I am not comfortable with the title of this template.

Communism didn't fall. It is an ideology, which is still supported by many people around the world. Communist parties are represented in many parliaments. Parties that call themselves "communist", or something close to that, rule in North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Kerala, Moldova and other countries (they are very different from each other, of course).

What fell in the early 1990's is the Soviet bloc. So i propose to rename this template to "Fall of the Soviet bloc", or "the Eastern bloc" or something in that vein. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby propose that Aung San should not be included as a communist leader under this template. Despite being a founder of the Communist Party of Burma, his contributions specifically to a communist cause were limited to the extent that did not distinguish as a communist, much less a communist leader. We must note that he was also a founder of BhyG and the Socialist Party, which he contributed to much more than the CPB. If anything, the only certainties that have been inferred about him were that he was a nationalist and anti-imperialist. His actions and words did not reflect a specifically communist belief. In addition, further into his political career, he separated with the CPB and led the remaining (non-communist) parties under the AFPFL. He was by no means a 'lifelong communist'. Last but not least, both his daughter and Whitney have noted the relative insignificance of his role as a 'communist', a distinction which is made all the more stark when weighed against his other contributions as a freedom fighter and nationalist. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In its early stages, the AFPFL was a socialist party. In his early career, Aung San did much to further the communist cause in Burma. He was a massive influence. This template is to aid navigation for readers. Aung San's name is essential to the topic of Communism in Burma, since he was a founder of the Communist movement there. Nightw 23:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and Mengistu are listed in this template. They were in the Soviet sphere of influence, but did anything particularly notable happen in Ethiopia in 1989 that warrants inclusion in this template? If anything, I would expect to find them in a "Template:Revolutions of 1991" but no such template exists. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an editor recently moved the template from Template:Fall of Communism for "accuracy", "neutrality" and "precision", and to "match the article". I'm not sure why the year was listed since your observation also applies to alot of other items included. I think it was an ill-sighted move since the mover edits Chinese-related articles, and 1989 was the year of the Tianaman Square incident. I'd say either move it back, or move it to a better title. Nightw 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think to check the history as templates don't typically change the way articles do. I can see the point of the Feb. 21 page move, but the result was neither accurate nor precise (at least not where Ethiopia is concerned). I'd suggest coming up with a better name than "Revolutions of 1989", and/or obtaining consensus as to the contents of the template. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the content relates to the rapid decrease (or "fall") of communism following the climax of the Cold War. I personally don't see much of a POV issue with the old title (which I've reverted to), but that could be just me. I think it's up to whoever wants to change it to propose a better alternative...one that fits right this time. Nightw 11:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the particular editor explain why Chiang Kai Shek belong to the article? He was dead in 1975, and would not have a leader in the Revolutions of 1989, just as Mao Zedong or US Presidents before Reagan does not belong here.60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also is there any guideline on the inclusion of particular leaders here? I'd persume that we only include Cold War leader in power around 1989, and not people who died a decade earlier.60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a navigation box on the decline of Communism in the leadup to the 1989 revolutions. CKS was an anti-Communist leader during this time. Readers will be interested in his article. Nightw 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Chiang Kai Shek who died in 1975. What is your problem, Night w?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this template isn't specifically about 1989. That misconception may have arisen from the leftover title in the topbox after a recent move/move back. The template is supposed to be about decline of communism on the world stage, as you can see if you look at its early stages. I've left CKS off for now, but as said, he was an obviously prominent anti-communist leader in China... Nightw 04:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most reformists favored a positive vision of liberalization and democratization rather than being simply anti-communists.

The article anti-communism is POV-corrupted and should not be linked until it gains NPOV status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding my strong concerns, I used the following line, trying to work for consensus:

• Communism · Liberalization and Democratization · Criticism of communism and Anti-communism

Is that acceptable Night w?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are the one that (just a few days ago) placed a NPOV tag on the article in question and called it "disgusting", yet you failed to elaborate or open a discussion to raise your concerns. Could you do this, please? Also note that removing links to articles in navboxes is not normal procedure in cases of quality concerns. In answer to your question, though, your revision is fine. Regards, Nightw 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This box seems to confuse the Third Wave Democracy and Fall of Communism. What does the Philippino UNIDO, who fought right-wing Marcos got to do with for exemple the Polish Solidarnosc who actually fought against a Communist regime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.208.71 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]