SOMETHING. (and so on).

Please, also avoid restructuring quotes like you did. It's been recently decided that things like president of the United States or prime minister of the United Kingdom and so on shouldn't be capitalised. As far as the Oxford spelling is concerned, yes, but that's a lot and it's tiring to do it all over again. I'm also pretty sure to have left some of your better wording and other minor edits that I found uself and good, rather than "undoing [your] entire edit altogether" like you claimed.

I wouldn't call that petty, I have been more than forthcoming in accomodating your edits and listen to your proposals. A long caption to describe something doesn't necessarely result in a sentence requiring a dot. Also, there's no need to add unnecesary wording in the captions (which should as short and concise as possible) such as from 1966 to 1977 and again from 1980 to 1984 when (1966–1977, 1980–1984) already does that in a shorter and more efficient way. Thank you again for discussing it here instead of editing. We will hopefully reach a consensus and I will have no problem respecting that.--Davide King (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: I have a proposal for you on how to resolve this dispute. Firstly, I suggest keeping the improvements to the lede section (Such as removing the redundant description of Bernstein as a revisionist when he was already described as a social democratic reformist a few words earlier, considering reformism is synonymous with revisionism when it comes to Marxism and affiliated ideologies), along with the capitalization of the word "PASOKification" given that the redirect for the capitalized version already exists, and thus it wouldn't disrupt the hyperlink since it would just redirect you to "Pasokification" right away. Secondly, I also propose we keep the corrections I made to the paragraphs in the U.S. section, given that my perspective was distorted because I edited from a smartphone and thus I wasn't aware that it looks ugly, awkward and garbled when one views it from a laptop/personal computer, and I performed these edits because I wanted to fix my past mistakes, and I also suggest preserving the revision I have made to the WW1 section, as it features details about events such as the German Revolution of 1918-1919 for example, which would be overlooked otherwise.

Thirdly, for the image captions, I also propose to keep the improvements to their sentences that I've made which explain more thoroughly the subject of the pictures (For future reference, any caption which contains a complete/proper sentence can have a dot added after it), while keeping years and dates in parentheses like you suggested so it is clear and concise. Finally, I propose that Oxford spelling, as suggested by you, will be individually added to all remaining words that feature a "ise" ending, in order to be compliant with the established language norm on this specific article, and to avoid inconsistent wording in prose. I hope that this proposal is satisfactory, because we have fought over this article for too long. Of course, in case you have any compromise proposals of your own, please list them right here. I am eager to review any ideas that you might've created! :) Symes2017 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: Thanks again for your reply and not editing the page yet, but discussing here. I'm glad you want to keep the improvements to the lead section, but I disagree with this proposal. Reformism and Marxist revisionism aren't the same thing and Bernstein's revisionism is notable enough to be mentioned like it's done now. I also disagree with the capitalisation; sources refer to it as Pasokification. It doesn't matter that the party is correctly capitalised, the term isn't and the non-capitalised term is the common name, hence why the article isn't captalised. I'm still not sure about image captions because I have mostly seen the dots used in the case I showed you, but I will find a way to retain your "improvements to their sentences that [you've] made [to] explain more thoroughly the subject of the pictures". I will take care of the Oxford spelling too.

My proposal is that, to avoid any other incovenience, I will be the one to implement our agreed proposals (if you felt I missed or misunderstood something, please feel free to write me here and I will fix that) since I have time to do that and so that you can concentrate in improving other articles. So now I will check again to see the differences to see if I missed something (what are the "WW1 section, as it features details about events such as the German Revolution of 1918-1919 for example, which would be overlooked otherwise"? I'm sure I kept the informations you added, but let me know) and I will fix the Oxford spelling, okay?--Davide King (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: Alright, I'll review your edits myself, correcting some errors here and there if I stumble upon some. Once I am done with my final reviews, the proposal shall be finalized, and hopefully a new consensus will be established so that we could nominate this article for GA status in the future (One can't reliably evaluate an article if its being constantly changed every day after all). As for the WW1 section I mentioned, its the one describing the Great War, right after the "Second International" and "Reform or revolution dispute" history section. The improved paragraph in question is located at the part where the German Revolution of 1918-1919 which led to the downfall of Kaiser Wilhelm II is mentioned. Symes2017 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: Thank you, but please review my edits here, so me myself can correct them while you improve other articles too. I couldn't find any difference besides the paragraphs structure; could you please show me here the changes and additions you included so I can check if I included them already? Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: Ugh, what did I just tell you? Our discussion isn't over yet and I disagree with some of your edits here. There's nothing wrong with reformist, evolutionary social democrats such as revisionist Eduard Bernstein. Reformist, evolutionary and revisionist aren't the same thing. One can be an evolutionary without being a reformist, or a revisionist without being a reformist. Also why did you made changes like these?

While the revised New Labour version of Clause IV changed to While the revised [double blank space error] version of Clause IV, which was implemented by the New Labour faction to the Labour Party Constitution.

a left-wing, anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent changed to an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent [error since the word that follow doesn't require an, but a].

such as Stalinism and Maoism. Democratic socialism includes changed to such as Stalinism and Maoism, and it includes.

You basically just copied your previous edit from your last version, ignoring these changes (including the Oxford spellings I changed), even your own changes, which I supported and included, such as these:

to enact universal single-payer healthcare changed to to attain universal single-payer healthcare

In November 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who were members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a democratic socialist organization which advocates social democratic reforms that "will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people", were elected to the House of Representatives while eleven DSA candidates changed to In November 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a democratic socialist organisation which advocates social democratic reforms that "will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people", were elected to the House of Representatives while eleven DSA members.

And so on and on. I thought the previous wording of this Overlap with democratic socialism and this In the United States was fine.

Also I dsagree with the current naming sections: 2.1 First International era (1863–1889) same. 2.2 Second International era: The Reform or Revolution dispute (1889–1914) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust. 2.3 The Great War, revolutions, and counter-revolutions (1914–1929) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust; why The Great War instead of World War I, especially since the next section include World War II? 2.4 The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust. 2.5 The Cold War and Keynesianism (1945–1973) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust. 2.6 Response to neoliberalism (1973–1991) same. 2.7 The Third Way, the "End of History", and the Great Recession (1991–2007) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust; we also try to avoid titling sections this long; no need of the "End of History", especially when there's no mention of it in the section. 2.8 The Third Way's decline in Western Europe and the rise of left-wing populism (2007–present) we don't put The in the title section unless it's part of it, like The Holocaust; we also try to avoid titling sections this long; no need of the rise of left-wing populism, especially when there's no mention of it in the section and is mainly about self-declared democratic socialists and other social democrats who reject the Third Way, hence why Decline and rejection of the Third Way was just fine. So yeah, it was better if you continued discussing here and let me be the one to implement the edits.--Davide King (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: The Manual of Style doesn't actually prohibit using the word "the" in article headings or sections. Only article titles (AKA the direct name of this very page we are editing for example) are covered by this prohibition, and a lot of encyclopedic chapters use the word "The", so I don't think you should have removed my edits to it. As for why I reverted to an earlier version and then made my adjustments at the same time, it was because I wanted to implement the compromise as soon as possible (At that time I wasn't aware you've made your edits since I was still in edit mode), and given that going through all of this article's sections and painstakingly changing it on a smartphone would take excessively long, I opted for the more efficient route instead.

I admit that I have overlooked some parts though, since not everything was caught by my eyes when I skimmed through the sections while implementing my changes. And the segment "evolutionary social democrats and revisionists such as Eduard Bernstein" is more than sufficient for a general summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, without getting unneccessarily verbose, so I don't understand what problem do you have with it. In cases like these, it is better to fix any errors you detect on the spot inatead of unilaterally nuking my entire edit and forcing me to start from square one. Symes2017 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: That doesn't mean it's endorsed; most articles I have seen and read, including good ones, usually didn't have any of that in the title sections (we don't have The early years or The childhood and things like that; we have simply Early years and Childhood). So while a lot of encyclopedic chapters may do that, Wikipedia doesn't. That isn't a matter of getting unneccessarily verbose, it's that they aren't exactly the same thing; also reformist should be used to contrast revolutionary; and evolutionary was a middle way between reformists and revolutionaries. I could ask you the same as I don't understand what's your problem with that phrasing. I didn't remove your edits to it; I kept what I thought it was best and I always made sure to incorporate your edits which I agree too, rather than copy and paste one previous version of mine. I always fixed any errors I detected on the spot; ironically, it was you who unilaterally nuked my entire edits which also include your additions I implemented.--Davide King (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: What isn't explicitly banned on Wikipedia is technically allowed, even if you yourself don't like it. And of course, on words such as "early life", "childhood", etc, we don't put "the", as its not referring to any specific concept, event, or a object, but when we describe portions of history such as "The Great War", "The Cold War", "The decline of the Third Way", etc, then we use "the", because we are referring to a specific Great War, Cold War, decline, etc, and thus it is grammatically correct. Regardless, I have fixed the other errors you have listed such as the ones related to the DSA and the universal healthcare segment, along with the Clause IV part. But I am not reverting the names of the article's sections, since they do not violate the Manual of Style. Symes2017 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: That doesn't really mean anything. As I stated, it doesn't mean it's endorsed. You're the one who don't like it too. Since you're the one proposing these changes, which aren't really much helpful, you will need to reach consensus for them; and once you have reached it, if you have, then I will accept it too. Your new title sections, dots in the image caption and other things aren't really helpful. It seems more like you just want to have dots in the image captions, so you reworded them in a way that requires that (but it's unnecessary), or now you don't want president and prime minister to be capitalised, so you changed Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the United States to President Franklin D. Roosevelt (again, unhelpful or useless); and did the same in other image captions. So despite you accusing me of simply "don't like it" and saying that you don't understand what problem I have with it, the same could be said of you and your edits. You're the one proposing changes, so you're the one who need some valid reasons for such cosmetic edits, not me who is fine with the status quo version with your fixes and additions I already incorporated. I repeat, I understand you and I have sympathy for you because I was like this too and made these kind of edits, but you need to realise and understand that they aren't really helpful. So until other users come to state they think your edits are helpful or they prefer/support your version, we should keep the status quo version with the edits of yours I found helpful and improving already incorporated.--Davide King (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: Even if you think a edit is unhelpful or unneccessary, you shouldn't revert it, especially if it doesn't directly damage the article, per WP:DONTREVERT:

"Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing."

And in "cosmetic edits" like these, the potential for actual damage to the article's factual accuracy is almost non-existent. It is also important to note that nobody owns an article on Wikipedia, even if they are an expert on the article's subject, and thus they do not have the authority to decide what content gets on a article and what content doesn't. In a case like this, it would be best to get a third opinion from a uninvolved editor to resolve this dispute, since it looks like neither me or you is going to back down anytime soon, and this dispute has dragged out for quite enough. Would you agree with this form of dispute resolution though? Symes2017 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: Please, stop implying and accusing me of that. Ironically, the same apply to you too and not just to me; why do we need to to follow your proposal to reword image captions so as to add dots, or rewording image captions so as to capitalise presdent and prime minister when it's fine just as it's now and I prefer it this way; and you reverted my edits too? Also why do you change Conservatives to Tories, or The Left to Die Linke? Conservative and The Left is the common name of the articles and hence why we use the first one. You may say mine are jusr petty edits but so are yours; and I believe to have been more than forthcoming in add your wording that was truly better and not unnecessary, making sure to incorporated them in my version while you simply copied and pasted your own without fixing various errors. Either way, I agree with that; it may be petty for both of us, but let's do it. After all, we both believe we're improving the article and that our own version may be better than the other, even if it slightly. However, what you just quoted actually support my argument that we should revert to the status quo version (which already incorporated many of your edits); see "except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved", i.e. exactly our case and situtation, so the status quo apply here while we get more opinons by other users too.

P.S. I noticed only now you even removed sources I added here. I was more careful in incorporating your edits.--Davide King (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: This wasn't clearly just some "quality improvements here and there". I thought you merely re-capitalise the words, but then you basically reverted the many small edits I did before that and kept your favorite version. The same "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." now apply to you too; you may believe they made the article worse, but so I may feel the same about yours. Also I'm not sure about that capitalisation/non-capitalisation issue since they have been uncapitalised in their main pages (see how they start uncapitalised, i.e. the president of the United States or the prime minister of the United Kingdom; and also see List of presidents of the United States, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, etc.) and there're have been a consensus for that, otherwhise not all pages would have been uncapitalised.

So here's the deal. We will get other users opinions and accept whatever clear consensus will be established. Untl then it settled, however, I revert to the status quo version (per "except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved"), but I will keep most of your wording and other minor edits which I agree with and feel they improve the article. Please, accept my compromise (I'm merely followng the rule in this case; the only status quo bias Wikipedia may have is exactly in disputed like this). I have been more than forthecoming and accomodating many of your edits; now it's your turn to compromise and accept to keep the status quo version until the disputed is settled and a clear consensus is fully established. I will have no problem accepting your version, if there's a clear consensus for that. Please, let's make this compromise and not edit war after I have reverted to the status quo version, okay?--Davide King (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: Only if the term "President", "Prime Minister", or "King" is used in a generic fashion should it be written in lower case. If its directly juxtaposed with another person's name, as was the case with Francois Mitterand and Waldeck-Rousseau, then it must be capitalized, per the MoS:

• "In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference).
• Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama). Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."

And I took extra caution to keep most of your edits intact, even going as far as to edit from the most recent revision when I inserted my content. Symes2017 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: Oh my god, I am so sorry, Davide! I accidentally put in a wrong edit summary which I used to revert another vandal instead of properly notifying you about this discussion! I hope you didn't get confused too much when you saw the revision..... Symes2017 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symes2017: My "revert" didn't introduced old errors into the article; that is the status quo version. I thought we had an agreement in keeping that version (as I said, I already kept and incorporated many of your better wording edits that I found useful) and change it only after the third opinion proposal is concluded. See "except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved", i.e. exactly our case and situtation, so the status quo apply here while we get more opinons by other users too.

This reverted the many small edits I did before that and kept your favorite version. I also repeat that the same "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." now apply to you too; you may believe they made the article worse, but so I may feel the same about yours. What you termed "old errors" have been there for a long time, surely if they were "old errors" they would have been fixed by other users. I have recapitalised the words you suggested me, but please revert back to this version. I will have no problem to accept yours if that's the clear consensus, but until then we should keep that version as is the rule in disputes like this until a consensus, whether old or new, emerge.

Thank you. I don't understand what happened and what was the edit you were trying to revert, but I hope it's fine.--Davide King (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the request for a Wikipedia:THIRD on the content of the article, but its not clear exactly what the difference of opinion is over. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

PrimalBlueWolf (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Symes2017

I have inserted several edits which were supposed to improve the quality of this article, such as capitalizing titles of world leaders, removing redundant wording in the lede section, fleshing out image captions so they describe their subject in precise detail, breaking off walls of texts into coherent paragraphs, fixing longstanding errors in the "World War 1, revolutions, and counterrevolutions" section, and correcting awkward wording in the "Overlap with democratic socialism" and the "In the United States" sections. In my view, they should be allowed to stand because they improve the article's quality to be proper for GA classification, add detail to historical events such as during the "German Revolution of 1918-1919" paragraph, make the prose flow sensibly and professionally, and of course, they also flesh out image captions to provide further context about the events and historical figures depicted on said portraits. The relevant diffs are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_democracy&type=revision&diff=928643997&oldid=928632628

Viewpoint by Davide King

Capitalising title of world leaders is no longer the rule (see List of presidents of the United States, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, etc.); I already fixed the few ones which required capitalisation. The image captions have been edited in a way to allow having a dot at the end (such as Sidney Webb, a prominent and influential leader within the Fabian socialist movement to Sidney Webb was a prominent and influential leader within the Fabian socialist movement.); there's nothing wrong the way current captions are worded. It's something so minor that I don't understand what the problem even is. Symes2017 also reworded quotes without explaining why (quotes are supposed to be the way they actually are and square brackets are added to reflect changes. I have been more than forthcoming and willing to accept some of the better wording, correcting typos, etc. I have also been better at incorporating Symes2017's edits whereas Symes2017 even restored previous wording and reverted some of its own better wording that was added, also making some typos, reverting back to -ising when the article is supposed to be written in Oxford spelling and leaving double blank spaces in the process. Other unexplained and unnecessary changes include Conservatives to Tories and The Left to Die Linke. The Left is the common name, hence why it's the current article naming; I could understand if other Left parties were mentioned but there weren't. Its "breaking off walls of texts into coherent paragraphs" made it harder to see what exactly was changed, etc. It made it difficult to follow its edits, that's why I reverted while looking at them more carefully I have incorporated a good majority of them. Another difference is the unnecesary renaming of the History's subsections (see mine and long-term titles here; see Symes2017's renaming here, adding unnecessary The, or make them longer than necessary). Relevant differences here, which include some more of its wording I supported too). For what it's worth it, Symes2017 edit warred about it despite my warnings and explaining that the procedure in these cases was to keep the status quo version and wait until the dispute was fully settled. I will have no problem accept Symes2017's edits if there's consensus for that, but edit warring wasn't the way to go and I hope Symes2017 understood it now.--Davide King (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion by PrimalBlueWolf

....

Thanks for adding the summaries. I'm just here as a fresh pair of eyes: I have no special powers or authority over the article or any dispute, and I'm here solely to provide an outside opinion on the proposed content changes for the article. Making those changes as clear as possible makes that easier for me.

So there's a lot of individual changes being suggested here, and from both of your summaries it's clear that you haven't listed all of them. I'm just going to respond to the specific items listed above.

Capitalising titles of world leaders should occur when those titles are used to refer to a specific person - such as where you could say Roosevelt, President Roosevelt, or the President of the United States, interchangeably. When describing the position generally, use lowercase (Roosevelt was a American president, Louis XVI was a French king).

Without explaining the changes proposed to the lead, I can't comment on that suggestion.

Captions should be succinct, generally they don't require precise detail and are typically fragments rather than sentences. They should not end with a period (full stop, or dot) unless they extend more than one sentence - in which case, each sentence should end with a period, including the last one.

Without seeing the specific changes to paragraphs to avoid "walls of text", I can't comment.

Quotes should directly say exactly what the original source says if quote marks are used. Otherwise, replace the dialog and paraphrase if more appropriate for encyclopedic tone - taking care in that case to remove the quote marks. Without seeing the specific change being discussed, I can't comment.

Die Linke is referred to on WP as The Left (Die Linke) so it would be more appropriate to use the same name as the article does.

The MOS says "Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Simpsons)." Therefore, section headings should not start with 'The'.

If you have any other specific suggestions for improvement, feel free to add them and let's see if we can get back to editing and improving the wiki. - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Link to market socialism

Is there a reason why the link to market socialism in the article links to market socialism under market economy instead of the main article for market socialism? OganM (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate in 'Notable social democrats'

David Ben-Gurion appears twice in the list. Hagamablabla (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Huge deletion without consensus

@HoboKenobi47: I don't see any consensus for such a large deletion, or where you have discussed this with other editors. Without a consensus, you can't just do that. Please explain what and why you are doing it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, yeah. I am also afraid the user in question may be a sockpuppeter because of the few edits; this page was protected in the first place due sockpuppetry; and the user in question reverted back to a sockpuppeter's version. I write this as it would be like the third time already (between IPs and other accounts). However, even if it is not the same user (I would hope so), your point still stands and the user in question did not even incorporate all the new edits since then but mainly reverted back to that version.--Davide King (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I did the change to revert to a different version which was more accurate in many ways. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to convince others before making such changes. That's a huge amount of content you deleted. If you want to improve the article you'll have to make small edits and save them. Then deal with any fallout and convince others that your edits are really improvements. Needless to say, our faith in your intentions is rather shaken by your actions, so take it easy or you make get blocked. If you are evading a block, then stop editing anything at Wikipedia immediately. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Coincidentally, that was exactly the sockpuppetter's version. Either way, without repeating what Valjean wrote, that version was already discussed months ago above here. That version you reverted back to contained many of the errors the third opinion listed to, so no, it was absolutely not more accurate in many ways (if it was, I am pretty sure it would have stayed); and that is not even considering the unexplained removal of all sourced content added since then. Considering I have talked to the same blocked user under different names enough times now, forgive me if I am sceptical and suspicious. If it is you, the six months may have come to a close, or be very close, to ask for an unblock request, so please, if that is indeed you, I suggest you to not ruin your chance to legally return by sockpuppeting and edit warring yet again at this article, for which we had many discussion already. If it is not you, please listen to what Valjean and other users wrote you.--Davide King (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Davide King: Can you please explain this edit? Interstellarity (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's up to you to explain why the hatnote is needed. It's unlikely that someone would type in "democratic socialism," when they were looking for "social democracy," which is what use of the template requires, per Template:Distinguish. TFD (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, The Four Deuces already wrote exactly what I was going to say. By the way, there is already an hatnote at Democratic socialism about Social democracy and I believe that is enough; here it is better to have just the current one as social democracy is often confused for those and social liberalism because social democrats were the ones to implement the social-liberal paradigm lasting until neoliberalism.--Davide King (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

A Social Democracy has NOT NECESSARILY issued only from socialist thought/theory or preference.

For instance, the definition of socialism espouses the fact that all labor is a governmental service. That is, there are no private companies that create jobs since they do not exist.

This definition as employed is therefore fundamentally faulted if explaining the rudiments of a Social Democracy that has ALWAYS permitted the ownership of the means of production! Tony PERLA (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Linking 'Junker' links to the wrong page

Hello there, just something that I realized. The term 'Junkers' (in the following paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#First_International_era_and_origins_in_the_socialist_movement_(1863–1889) ) links to the wrong article. Namely the Company 'Junker'. Instead it should link to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker_(Prussia) - Beenbag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenbag (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Now changed.[2] TFD (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic of the article

This article lacks a clear topic. Since social democracy means different things, the sources will provide conflicting information, leading to lengthy talk page discussions. The following are different definitions of the term:

1. Synonym for socialism. This was the original meaning. While democracy had brought political equality (one man, one vote), social democracy would bring economic equality.

2. Reform as opposed to revolutionary socialism (aka communism). This usage was taken from the German Social Democratic Party which abandoned revolution in its 1875 Gotha Program. This is the topic of the Encyclopedia Britannica article.

3. The welfare state, named after the extensive social welfare programs pioneered by the Swedish Social Democratic Party and adopted by all developed nations by parties across the political spectrum. The party did not see the welfare state as an end in itself, but believed that if people were healthy, prosperous and educated, they were more likely to want to build socialism.

4. The right wing of parties such as the German and Swedish SDP, the French Socialist Party and the British Labour Party. The left wing is then called democratic socialist.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

DongxingJiang, please follow WP:BRD as you were reverted by me. My reason was the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and you cannot just change it like that (it is better to discuss it in the talk page); some changes were also unclear or were original research/synthesis of given sources; others were problematic such as adding refs when they should be put in the #Sources and use sfn. Please, use talkquote to give us a clear difference to show us each change you want to apply and why. Valjean, I ping you here as you were recently involved and because I wanted to ask you whether there is the risk DongxingJiang may be the same user of the other day (considering the few edits) or Symes2017 due to this page being protected because of sockpuppetry and now that it has been unprotected I believe we should still be careful.--Davide King (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is still a pretty big change and is better to be discussed at the talk page first. You also seem to be confusing socialism as an ideology (which social democracy is) and socialism as an economic system (actually exiting social democracy still follows the capitalist mode of production). This is because social democracy is mainly a reformist and gradualist ideology which follow evolutionism rather than revolutionism regarding socialism. Whether a gradual evolution and reforms would actually result in socialism does not change its history within socialism. As for your claim that social democracy is a "political ideology within the socialist movement" is mostly based on one source only, it is only one source because, again, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that is the source that goes in details about all that, hence why I chose it for the lead. As for your changes from without abolishing factor markets, private property and wage labour to with a qualitatively different socialist economic, the first is a more accurate representation of the sources and your wording is literally a quote from one source without being in quoting marks (the long-standing wording is already a good summary of sources, so I do not understand your issue with that). You may be pushing the Third Way view that see social democracy departing from socialism, but that is contradicted by the part of the lead which saw them committed either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.--Davide King (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will probably not be able to edit much until Monday, so please let's keep the article to the current version (rather than edit warring) until we can properly discuss any proposed change. I did make it a three-paragraph lead as was done here (although that is more a suggestion than a rule to be followed at all times), but all the other edits are so big and unclear that I could not incorporate much else for now.--Davide King (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

DongxingJiang, if you don't engage discussion, here, on the article talk page, you are effectively forfeiting your right to edit the main article. El_C 10:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @DongxingJiang: User:Davide King has provided a pretty comprehensive rebuttal of your proposed (radical) changes to the lead section. Please understand, per policy, it is now your responsibility to justify the material's inclusion, rather than ours for its removal.
  Please also observe the WP:BRD cycle: you have made a Bold edit (fourtimes now!); it was Reverted; now we Disscus it. We don't Keep reverting to get our own way, and we don't refuse to discuss it, except as you have been doing, solely by way of edit-summaries. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 10:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the alleged claim of incorrect information inserted without consensus, (1) I was not challenged on the talk page nor reverted; and if I were, I would have take it to the talk page and not edit warred; (2) I actually went through the Archives here (and of Democratic socialism, too, as social democracy was mentioned and discussed there as well), read them all and simply took some of the many suggestions in the article. One common complaint was that too much weight was given to the Third Way view and that it made a drastic either/or approach between capitalism and socialism that is inaccurate and generally conflating social democracy with welfare states; another was that it gave too much weight to the right-wing of social democracy and very little to none to its left-wing. I believe to have addressed those and other issues, no one challenged me or reverted me, so unilaterally reverting all that like you did was uncalled for; and (3) as I suspected, DongxingJiang is now a proven sockpuppet of SmalforaGiant.--Davide King (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the old lead was better as this one conflates social democracy with socialism which is certainly not the academic consensus. I will find a source and edit that to be more accurate. cheers :) 198.48.136.149 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Looks like the page was locked down. This is my proposed edit: "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy which developed historically from socialism, though in modern practice is a unique political ideology [3]. Social Democracy supports political and economic democracy [2], and generally governs within a system of democratic capitalism."... If you agree with this change could someone please include it. Thanks 198.48.136.149 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That is perhaps because you conflate socialism as only an economy system, something common alongside conflating the conservative Bismark for a social democrat and social democracy for welfare states. There is already a hatnote stating For the type of capitalism adopted by social democrats [among others] in the post-war period, see Democratic capitalism. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The source distinguishes two types of socialism: social democratic and revolutionary. But these two tendencies have always existed, one did not develop from the other. And in many sources the first type are referred to simply as socialists, while the second are referred to as communists. The term democratic socialist has also become popular recently for the first type. TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If this article is referring to non economic "socialism" when saying social democracy is socialism, that should be clear in the opening thesis statement of the article. The way it is currently worded leaves ambiguity, and requires the reader to either read the rest of the article or the source material to get clarity to meaning. Not all readers will invest that time so this opening statement may lead some to believe something that is not true. I think the opening statement needs far more clarity when using a term that has multiple definitions as a definition. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not saying it is socialism, it is saying within socialism, i.e. the political ideology, not the economic system. It also states that "[social demoracy's] goal at different times has been a social revolution to move away from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy such as socialism, a peaceful revolution as in the case of evolutionary socialism, or the establishment and support of a welfare state." Where exactly does it says what you are referring to? In "Definition", the definition you are actually referring to states that "[this] definition [...] is focused on ethical terms, with the type of socialism advocated being ethical and liberal." In "Political party", it states that "Some such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom make reference to socialism, either as a post-capitalist order or in ethical terms as a just society, described as representing democratic socialism, without any explicit reference to the economic system." Davide King (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Right in the next sentence, it states that social democracy "advocat[es] economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Davide King (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead begins, "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism." It's clear it is not referring to the economic system. TFD (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When you hover over the word "socialism" in the sentence "... within socialism" the pop up window states that socialism is an economic system of "social ownership" and "worker management". Since not all social democracy is this - and since you all agree the word "socialism" here is not a reference to economics - there is still a serious clarity issue here using the word "socialism" not to refer to economics when the source material definition does just that. We can do better than this. Thanks

"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary; how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change."

198.48.136.149 (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Note Socialism says it is "a political, social and economic philosophy" and already makes the distinction between the philosophical movement and the economic system. We also now say "[s]ocialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary; how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change." This includes social democrats. Also you should focus on this and not other articles. Davide King (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As modern Social Democrats are supposed to be "working within socialism", does that by definition make parties like the Social Democratic Party of Sweden or the British Labour Party ideologically non social-democratic, because they have made no modern efforts to move towards a socialist economy, where workers control the means of production. I really feel that describing Social Democracy as an ideology that works "within socialism" is misleading in that it implies that the modern objective of Social Democrats is to end the capitalist system which in practice is not the case (this implies an inflexible definition of Social Democracy which has not been in practice for well over half a century at a minimum). When I tried to provide a source saying exactly this from the Journal of Democracy, my edit was reverted. I think the practical reality of social democratic governments and how they are operating in the present holds bearing as to how this page's lead is written. The lead sentence is deceptive, and paints Social Democrats as full on Socialists, which in practice they are not. LandonWeberMSU (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the term social democracy has different meanings which this article conflates. It is equally correct to say that Marx and Lenin were social democrats and Western Europe and the United States are social democratic, depending on what you mean by social democratic. That problem with this article is that it does not have a clear topic. TFD (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

LandonWeberMSU, that is because you only see socialism as an economic system rather than a philosophy and movement. Left and right wings within social-democratic parties simply have different conceptions of socialism. Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change Davide King (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Social Democracy is not a synonym with democratic socialism

The section "overlap with democratic socialism" describes them as nearly the same, but to my knowledge, they are vastly different. Social Democrats sometimes desire a socialist system, but mostly they believe in just a strongly regulated capitalist system. I think that section seems to confused what social democracy used to be (Argbuably a sort of democratic socialism), it does not describe modern social democracy and as such, should be changed. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources say otherwise. Can you name any political parties that are democratic socialist but not social democratic? TFD (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of parties that include one and not the other——there will always be ideological diversity within parties. The question is whether they are one and the same. An example would be Die Linke, which is majority socialist but has factions of Social Democrats. The factions are important here, since if the ideologies were one and the same, there would be no need for those factions. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Anthony Wright in "Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, the term "democratic socialism" is "intended to reaffirm a commitment to system transformation rather than a merely meliorist social democracy. In much of Europe though, if not in Britain, the terms are interchangeable." He later says, "At [social democracy's heart] was a developing conviction that a reformed capitalism might not just be the route to socialism but the socialist destination itself." Apparently this revision of socialism occured at the end of WW2.[4] So yes, some writers draw a distinction, but may draw the lines differently. And note that Wright saw social democracy as a revision of socialism, not a rejection. TFD (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Anthony Wright in "Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, the term "democratic socialism" is "intended to reaffirm a commitment to system transformation rather than a merely meliorist social democracy. In much of Europe though, if not in Britain, the terms are interchangeable." He later says, "At [social democracy's heart] was a developing conviction that a reformed capitalism might not just be the route to socialism but the socialist destination itself." Apparently this revision of socialism occured at the end of WW2.[5] So yes, some writers draw a distinction, but may draw the lines differently. And note that Wright saw social democracy as a revision of socialism, not a rejection.

Parties such as die Linke are are new family of parties that combine ex-Communists and socialists from both parties such as the SDP and more left-wing minor parties. As such, they don't have an ideology and are generally referred to as "left parties," which is what they call themselves.

TFD (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Very well. Then we should include those distinctions in the article. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is already. The problem is that other authors draw the line differently and their definitions are also in the article. Some authors for example define social democracy as one of two branches of socialism, the other being communism. So the article says that Tony Blair's New Labour "affirms a formal commitment to democratic socialism, describing it as a modernized form of social democracy." But Wright would say that New Labour represented an abandonment of democratic socialism for social democracy. So it comes back to deciding on a topic for the article. TFD (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)