Talk:Laos

BRU Ethnics including Sub-Etnics: Katang, Ta-Oy, Souay, Makong, Tri, Pako 103.43.77.20 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

might be useful for the etymology section https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01182596/document

"Lao: ethnonym and autonym of the Lao people (ລາວ); nationality of the inhabitants of Laos. Formed by the monosyllabization of the etymon *k.raw" page 3 Bugofthemeadows (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Laos is a communist state that self-designates as a people's democratic state, not a socialist state. This is the official position of Lao state and the Lao People's Revolutionary Party. That is why Laotian officials talk about "Our goal is to strengthen the people’s democratic state", the 11th Plenary Session of the sitting Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party stats that its goal is to "strengthen the people's democratic state", and article 2 of the Laotian constitution reads, "The State of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is a people's democratic state." This is simply not up for discussion, and plenty of tertiary sources say the same thing: the article on the Lao People's Revolutionary Party informs about it (and is referenced by tertiary sources) as does the people's democracy article (and is sourced by tertiary sources).

Why is designating Laos a people's democratic state controversial here on Wikipedia when, in truth, its the official position of the Laotian party-state? TheUzbek (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Because the previous form of government is sourced and from what I have seen, sourced form of government in above government self-described form of government ErickTheMerrick (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

No communist state self describes as Marxist-Leninist state. TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, that is what the sources call it. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources also call it a people's democratic republic, people's democratic state and communist state. So what is your point? TheUzbek (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources I used called it a communist state and that it is guided by Marxist-Leninist ideology. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the source you used. I don't care when other sources say something else. The world does not revolve around you... TheUzbek (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying thw world revolves around me. Don't just go assuming sruff about people buddy. Bring up sources to back your claim already or stop wasting my time. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Added the following sources (as I already told you about). Are any of these sources from the Laotian state? Are all the sources academic sources from reputable sources? Ah,

• Bestari, Njoman George; Mongcopa, Caren Joy; Samson, Jindra; Ward, Keith (2006). Lao PDR: Governance Issues in Agriculture and Natural Resources (PDF). Asian Development Bank. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2025. Retrieved 21 July 2025.
• Norindr, Chou (1982). "Political Institutions of the Lao People's Democratic Republic". In Stuart-Fox, Martin (ed.). Contemporary Laos: Studies in the Politics and Society of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. University of Queensland Press. ISBN 0-312-16676-1.
• Pholsena, Vatthana (2006). Post-war Laos: The Politics of Culture, History and Identity. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-230-355-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
• Stuart-Fox, Martin (1997a). A History of Laos. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-59235-6.

Let's take a look at your sources. Does ''Britannica'' say anywhere in the source that Laos is, word-for-word, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic"? Nope. As for the source on US Department of the State, what does it say? It says "The  Lao  People's  Democratic  Republic  (LPDR)  is  a  one-party, Communist  state." Again, no word-for-word use of "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic TheUzbek (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria @TheUzbek @WeaponizingArchitecture

The infobox has again been changed to “Communist state” with the summary “rv: overdetail”. My concern is not about length, but about verifiability and precision: the current citations (Norindr; Stuart-Fox; Pholsena; Bestari et al.; High; Chang et al.; Son) describe Laos’s system as a party-led, Marxist-Leninist, one-party socialist state and its institutions. They do not explicitly label Laos’s government type as a “communist state”.

Using “Communist state” while retaining these citations creates a source–content mismatch (WP:V). If editors prefer that wording for simplicity, could we please see reliable sources that explicitly apply that label to Laos in this context? ILoveCarrotCake (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Support, I think | government_type = could be instead Unitary marxist-leninist one-party socialist state or if that's too long, then what about just simply Unitary one-party marxist-leninist state or Unitary one-party socialist state?

Also, I don't think that you actually pinged them as their names aren't linked, I can ping them for you if you wish.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist Thanks for the support. I agree with those proposals. I’m not attached to any single phrasing — whether “Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state” or a shorter variant such as “Unitary one-party socialist state” — as long as the wording reflects what reliable sources actually describe about Laos’s political system.

My main concern is simply to avoid the vague label “Communist state”, which does not seem to be explicitly supported by the current citations and is less precise for an infobox. Thanks for suggesting these alternatives.

And yes, please feel free to ping the others if my earlier pings didn’t go through. ILoveCarrotCake (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveCarrotCake First of all, you're welcome on my support :), anytime man

Second of all, yeah I could check the sources on what they say about laos's type of government but expect me to try to "squeeze" in that they were a Unitary state somewhere. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria @TheUzbek @WeaponizingArchitecture

Just pinging you guys about Carrot's proposal to see if you guys got the notification or not, opinions on it? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This was discussed here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 262#Laos. "marxist-leninist state" is synonymous with "Communist state" and all communist states are "one-party states" so no need. + Laos is not a socialist state (communism); it calls itself a people's democratic state. Its a hard no: @ILoveCarrotCake: We can take it to another dispute resolution if that is needed. TheUzbek (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: I’ve read the DRN closure. As noted there, it reflected perceived consensus at the time, but it was case-specific and does not preclude further article-level discussion, especially where new concerns about sourcing are raised.

My point here is about verifiability: the citations currently used (Norindr; Stuart-Fox; Pholsena; Bestari et al.; High; Chang et al.; Son) do not, as far as I can see, explicitly describe Laos’s government type as a “communist state”. They describe a party-led, Marxist–Leninist, one-party socialist system and its institutions.

If “Communist state” is to be used in the infobox, could you please provide reliable sources that explicitly apply that label to Laos in this context? Assertions about synonymy or general practice aren’t a substitute for RS for this specific case (WP:V).

I’m open to an RfC or further dispute resolution if needed, but I think the immediate issue is aligning the infobox wording with what the cited sources actually say. ILoveCarrotCake (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

All those sources describe it as "People's democratic state", and not what you describe it. I added all those references, and they have remained since. On Google scholar, you get 180 hits for "Laos" "Marxist-Leninist state" and 4530 for "Laos" "Communist state". I will initiate another dispute resolution to stop inaccurate and factually incorrect information to be included in the infobox. TheUzbek (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: To be clear, I am not insisting that the infobox must use the exact label “Marxist–Leninist state”. My point from the start has been that the cited sources (Norindr; Stuart-Fox; Pholsena; Bestari et al.; High; Chang et al.; Son) describe Laos’s system in substance as a party-led, Marxist–Leninist, one-party socialist order and its institutions, and that they do not explicitly label Laos’s government type as a “communist state”.

Pointing out what the sources describe, and questioning whether a different label is actually supported by them, is not WP:OR. I am not synthesising a new classification; I am asking that the infobox wording be directly supported by what reliable sources explicitly say about Laos (WP:V).

Google Scholar hit counts for search terms don’t demonstrate how those terms are used in the literature, nor do they substitute for citing specific works and pages that explicitly describe Laos as a “communist state” in this context.

If the sources explicitly describe Laos as a “people’s democratic state”, then that only strengthens the point that the infobox should reflect that wording, rather than replacing it with an inferred umbrella term. If “Communist state” is to be used, it needs reliable sources that explicitly apply that label to Laos.

My position remains simple: the infobox should match what the cited sources actually state about Laos, not what is inferred from party ideology, general practice, or search statistics. ILoveCarrotCake (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I think an overlooked factor with the google scholar argument is the fact that "Communist" in popular discourse refers specifically to Marxist-Leninism, and likely for the sake of making the academic works accessible, they replace it with "Communist" and when other variants appear, they use the proper terms (i.e "Left-Communist" or "Trotskyist" or "Anarcho-communist", etc. Determining Marxism-Leninism as "Communist state" gives an unfair POV push in favor of Marxism Leninism, even with the best intentions from Uzbek (who seems well versed on the topic). _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 18:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs: "Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. We reflect what the wider world of serious thought has made of what is right and wrong, but we present that neutrally, instead of advocating for what we think is right. "

If these sources present it as a communist state, we also have to present it as a communist state, because we cannot right great wrongs. TheUzbek (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a reason why there exist scholarly articles, such as "What is a communist system?", "The new class; an analysis of the communist system", "Systems theory and the communist system", "What is communism?", "The Comparative Study of Communist Political Systems", "The Communist System", "Communist and Post-Communist Systems", "The nature of the communist system: Notes on state, party, and society", "The transformation of communist systems". If I search for "Marxist-Leninist system" or "Marxist-Leninist state", I get nothing. TheUzbek (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The second one you cited is theory by a Yugoslav politician, not an academic work. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Support If the sources contradict with the terminology used, change it. I would however simplify it to "Unitary Marxist-Leninist republic" or "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state", since "One party" and "Socialist" are redundant. Maybe the former can be kept for accessibility to those not fully in tune with how Marxism-Leninism operates, but in all cases, "Socialist republic" is redundant. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both the lead and the body describe this as a communist state, and the template is meant to provide a summary rather than a novel description per MOS:IBP. Additionally it is meant to be brief rather than ultraprecise; leaving it blank would be preferable to the proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  That is not what the sources say. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 04:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  See the section above for examples of sources that say exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  None of the sources that Uzbek cited in the talk page are what the sources in the article say. The contention here is not what ought to be. The contention brought up here was that the sources used right now describe Laos as a "Marxist-Leninist" state, not a "Communist state", and trying to quantify both into the same category leads into original research. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? All the sources I have cited cite what I say. Do you have proof of otherwise? TheUzbek (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Did you read what ILoveCarrotCake even mentioned? Again, this is not what ought to be. The current sources use the term "Marxist Leninist". _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 18:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  What has been said is the truth. Those sources were found to verify that Laos was a people's democratic state. And then someone started a discussion that was supervised by an external admin, and that process reached the conclusion that communist state should be used instead of people's democratic state. However, as I have shown above, I have no problems finding sources that references it is a communist state. Even some of the sources used here (I've rechecked them) refer du Laos as governed by a communist government/state/system. I advice you to read other people’s comments. TheUzbek (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've removed the footnote at issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, sure. "Marxist-Leninist state" is also the same exact thing as "People's democratic state" or whatever you're using.

  Why use another term if the source being used says "Marxist Leninist" as pointed out by ILoveCarrotCake. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 01:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Compromise? - I see a lot of you guys wanting to keep Laos as a communist state while the other side would like Laos to be more of a marxist-leninist state

  My proposal?

  What about Unitary marxist-leninist communist state to get both sides's demands? so that this conversation doesn't get turned into an argument over something so trivial.

  or maybe have me alternatively host a poll where people would vote on what they would like? and I'll only participate in said voting if the poll needs a tiebreaker (like the results could maybe have it be 2|2 for each side, I might have to intervene on that one.)

  GuesanLoyalist (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  The article's name is communist state. See the attempted RFC on Talk:Communist state. Let's retain this. TheUzbek (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe be more open to compromise with other people? Being block still with your point and not accepting negotiations may drive the discussion to go nowhere and cause an outburst of arguments.

  As of speaking, this thread has a total of 28 comments (including the one that you're reading about), and I personally don't think that we're making much progress with this. We have to be more Pragmatic to reach a conclusion.

  GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  We have a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 262#Laos to. Go by, and an article that has the name communist state. No reason to not use that name when it reflects WP:CONSENSUS and when the proposer is actively trying to change that consensus and failing. As showed on Talk:Communist state communist state is the term most used by scholars. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources say and not be dominated by fringe theorists or fringe terms. If you want to use fringe terms be my gjest, but then your breaching Wikipedia policy. TheUzbek (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can now properly see on why you're more "hardline" (for lack of a better word) on this issue, thanks for showing a new perspective to me as I appreciate it.

  But wait until the other people (Nikki, Carrot, and WeaponArchit) say their opinions before a consensus can be reached. They might be at school, sleeping, or doing whatever else so we have to be patient.

  GuesanLoyalist (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the proposed "compromise" is a viable option, and given that you've expressed an opinion in this discussion you're not in a position to act as a neutral arbiter, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  As always, I have no clue what you are talking about. I am just informing you that a peocess occurred and that somebody else changed it and nobody removed the sources. People's democratic state is a communist state formation, so yes, more or less the same thing. TheUzbek (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria, WeaponizingArchitecture, and ILoveCarrotCake: I have now updated the refs. They now all cite the fact that Laos is called a communist state in academic literature. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  What exactly was wrong with the previous sources? _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 16:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing. As I have told you three/four times already, I used them to cite that Laos was a people's democratic state. And then an external admin reached the conclusion that communist state was best, but the references were not updated. Now they are updated. TheUzbek (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  But there was nothing wrong with the "unupdated" sources. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 20:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  They referenced that Laos was a people's democratic state, but the current infobox clearly marks it as a communist state. So the refs need to reference that. TheUzbek (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, is there any source that this image: , is actually the new version of the Laos emblem?.

I searched over some sites from the Laos government, and all of them uses the old version, and even the page of the new constitution uses the old one Felipe Fidelis Tobias (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! All three emblems you link to are at least slightly different. 3 and 4 have five "spires" in front of the top structure (Pha That Luang Pagoda), wheras #2 (the National Assembly) has two spires) and the "new version" has 9 spires, with a small spire at each end of the 9. Also, the coloring of the gridlines on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is black but on the Constitution it is green. There is a gallery of historical images here: Emblem of Laos. On wikimedia commons, the 'new one' says it is an upload of own work (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_Laos.png), so I wonder if that person was trying to make a nice high-res image. But it doesn't match the most recent version on the Emblem of Laos page. Since the Constitution defines the emblem (Article 114), I think we should use the one they use on their doc: https://britchamlaos.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Constitution-of-the-Lao-PDR-Revised-2025.docx.pdf. There is a SVG version here that is close but not quite the same: Constitution of Laos#/media/File:Emblem of Laos (1991-2025).svg. Differences include the one on the constitution document has a dark blue element right under the stupa and the SVG does not; the one on the constitution has some reddish orange coloring to the left of the hydroelectric waterfall and the svg has some tan ground and a green tree. What to do.... Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend to semi-protect this article of Laos. Unregistered users are constantly doing wrong edits here. ~2026-13101-66 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeing a banner about AI generated content, I reviewed WP:AISIGNS and reviewed this 2025 partial rewrite which had been flagged as the offending text and much of the AI-speak seems to have been re-edited back to plainer language. I am planning to check the rest of the article and then to remove the template unless someone objects in the next few days.

Re: template noted WP:AISIGNS in superficial analyses, vocab distribution typical of 2024-25 LLM text, etc (February 2026) ) Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the removal of "After a period of internal conflict" has stuck, which may not be an issue. The AI economy stuff probably still needs to be reverted though. CMD (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I re-applied the flag for the moment, seeing as it was removed by a user currently under investigation for LLM abuse - along with the insertion of more questionable content. No objection to editors without such history removing when they deem it appropriate. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you removed the questionable content? I did re-read the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Guide in mind, and think that with the edits subsequent to this 2025 partial rewrite have removed most if not all offending AI stuff? I realize GPT zero is not foolproof but as a second check I ran the text of the article through it and it was highly confident it was human-authored text. I'll plan to remove the tag Thursday morning unless folks have more to suggest in terms of review / edits. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

All I did was restore the tag. I wasn't sure about the associated addition (or any other content), which is why I didn't just revert, but someone else appears to have done so since (with justification unrelated to LLM use). The only thing I am sure of is that the editor who removed it initially shouldn't be the one making the determination. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag unless the puffery economy AI stuff in the lead is reverted/fixed. CMD (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't most of that section be in History anyway? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is a WP:LEADFIXATION issue separate to the AI rewriting of said text. CMD (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Which tool is it that allows you to check which text was added when? I'm willing to take a stab at it if I'm able to identify a specific edit or two where it was added, but if it comes down to language analysis I'll leave that for a more experienced editor (ideally from WP:AIC). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No tool, just comparing the diff at the start of this section to the current lead. While most of the early diff has been reverted or subsequently edited, "Laos's development strategy emphasizes regional connectivity through infrastructure development" (very odd wording) onwards remains with a number of journal sources where specific pages were not included, so a decent amount to look through. CMD (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I've seen other people mention something you can use to go through and check what was added when/by who, without manually reviewing every edit. I'm not sure how it works though. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat You can do that with WP:WikiBlame for specific text, or mw:Who Wrote That? if you want the whole page analysed. CMD (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, thanks! I'll poke around and see what I can come up with. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree that sentence just needs to go. Also the paragraph it was in was jumbled - major tourist sites mixed with political redundant sentence and economy info.I deleted a sentence about fastest growing economies as it is at least outdated if not inaccurate, as compared with a recent press release from the World Bank "https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/12/11/lao-economy-improves-but-lasting-growth-requires-sustained-reforms-and-road-network-revamp" Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)