Talk:Communist International

Spelling/caps

• Why is Comintern spelled in capitals in the article title and in the text? This was not the usual English usage.
• In any case, why is the article called Comintern and not Communist International, the organisation's correct name?

Adam 10:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) The spelling seems to be about half and half either way (via Google.) 2) 45,000 vs. 33,000 on Google for the abbreviation vs. the long form. -Joseph (Talk) 10:54, 5 October 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Google should be the determinant. The organisation was called the Communist International. Comintern was a Russian abbreviation which later became established jargon within the Communist parties. The article should use the correct name, with a redirect from Comintern. Adam 11:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, they used COMINTERN in my PoliSci classes. How about yours? -Joseph (Talk) 11:18, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

In capitals? I doubt that. Anyway, an encyclopaedia is not just for the petit bourgeois intelligentsia. It is for the broad masses of the proletariat and peasantry. In any case this is a very inadequate article which I will have a go at rewriting when I have time. Adam 11:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You think? Google apparently has been the deciding factor in a lot of cases. I had to live with it for reconnaissance satellite versus spy satellite, so guess what. It applies to everyone. And listen to you get all Marxist on us! I can only assume you're doing it for effect. -13:52, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to those who insist on accurate usages. Adam 01:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh. That's exactly what I was trying to do. COMINTERN is at least as accurate as Communist International. Wikipedia rules are for everyone. -Joseph (Talk) 01:55, 6 October 2004 (UTC)

The entry is total rubbish at present. No use to anybody and terribly unbalanced. This was an incredibly important body for much of its history. I've not the time to begin a proper rewrite at present but I will map out a rough structure that will allow the entry to be rerwritten in easy chuncks taking into consideration its history. I would also suggest renaming Communist International as this was its proper name despite the common use of the abreviation Comintern. I would also suggest moving liusts such as the Twenty-One Conditions and lits of affiliated parties and so forth to their own entries. This will allow their reproduction in full without unbalancing this entry. Heres hoping these suggestions work for youse guys.

Jock Haston

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Communist International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913130539/http://www.indiana.edu/~ceus/u469week7a.htm to http://www.indiana.edu/~ceus/u469week7a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist International. 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/20070928095230/http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No3/Melogran.html to http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No3/Melogran.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121205060032/http://www.comintern-online.com/ to http://www.comintern-online.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not seeing agreement here to return to the article title, "Comintern", so we will keep the present title for now. As usual with a no consensus decision, there is no prejudice toward future attempts to garner consensus for the portmanteau title. Happy Holidays to all! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Communist International → Comintern – Per WP:COMMONNAME: Google Ngram. Also per WP:CONSISTENCY: We have articles titled Anti-Comintern Pact, 1st Congress of the Comintern, List of delegates of the 2nd Comintern congress etc. Timmyshin (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. James (^talk/_contribs) 10:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Google Ngram evidence convincingly supports Comintern. Comintern was also the article title until this undiscussed move in 2014. -Zanhe (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the common name. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Shortened forms like Comintern skew ngram results due to their overuse in texts, due to the tendency of writers towards brevity and repetition. Much like how FBI is in far greater use overall than the full name of the agency, but our article exists at Federal Bureau of Investigation because using the full name of the organization is clear, complete, and professional for WP purposes. -- Netoholic @ 10:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Fair point, but Comintern is not an acronym like FBI, and it's more widely used also because of the infamous Anti-Comintern Pact, which is almost never called the Anti-Communist International Pact. We also have Category:Comintern, under which most articles use "Comintern". For the sake of common name and consistency, it's better to use Comintern, which is in any case the longstanding former title. -Zanhe (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Netoholic. 'Comintern' is basically an abbreviation of 'Communist International', so it is essentially two variantions of the same, common name. My preference would be 'Third (Communist) International', but ok with the current title for now. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Full names are better in cases like this for the same reason they are better for people. Srnec (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I feel that Communist International feels more encyclopedic in this case and that having Comintern bolded in an adjacent parenthetical in the lead sentence should be sufficient to orient those arriving from the relevant redirect page. And, FWIW, the Libray of Congress goes with a combination[1] and marxisthistory.com leads with just "The Communist International" in the title[2] – though the parenthetical was included with their entry in search results. If I wasn't pretty sure it would be contrary to 'official' present WP title styling best practices (for overlapping with disambiguation styling, I think), I'd suggest we use Communist International (Comintern) here as well. But as stated, I don't think that's presently a viable option. ––A Fellow Editor– 13:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move back per Zanhe. A [3] better ngram also indicates about a 2:1 preference. Sources use both terms. Either is acceptable, so the undiscussed bold move should be reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: § Requested move above (from 30 June 2014) has a brief sparsely attended WP:Requested move that eventually followed from the unilateral move User:Zanhe linked to previously. It led to having Communist International as the current title.
  

Personally, I find that Comintern feels more familiar (ie common) to me, but I think fair argument could be made for Communist International having a more encyclopedic sensibility to it ...

Suggestion: Perhaps keep Communist International as the main title and then restyle the lead sentence from, "The Communist International, abbreviated as Comintern and also known as the Third International (1919–1943), was ...", to, "The Communist International (Comintern), known also as the Third International (1919–1943), was ...", so as give the briefer, perhaps more colloquial, version a bit more prominence (parenthetical, right next to the initial bold term, as has been done with abbreviated instances elsewhere). --A Fellow Editor (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Note

Sounds reasonable. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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