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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Template:Decommunization in Europe since 1989 be renamed and moved to Template:Anti-communism in Europe since 1989. result: Moved. See a rough consensus below to rename this template. Rough because the opposing rationale was compelling, although supporting editors also had weighty arguments. Perhaps a split into two navbars is warranted? Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Links: current log • target log This is template ((subst:Requested move/end))

Template:Decommunization in Europe since 1989 → Template:Anti-communism in Europe since 1989 – Most of the entries in the template are concerned with anti-communism, such as resolutions condemning communism, institutions that raise awareness about negative aspects of communism, media such as The Black Book of Communism, etc. In contrast, only a few of the template entries are related to decommunization, which does not apply in many parts of Europe that were never communist to begin with. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Decommunization is a specific phenomenon. Much of the content in this template is specifically related to that. Anti-communism itself is a very broad topic (and article). I wouldn't object strongly to "anti-communism and decommunization in Europe since 1989", but decommunization should be included. --Tataral (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If, as you suggest, the template covers two subjects—anti-communism and decommunization—then the proper fix would be to split it (I recommend into Template:Anti-communism in Europe since 1989 and Template:Decommunization in the former Eastern Bloc). (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the same topic. I see no need to include anti-communism in the title (decommunization is a facet of that), but don't oppose it as long as the most specific term is also included. --Tataral (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same topic, really? Please explain how any of the European Parliament or Council of Europe parliament resolutions "decommunize" anything, given that neither EU or Council of Europe was ever Communist and indeed neither assembly ever had more than a tiny fraction of members from Communist parties. (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Decommunization is "the process of dismantling the legacies of communist state establishments, culture, and psychology" in a broad sense. Many of the member states of the EU and the Council of Europe have a history of communism, or more accurately, occupation by the communist Soviet Union. The developments within EU institutions, the Council of Europe and the OSCE are clearly part of the process of decommunization in Europe; indeed those resolutions and other initiatives directly call for the dismantling of the communist legacy in Europe, by means of remembrance, political initiatives and even criminalization. --Tataral (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, such resolutions are symbolic and have no actual effect in "decommunizing" anything. You would also have to remove the entire "media" section as that also, does not "decommunize" anything either, just express authors' opposition to communism. Furthermore, is there any reliable source stating that Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests opposes decommunization? None is cited in the article, which along with many other articles listed in this template, fails WP:V. Note that verifiability *policy* applies to any template visible in mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, there are sources that state that in explicit terms. E.g. Kuzio, Taras (2016). "Soviet and Russian anti-(Ukrainian) nationalism and re-Stalinization". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 49 (1). doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.005. which links the Presidential Commission with the Incredibly Long Name to opposition to de-communization. Regarding the rest of your comment, I don't find it to be very reasonable; that the resolutions, remembrance activities, media and the other material you mention are part of this topic (whether we call it "decommunization" or "anti-communism") is self-evident and uncontroversial, even among opponents of these developments. --Tataral (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • But in order to "decommunize" anything, it requires not only intent but effects, and it has to be verifiable according to policy. How many EU citizens have even heard of the 2019 resolution, for instance, and of those who have, does it really have any impact on what they think about prior communist regimes? You have to cite in each article that RS say it has worked towards or achieved decommunization. (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is not an interpretation of decommunization that I share. It is not necessary for our purposes to conduct any original research on whether declarations have had any "effects" (there appears to be consensus among the opponents of these declarations who have said something about them that they have had an effect; that they have had effect is also covered in the scholarly literature and other sources). The 2019 resolution was a stern rebuke of Putin from a great majority of the EP, in response to "a concerted effort from the Russian foreign ministry earlier [in 2019] to rehabilitate the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact"[1], that garnered a fair amount of press coverage and provoked an angry response from the Russian president, and the conflict with Putin over the legacy of Soviet communism (or more precisely the efforts to dismantle it) in recent years has been extensively covered and commented upon. What its practical effects are is not necessary for us to speculate on here in the context of this template. --Tataral (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Bottom line is that verifiability is not optional. You have to cite RS in each article connecting everything in the template to decommunization. Or else move the template to a broader topic, as I suggested. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – decommunization "is most commonly applied to the former countries of the Eastern Bloc and the post-Soviet states to describe a number of legal and social changes during their periods of postcommunism." This seems to be an accurate summary, hence Buidhe's proposal makes more sense. "In some states, decommunization includes bans on communist symbols. While sharing common traits, the processes of decommunization have run differently in different states." As far I know, only these in the former countries of the Eastern Bloc have applied such decommunization bans. So either the template is only about decommunization in the former Communist states, or it should be about anti-communism in Europe since 1989, since they have made resolutions condemning communism, equating it with Nazism, or making no apparent distinction between communism and Stalinism and/or the state ideologies of former Communist states; if anti-communism is really anti-Communism, i.e. anti-Stalinism et al., many communists are anti-Communists; this definition makes no sense. Decommunization is indeed "a specific phenomenon" but only in reference to these states under Communist rule, not to all Europe. These are indeed two different topics, hence the proposal to split sounds good. Davide King (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.