Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 4

message: There is absolutely nothing here on how he died. Genjix 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How did he die?

message: *Maybe it would be relevant to clarify that Marx's doctoral thesis was in philosophy? This seems to not be generally understood (as he is known mostly for his economic theories and for studying law). Kronocide 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested additions

message: We already had a lengthy debate over conflict theory.  For starts, whoever added the sentence I just deleted: what is your source?  Please make sure you are complying with Wikipedia: No original research.  Besides that, I urge you to review the reasons why an earlier section on conflict theory was taken out:  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict theory

message: The wiki page Political_emancipation needs attention. Currently it is only a stub and could use some expert infilling. 
Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' If you are wondering if there is a modern need for this word, I found the following web page [] with a short question to answer.
FredrickS 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Emancipation

message: :::The following text has been deleted from this article with the explanation "Criticism on a bio?" Well, resoundingly yes, criticism on a bio! As I've shown, criticism is not only permitted, but mandatory, for the bio of just about any controversial figure in history. Therefore this should be re-integrated as much as is worth salvaging into this page in brief, and into Marxism in more depth for the ideas specifically about Marxism:  -Silence 22:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Giant number of weasel words in the first paragraph of this criticism, at least. Why not try sourcing those claims before just sticking them straight back in? Famous Mortimer 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism on a bio? [[Criticism of Pope John Paul II|Say]] [[Criticism of Prem Rawat|it]] [[George W. Bush#Public perception and assessments|ain't]] [[Mother Teresa#Criticism|so]]!

message: The article contains the following sentence, and I can't figure out what the second clause has to do with the first clause:  "The clash between Marx's own theoretical framework and the umbrella term "Marxist" is often misconstrued, a prime example being the bias placed against studying Marx’s writings during the Cold War period in American academic institutions."  I don't really understand this sentence.  What is it trying to say?  That there was bias against studying Marx because of anti-Communism?  A)  I can't tell if that is the intended meaning.  B)  Seems to me that bias would have existed anyway.  Anyway, I'd be interested to know if this sentence seems intelligible to anyone else. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that bit could be clearer. I thought it was trying to distinguish between Marxism as a methodology for the study of society and Marxism as an analytical framework for the transformation of society. Now that I read that back I don't think I made it any clearer though... Anyhow, I thought it referred to those sociologists, historians and others who make use of Marxian methods and concepts without (necessarily)subscribing to Marx's conclusions - and that said work was marginalised because of anti-communism. As you say, that would have happened anyway, but to a more extreme degree at high-points in the cold war, I would think. It isn't a very clear passage, I would agree. Mattley 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the key point is that Marx considered himself both a philosopher/historian and a revolutionary but that many of the people who have been influenced by him, or invoke him, have been only one or the other.  There is (according to plenty of scholars, as well as Marxists) a tension within Marx's thought between determinism and activism.  This is a tension that has led to conflicts among Marx's political heirs (e.g. Trotsky – back when he was a menshovick – and Lenin), but also explains why it has been so easy for people with very diverse political and intellectual projects (say, Stalin and Rosa Luxemborg, or Rosa Luxemborg and Herbert Marcuse) to invoke Marx as an insipiration or authority. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification/assistance

message: It says here:
*"For many years, especially after the Second World War during the Cold War period, Marxism was popularly equated with communism"
Duh?
Who wrote "The Communist Manifesto"?????
If Marx isn't associated with Communism, then what is he associated with?  Socialism.  Google it. 
OK, it goes on to say something about totaliarianism, but the sentence needs redone...in fact, I'm gonna do it..
Camillustalk|contribs 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx and Communism 

message: I changed "communism" to "system in the USSR", and Saketh changed it to the "state capitalist system in the USSR".
There is a body of opinion that says the system in the USSR was "state capitalist", ie. followers of Tony Cliff, but it is an "opinion" ie. POV, so therefore I removed "state capitalist", and let's just leave it as the "system in the USSR".
My original intention was to remove "communism", as you won't find many people who could justify calling the system in the USSR "communism", not even Stalin, obviously not Trotsky - only those who want to disparage "communism" - so leave it ALL out, and just call it "the system in the USSR".
Camillustalk|contribs 18:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Infinity0, your point is reasonable, but misplaced.  There have in fact been major debates over how to represent the economic system of the USSR.  Those debates are too complex to include in this article, which is not about the USSR.  They should be explained (complying with NPOV) in the USSR article.  However, to pick one position from that debate and present it here as fact violates our NPOV policy.  My suggestion: how did the CPUSSR describe their economy?  Then write, "the self-proclaimed ... x system ... in the USSR" which makes it clear that this was their own POV, and have links to articles where debates over other POVs are covered. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what the SWP would have you believe, the characterisation of the USSR as a state capitalist regime was not original to Tony Cliff. It was used by the Socialist Party of Great Britain after a fashion, by groups like Socialisme ou Barbarie and by a number of left communist/ultra-left groups critical of the USSR. I'm not suggesting that Cliff stole the idea, which seems to have been developed separately in several different instances. The use of 'State Capitalism' certainly marked out Cliff and his followers from mainstream Trotskyism, but the concept is absolutely not inseparable from Tony Cliff. Mattley (Chattley) 20:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I take your point. I wasn't suggesting that this article was the place where the point needed to be addressed, but simply challenging an assertion that had alreadly been made. If anyone does want to discuss it further Talk:State capitalism would be the place. Mattley (Chattley) 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why so hung up on the word? The way he used it and the way it was used in Stalin's Russia are a million miles apart. Maybe you should look at things without being hung up on a word which obviously makes Marx look a lot worse. Famous Mortimer 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Capitalism 

message: The section that was eliminated because of alleged POV and lack of sources seems to me such a balanced presentation of major critiques of (at least orthodox) Marxism, as well as of the Marxist response to those, that I don't see the POV problem.  I do think that it could benefit from some editing (e.g. "many say"), but I think it would be better to add sources than to take out that section, since it seems like a quite responsible section. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring cut section on different criticisms of Marxism

message: I was surprised to learn Marx once worked for a NY newspaper (name I can't recall...). Is anyone else? Include it?  Trekphiler 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he wrote for the New York Daily Tribune, and it is worth mentioning because he wrote a number of articles for it with analyses of political events of the time (e.g. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm). Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All the news that's fit to print 

message: Seems to about Marxism. I suggest removing it from this article. Despite the name, Marxism is also very much the work of Engels. The text also mentions developments in theory and practice long after Marx's death. Ultramarine 12:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: Due to frequent vandalism, I have semiprotected this page. I intend to experiment with lifting semiprotection in a few days. --Improv 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  +semiprotect 

message: Marx earn a doctorate in 1841 with a thesis on Difference between Democrites's and Epicure's philosophy of Nature : original title Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie. The article should precise that, this work is not the major one, but nevertheless quite important to understand Marx's philosophy.
:I agree. Go ahead! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctorate 

message: "AlexanderStatue of Marx and Engels in Alexanderplatz, Berlin.The statues acquired the unofficial nickname "the Pensioners", and were also said to be sitting on their suitcases waiting for permission to emigrate to the West."
:I think this sentence is apparently disgusting, offensive and must be removed. Even capitalists may not insult these two great figures like this. Imiraven 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statues of K. Marx & F. Engels in Alexanderplatz, Berlin

message: What's up with the picture?  It looks like his famous portrait, but changed to b&w to make it look like a photo.  A bit decieving, if you ask me.  Why not just use the original portrait?  Citizen Premier 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: <rant> HOLY SHIT how did everyone miss that Trier is NOT in Prussia for so long??? </rant> -- infinity0 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussia 

message: There's an error in the image caption of the box. I've tried to repair it but wasn´t successful. Could anyone try?
--Francisco Valverde 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's an error... 

message: How is "humanitarian" POV? Marx worked all his life to be a humanitarian, to stop the exploitation of workers. -- infinity0 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lenin and Stalin did this too. Are they also humanitarians? Probert 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Marx was not just a philosopher. He wrote extensively in journals, for the New York Times, and he was leader of the First International. -- infinity0 17:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I realise I should have been clearer. He wrote mainly on social issues and the conditions of the working class. -- infinity0 18:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, quite a lot of people think Marx was a humanitarian. For example, Google search gives many articles stating Marx was a humanitarian or attributing humanitarianism to Marxist philosophy. This is the most direct example I can find, though digging will probably net me some more well-known sources. -- infinity0 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the first 10, only 1 links Marx and humanitarianism. And your link was a term paper for sale. The First International was a union of political groups and unions, and Marx was present as an academic and political figure, not as a union activist. --Mmx1 18:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One who is devoted to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms; a philanthropist.
Karl Marx was certainly devoted to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms. -- infinity0 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not citing wiki as a source for an article; it's perfectly legitimate to cite it in a discussion. I'm maintaining consistency between the article and the category. Specificially, wiki makes a distinction between humanist and humanitarian (a distinction the dictionary definitions are very vague about), and the categories should reflect that. The International article also indicates he was one of several leaders, and that it eventually split into Marxist and Anarchist camps. Though involved in activism, he certainly did not devote his life to it and the preponderance of his time was devoted to the academic and philosophical promotion of humanity, and hence is properly a humanist, not a humanitarian. --Mmx1 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're thinking of Marx just as a philosopher. He was very active in his earlier and mid-life - comparable to Mandela or Gandhi. He was even accused of incitement to armed rebellion, but acquitted by a Cologne jury. -- infinity0 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Marxist and I'm not pissed off at you :P -- infinity0 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tongue in cheek; I don't see those details about his earlier life in the entry; certainly from the article (which I did bother to read before the deletion), there's ver little about that aspect of his life; the treatment of his early life mentions only his philosophical influcences. --Mmx1 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biography of Marx by Friedrich Engels. Quite a lot of stuff about his activity there, too long to list here. -- infinity0 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not questioning it; just saying that should be worked into the article, because it certainly gave me the wrong impression. --Mmx1 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll add a section to the top of the talk page to ask for help in doing this. Are you OK with the category now? -- infinity0 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. --Mmx1 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Popper quote is meaningful and valid - a verifiable source and also appropriate (whereas chatroom messages or blogs are not).  By the way, a humanist is not a philosopher of humanitarianism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, no worries :) -- infinity0 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I'm rather unpleasntly surprised that previous talk I've participated in was deleted, not archived. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I think that other angles on this charlatan and racist should be available to the general public. Not that my part in the discussion is of much importance, but, where is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&oldid=19771937#Marx_the_anti-Semite gone ? I thought it was archived. Am I mistaken ? Mir Harven 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I see it on the Archive 3 page. Objection withdrawn. Mir Harven 16:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the wiki policy on the talk page(s) ?

message: I'd really like to make this a featured article. I've been up all night cutting it down to size, tidying, etc. The only thing which was raised on the featured articles page for this article which I haven't yet knocked into shape is referencing. If anyone else wants to do it, go for it, otherwise I'll probably get to it fairly soon. Mgekelly - Talk 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it seems that the current featured article nomination has been archived. My plan is for myself, and any other interested parties, to get it up to scratch and renominate it. Let's get Karl Marx on the Wikipedia homepage! Mgekelly - Talk 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an excellent article. Best and most up-to-date written in one place?. Terrible shame is hasn't before.. I am sure Hayek, Rand and other darlings and right-wing philosophies have been on there. Yes I will help! -- max rspct leave a message  12:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HOw is the progress for featured article status? I'd like to help too, on this May Day, of all days. Giovanni33 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some minor unhelpful edits aside, really all that need to be done now is get the referencing in order. We're doing the footnote style with ref tags - see Wikipedia:Footnotes and #Referencing below. When that's done I have no doubt we can nominate and get featured article status! mgekelly 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I thought that the belief that Demuth's child was Karl Marx's was held pretty much across the board. How does the matter really stand? Were there any contemporary doubters (other than Eleanor Marx)? Hasdrubal 19:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frances Wheen, one of latest biographers..seems convinced. Provides evidence. -- max rspct leave a message  12:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David McLellan seconds this in his book: "Karl Marx -  His Life and Thought", so we have two verifiable sources. --Knucmo2 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the comment "The rumour lacks any direct corroboration" since we now have two authoritative sources which seem to verify the remark.  The above comment too seems like a POV edit now that we have found some sources (that does not mean that the rumour is indisputable and thus fact - it just means that we do have corroboration of such a rumour without doing any original research). --Knucmo2 11:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah. Well McLellan says that Demuth was the child of Marx.  It stands better now in the article. --Knucmo2 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As does Strathern in the "Essential Marx" book I have --Knucmo2 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, cite them... I honestly don't know myself. -- infinity0 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demuth 

message: references? mgekelly 12:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". from The Communist Manifesto --Knucmo2 12:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for that. Consider me duly embarassed. You think you could add the refs though? I don't have my Manifesto handy. mgekelly 12:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downfall of capitalism inevitable 

message: The above discussion above has thrown up an issue regarding referencing in this article. We currently are using multiple citation styles, which is against policy and undesirable for obvious reasons. Most references appear to be embedded html citations. WP:REF says that we should go with the existing citation method unless the subject area has an established citation style associated with it. My question is, is there an established citation style for Marx? How the hell does one go about finding out? If not, then I'll alter the references to all be embedded html. mgekelly 13:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the Harvard one because that's the one I've been used to using on other articles such as Empiricism.  By all means change it so it is in conformance with the predominant reference format.  I would guess that Marx's work could fall into multiple styles of citation, as the books I have read by him and about him compass the Harvard style, MHRA style, MLA etc. --Knucmo2 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite that I use Harvard in my own work, I think it's a poor style for online usage, and it seems to be discouraged on Wikipedia 'except in certain highly technical areas'. mgekelly 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I note that this embedded html style is completely in appropriate here, since it only works for online references. Hence I'm going to move to footnotes. mgekelly 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And when I say 'I', I mean the collective I, because I don't have time. Not that there seems to be much of a collective I around here. :'( mgekelly 14:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective of the merits of the Harvard system (one is convenience) it is used by sociologists, economists, philosophers and scientists the world over.  The move to footnotes is AOK; either suits me.  I do not know whether I will have the time as my work-burden at University is rather more than I'd like it to be presently!  I shall insert refs to the sources I have used at some point (mainly McLellan and Strathern). --Knucmo2 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: footnoting/endnoting is surely as widely accepted as inline references? Although, as I say, I use Harvard to avoid having to mess about with Endnote. I think we're in the same boat with uni work. The sad story of Wikipedia is that school children and the intellectually handicapped have a disproportionate amount of time available to edit it. I hope you know how to use the ref tags to do footnoting. It's markedly easier than Harvard (in Wikipedia) ultimately because you only have to put the reference in one place yourself, not both in the text and then at the bottom. mgekelly 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: just removed some text from the intro.  I had a couple of b=prbolems with it.  My biggest problem with it, and my reason for removing it from the intro, is that it is just too much detail and complexity for the introduction of the article; the themes introduced in the quotes belong in the body.  Also, it seemed argumentative (the "however" suggesting an argument).  Also, by relying on quotes from marx to support unattributed interprestaions of Marx, it seemed to violate NOR. When these issues are discussed in the body it should be pretty easy to avoid these pitfalls.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I think that categorizing Karl Marx as a 'German Communist' is spurious. Karl Marx was a marxist, not a communist. The school of communism is different from the school of marxism. --24.163.65.156 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx called himself a communist, not a Marxist.  There are many forms of communism.  Marx was one kind, so it is appropriate to call him a communist.  Look, a Chevy Impala is only one kind of car, in fact most cars are not like the Impala at all - but it is still a car, nevertheless. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Communist 

message: This is a bio article. There are plenty of articles about Marxism, and criticisms belong there, where they are seen in proper context. `'mikka (t) 01:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" removed 

message: I have created a new page Influences on Karl Marx, synthesising some of the material from the Karl Marx page and this one. Alot of it (expecially the french socialist influences, and the direct influences by Adam Smith and David Riccardo - as opposed to political eonomy in general) is still quite bare. Would be great for people to flesh it out a bit. JenLouise 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page: [[Influences on Karl Marx]] 

message: This article shows much promise. It is comprehensive, fairly readable, but still falls short of the GA standard in a number of ways. First of all, the article is very short on inline citation. Second, the lead does not meet WP:LEAD standards. Finally, the article itself is hard to read.
While not needed for GA status, I would suggest moving much of the material, especially in the section on Marx's influence, to other articles.
Please renom the article when these issues have been addressed. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom failed 

message: i cant really believe this. this article is About Marx and it says nothing about his life. come on guys! what has happened here? i wanted to translate it to persian and i was shocked. there is not even simple talks about what happened in his damn life. am i really the first person to write about his history of life? please somebofy inform me on this!
--Arash red 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am kind of shocked and appaled by the inmplication that "thinking" and "writing" are not important parts of "life."  Surely, Marx's life is notable largely because of the things he thought about and wrote.  It seems only logical to me that this article on Marx devote a good deal of space to the most important parts of his life.  More specifically, Arash red, what parts of his life are missing, that you think should be included?  feel free to contribute as long as it is relevant and comes from verifiable soruces, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an ongoing, collaborative process.  No article is ever "finished" and we always hope for and count on people coming along for the first time with fresh ideas about how to improve an article and a willingness to help out practically!  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unbelivable! 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Karl Marx]] 

message: The Marxism article on Wikipedia says that Marx's family lived in near poverty in London.  So I thought this article would tell me about his family, but it doesn't.  The word "married", "wife", and "family" don't appear.  I think someone forgot to add a biography to this biography :-) Gronky 09:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't, I know nothing about this topic.  For the topics I can contribute to, I appreciate when non-specialists point out gaps. Gronky 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Francis Wheen's biography, despite the legends, Marx's family did not live in poverty, nor is there good evidence that Marx was the father of his maid's child. I'll see if I can find references, and then add to the article. Freethinker666 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandalism I'm afraid, even if it would be interesting to know what Marx's thoughts on the 1001 Nights were. Philip Cross 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No biography? 

message: Who claims Spinoza was a particular influence on Marx? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx had handcopied extracts from Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in his notebooks. His controversy with Bruno Bauer also included differences on the interpretation of Spinoza and Spinozism, see Critical Battle Against French Materialism. Maximilien Rubel argues that Spinoza has been an important influence on Marx philosophy, see his essay Le concept de démocratie chez Marx. --Schwalker 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this to be carried forward? I'm of the opinion that Spinoza should be appended to the list of influences. There is quite a strong argument for the inclusion of  Spinoza as an influence of Marx from the Marxist electronic journal: Cultural Logic, see Spinoza and Marx. Is anyone opposed to making this change? Iomesus 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the author Mr Holland writes: "Less clear is the significance of this fact, and the extent of Spinoza's influence on Marx's thought", and that the aim of his thought-experiment "is to deliberately exaggerate the extent of that influence". I'm not sure that an essential influence of Spinoza on Marx is accepted beyond the circle of Rubel.  --Schwalker 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoza? 

message: To anyone who knows more about Marx than me... General intellect looks like it needs to be merged with something.  Perhaps here. ~ Booya Bazooka 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[General intellect]] 

message: The article cites its developement by Marx in The German Ideology twice in the same section. The762x51 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Historical Materialism]] 

message: I propose to remove, from the "see also" section, the links to his books, because they are already linked among his books.
I propose to add links to some of his mottos: Workers of the world, unite! and From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  Laurusnobilis (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: The Criticism section is very poor. It has almost no sources and suffers from a 'critics say... but Marxists counter...' style which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. WP is not a debate forum. Many of the criticisms are also not of Marx himself, but communism as it has been practiced. Ashmoo 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: I guess it should say socialism or dictatorship of the proletariat at the end of this line of the first paragraph of the article: "Marx believed that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, and that it would be replaced by communism...".
(it could also be said that both the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism were considered fases between capitalism and communism)
Any comments? Ernalve 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿communism, next "step" after capitalism? 

message: I came across this page ( http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/33rd.htm )that claims that Marx was a Freemason. Does anyone have any other reliable information on this?
:I have: It's rubbish Somearemoreequal 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemason?

message: is this a typo of rue Vaneua? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  define: rue Veneua 

message: In the second paragraph, the writer claims that Marx was both an academic and a pimp. Although this looks like an act of vandalism to me by some inmature reader, I do not know very much about Marx and did not want to correct it in case the statement was true. Can anyone look into that?
75.176.185.69 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True? It was vandalism which existed for 14 minutes. It's been fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx a pimp?

message: As it turns out, Karl Marx is also the name of an asteroid. I feel this article should refer back to the asteroid article just like it refers back to the Marx disambiguation, but I don't know how to do that myself. Somebody feels like fixing stuff? Cheers, --129.247.247.238 11:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the disambiguation page. Matteo 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was quick! --129.247.247.238 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2807 Karl Marx]] 

message: No —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.64.110 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he have a deep respect in faith? 

message: It's really confusing that the London section never mentions London.  Does anyone happen to know when Marx began to live in London? 71.153.45.246 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London section 

message: Via sociology I wound up at Karl Marx, and I noticed that some humorous right wing or just anti left, or perhaps just a plain idiot had linked this page to the word 'motherfucker'. I'm ignorant myself, but could someone do something about this and the links to other leftist Russians being 'fuckers'? I'm no Bill Hicks, but that's not funny, this is an encyclopedia. 213.243.184.221 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motherfucker redirects here? 

message: Yes, I second the request above me. I'm also new to wikipedia and its features and would appreciate it if someone could remove the offensive link. 
NeoSoldier 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seconds Request 

message: Can someone archive part of this talk page as getting long. Jackiespeel 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: 'Commodity ism' is mentioned a couple of times under the Philosophy section. Is this not supposed to be 'commodity fetishism'?
Sample quote: "Marx described this loss in terms of commodity ism, in which the things that people produce, commodities, appear to have a life and movement of their own to which humans and their behavior merely adapt." Zalmoxe 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commodity ism = Commodity fetishism? 

message: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,Max Stirner, Bruno Bauer, Charles Fourier, Joseph Pierre Phroudon, Baruch Spinoza, Giambattista Vico, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Darwin, Willian Shakesperare, Honoré Balzac, Dante Alighieri. But I never read any commentarie about Immanuel Kant or Jean-Jacque Raousseau. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.8.107.146 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on Marx 

message: I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields.  I am in favor of doing away with them.  Please join the discussion there.  RJC Talk 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. CMummert · talk 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is no requirement that people under "influenced" must be philosophers too. -- Vision Thing -- 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences and Influenced 

message: was a Prussian philosopher
I haven´t found any article in the en:Wiki, which describes a ethnic german as Prussian, Bavarian or Würtembergian. I think it is better to write that he was a german from Trier then part of Prussia. 
Have a look to the articles of Schopenhauer, Kant, or Engels.--84.175.132.77 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussia 

message: The characterization of Marx as a philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary is not one that is universally shared. Marx did not create a philosophical view, nor did he contribute academically to political economics. He bent and shaped select existing views in support of his call for revolution; with his chief concern being to raise the level of authority of his own family's class. Because he got away with it, the liberty was taken by the (temporary) winners to write their own version of history, including a larger / better than real life portrayal of Marx. This article appears to be politically motivated spam.
Your statements are wrong at different levels.
1) Is stupid to say that Marx only selected existing views, is like saying that Darwin only copied what Malthus, Lamarck and Spencer said. Every intellectual of history works within the problems and theories of their time, and their innovation usually comes from the perceived problems in existing theories. More, Marx aknowledges clearly the influences of other economists, philosofers, anthropologist and naturalists. (have you ever read Das Kapital, the Grundisse or the contribution to the critic of politica economy?). 
2) in philosophy their contributions to the development of materialism are important, to the point that Mario Bunge (who is materialist, but not Dialectical nor Historical nor marxist, but systemic) has stated that the Anti-Duhring is a syntesis of the best of ninetenth century materialism. Take for example the emergentism clearly advocated by Engels (as the cuantitative - cualitative jump), common in current sciences, or his theories about the importance of work in hominid evolution. They were among the first european intellectuals to recognize the importance of Morgan works in anthropology, which inspired the Origin of Family, the Private property and the state.
3) Because of his tendecy to holism, the historical materialism is one of the first systemic and evolutionary aproaches to history and economics. It has influenced other currents of thougt,like Neoeolutionism and Cultural Materialism (both of them are currents of American Anthropology). Even the application in archaeology of systems theory has many things in common with marxism. Many great social scientists of the twentieth century were marxists, like Gordon Childe, Luis Lumbreras, or Bruce Trigger in Archaeology, Eric Wolf, Claude Meillasoux, among others, in social anthropology, Rossi-Landi, Volosinov and Bajtin in semiotics, Eric Hobsbawm in History etcétera. To say that Marxism didnt' creat or contributed to science or Philosophy is the most un-academic and stupid statemente anyone can make (usually done by economists who know little about anything except their short-sighted discipline).
4) MArx was trying to increase the power of middle-class intelectuals? how odd, when he was the first critic of middle-class socialism. And even if what you say is true, or if Marx was a Saint, that has little to do with the value of his investigations or of his political activism (have you ever, right-wing-minded people, read about the Ad-hominem phallacy, because all the criticism of Marx in this page points in that direction).
(Sorry if my english is bad)
Illapa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.107.180 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Characterization

message: Do we really have to typeset the epitaph in all caps? 128.114.60.100 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don’t see a compelling reason. --Van helsing 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tombstone

message: he is most famous for his analysis of history, summed up in the opening line of the introduction to the Communist Manifesto (1848): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."It seems to be the first line of 'Chapter I: Bourgeois and Proletarians' instead (I've checked out on wikisource only). Hammaad (Talk) 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, marxists.org agrees that it is part of Chapter I. Actually, "The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles" includes the limiting footnote (2) "That is, all written history...".--Schwalker 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  from introduction? 

message: This article needs better sourcing. There is a lot of unverified info here that needs sources. --Lendorien 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more sourcing

message: I just added a couple of main page links for the sections on Marx's philosophy and political economic contributions. I want to suggest another for his politics, which could begin with the Communist Manifesto, and might fit neatly above the other two categories. Thoughts? Wikidea 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics, Philosophy, Economics 

message: It is well known that Marx became stateless, but despite that fact, the general introduction portrays him as a "German philosopher..." I am tempted to change that to "German-born philosopher...", but I rather ask the community first. Thank you!
LFS 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to a change.  The problem is, "German" is accurate in a cultural sense in that he grew up in a German-speaking place and was reared in German culture - in these senses he was a "German" philosopher.  But when he was born, there was no "Germany."  He was born in Prussia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very intresting fact. But because there already is a discussion about this German or Prussian controversy, I will change the introduction to "German-born philosopher..." until the community decides if it should rather be "Prussian-born..." By the way, somebody changed it already to  "German-Jewish...", which I think is not accurate, given his well known opinion against religion. LFS 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't have to be religious to be Jewish ethnically; I'm ethnically Jewish, although I am a fervent Christian.  Nyttend 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is a Jew? (and the Jews may be even fervent anti-Semites in denial - this does not make them less Jewish, it makes them idiots) --HanzoHattori 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that all reference to Marx being a German-born, a Prussian-born or a Jew in the general introduction has been erased. Perhaps this is a good (neutral) solution, and we could allow the Biography to state his Jewish ascendance, the "card" at the right to declare his birthplace, and let the context explain his relation to Germany as well as his stateless condition. What do you think? LFS 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Marx be considered a German? 

message: Karl Marx was NOT born into a Jewish family. He was born in 1818, a year after his parents were baptized and registered into the Lutheran, Prussian State Church. See this biography: 
Lewis A. Coser, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideasin Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., Fort Worth:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977: 58-59.
And btw, if Judaism really were a nation rather than a religion, the 'nationality' would be refered to as JudaITE, rather than JudaISM. The ISM suffix denotes a religion, ideology, or belief system rather than a polity. If Judaism had actually been a nationality, Moses' son would have been a Midianite and David and would have been a Moabite. 
Further, the note below that all reference in the intro to Marx being a Jew "has been erased" is still untrue as of April 2, 2008.Kabbalahfriend (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, because we have, Who is a Jew?, maybe we'd also make Who is not a Jew?, for Marx being "born into the Jewish people" but "not Jewish", etc. --HanzoHattori 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread what I wrote.  You didn't understand any of it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "he was not Jewish" 

message: Is there any way we can move the Marxism box to underneith the main infobox? It would look alot better...
Also I archived this talk page, just an FYI Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I retrieve the messages deleted on 31 July 2007 somewhere in the archives? --Schwalker 12:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the messages are in Archive 4. I found this out accidentaly after adding "Archive 4" to the Archives box. --Schwalker 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism Tag 

message: :Copied from WP:RD/H for incorporation into the text of the article. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx and Britain 

message: I read a quote, is what it's saying true? "Most people who read 'The Communist Manifesto' probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of 'the workers.'" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.90.223 (talk • contribs).
It's untrue. Marx worked as an editor and journalist but was thrown out of work by censorship in Germany. In Britain, he struggled as best he could to make money while working on Capital, by for example writing for the New York Herald Tribune. He was a talented communicator...excluded from most newspapers by hatred of Communists.
Engels worked for his family firm.
Furthermore, their unpaid work including Engel's reports on Manchester and Marx's Capital and *Grundrisse* represent thousands of man-hours of labour, even if it wasn't labour to be expropriated by some capitalist or other.
What they WEREN'T, was the work-monkeys we see today, who thirst for alienation and destroy their lives with nothing to show for it. They were humanists who refused to countenance the sacrifice of lives they saw about them to the money power who in a prophetic tradition said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: they saw that human life is about the survival and flourishing of people in a world without slaves or concentration camps and naught else.
Unfortunately, it's become hip and fashionable to criticise Marxists for not "working", that is giving their irrecoverable time on earth to some employer who pockets a healthy fraction of its market value.
The people who replicate horseshit such as the above quote are paid shills for privately funded think tanks who since 1980 have been paid to destroy any hope in a world which is going to hell by way of global warming alone, a global warming created by the manic phase of the capitalist cycle, in which we must all "work", filling the world with toxins, which may be about to be followed, thanks to the credit collapse, by a depressive phase, in which we may not work at all.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.35.106 (Talk) (talk • contribs).
::Have you heard of the theory of class consciousness? How can most self-proclaimed communists sympathize with the struggles of the working class if they've never experienced it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.32.57 (talk • contribs).
:::Please 
::::a) sing your contributions with four tildes ~
::::b) keep in mind :Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages: Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject.
:::thanks, --Schwalker 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most people who read 'The Communist Manifesto' probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of 'the workers.'" This quote was written by economist Thomas Sowell.  It is true if by "worked" you only mean "working class work".  The only paying jobs Marx had were spats in editing and writing for papers.  The point of the quote was that he had never done a day of factory work in his life, while championing the "exploited" factory workers' cause.--Loodog (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quote 

message: Both these notes do not quote the text to which they refer, but only say " #2 ". What does that refers to? Isaiah Berlin, who is number 2 on the References list? If this is the case, it should directly state so. Wikipedia moves to fast to use this kind of system: WP:Footnotes should all include the name of the author, and if a book is repeatly quoted, then the name & date is sufficient (here, ibid comes in handy). Else, it isn't at all helpful. Hopes somebody finds the original ref... (And maybe add it to July Monarchy in the last section). Tazmaniacs 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems these references have been added on December 16 2006 and refer to the book "Paris Between Empires" (2001) by Philip Mansel.--Schwalker 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 5 & 6: unclear referencing 

message: Hey, there was a section called "Neo-Marxism". I removed it. I don't have anything against Marxist ideology, but this is very one-sided, totally unsourced, and a bit too optimistic. I really think it needs some reworking before it stays for good. So, until someone modifies it, it shall stay here:
Neo-Marxism since 2000
"New" Marxist paradigms have begun to appear especially in Latin America as a pragmatic and not theoretical response to the powerful revival that may have started in 1944 with Hayek of "neoclassical economics", because the latter's stress on the rights of the end consumer has been seen by many to disempower the primary producer, getting pennies on the dollar for the "real" value of his production, whether this is Starbuck's coffee or folk remedies transformed into drugs by pharmaceutical companies.
While these new paradigms acknowledge the failure of so called "planned economies", they continue to insist on justice as a valid economic measure, expressible by adding indices of inequality to indices of gross democratic product to interrogate class-divided economies.
Their critique of developed economies has shifted in recent years from a critique of their spiritual emptiness and a disempowering emphasis on competition to point out growing economic insecurity in developed countries without planning mechanisms, such as the absence of health care for many in America.
Cliche Screenname 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neo Marxism" Section 

message: I've removed the following comment on the life of Carl Schorlemmer, who is mentioned as one who attended Marx's funeral, to here:
* "and a fighter at Baden in the last uprising of the 1848 Revolutions."
It may be true, but there are two problems with this as an unreferenced statement. 
*1. He would be 14 years at the time. This by no means disqualifies him. 
*2. Engels makes no mention of it in his obituary  This is rather more problematic. Although it is possible this rather modest man could have kept it from Engels, who also participated, it is unlikely, and even less likely that Engels would not have mentioned it in an obituary had he known of it.
Do we have a reference for this particular fact in this well researched section? Andysoh 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Schorlemmer 

message: Interestingly this article categorises Marx as a Marxist! Apart from the obvious silliness (are Popes Papist? Was Tolkien Tolkienesque?), many historians of Marx have concluded there were significant differences between his views and what later came to be formally regarded as Marxism in the main Communist powers. I propose we remove this categorisation. LiberalViews 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you propose to remove the :Category:Marxists, which by definiton "contains people who have publicly identified themselves as Marxist." --Schwalker 13:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not! Marx never publicly identified himself as any such thing, nor did he propose there be such a thing - the term was created by successors of Marx. LiberalViews 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx is said to have written "All I know is I am not a Marxist" (the attribution is uncertain), but it can't be unfair to put him in the category since the ideology 'Marxism' was defined by reference to his beliefs. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the historical context, it's absurdly self-referential and circular to put him in the category. Einstein would not be placed in the category "Followers of Einstein" and as the category "Marxists" essentially means "followers of Marx", clearly there is a problem. On another point, are you following me around today for some reason Fys? :-) LiberalViews 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it 'self-referential' to include Trotsky in :Category:Trotskyists? There is a difference between adherents to a political ideology and "followers"; follower implicitly means coming after, whereas political ideologies generally have contemporary adherents as well. In fact it's standard practice to include a head article in a category. Oh, and if you look out of your window, I'm hiding behind a lamp-post just down your street. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's standard practise then it clearly needs changing! Stop peeking over my hedge by the way. LiberalViews 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Marx a Marxist? 

message: It is not on Alexanderplatz but in Berlin-Mitte. It is between Spandauer Straße and river Spree, close to town hall of Berlin (so called „Roten Rathaus“ = red town hall).
Pls correct. Thx.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.96.246.43 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed it, thanks--Schwalker 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Statue of Marx and Engels in ]]? 

message: Is it worth adding something about Marx suffering from severe debilitating skin disease, possibly Hidradenitis suppurativa, and its possible effects on his character? See, for example, , , both of which refer back to a single source published in a medical journal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.225.107 (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hidradenitis suppurativa]]? 

message: ""Marx" redirects here. For other uses, see Marx (disambiguation)."
It doesn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.48.165 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect changed back to Karl Marx, since I guess that it's the most frequent intended meaning when people type in "Marx".--Schwalker 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that redirects to disambiguation pages are used whenever one term is likely choice for more articles. One prominent example is Bush, which redirects to disambiguation page and not to George W. Bush. -- Vision  Thing -- 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As a politician, George W. is about as important as George H. W. Bush. The word has other meanings too, for example The Bush. Whoever the second most important Marx is, Harpo Marx or Groucho Marx, this person's article is much less likely to be searched for than Karl's. --Schwalker 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that most people would agree that George W. is more important than George H. W., if for nothing else than for serving two terms as a president. Also, on what facts are you basing your conclusion? Google search returns 2.770.000 hits for ""Karl Marx" and 2.250.000 for "Groucho Marx". That is not "much less likely", specially if we would factor in rest of the brothers. -- Vision  Thing -- 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Karl has precedence by seniority. --Schwalker (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking? On Wikipedia there is no such thing as precedence by seniority. -- Vision  Thing -- 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirections could either depend on what people are likely to be looking for, or on what Wikipedia considers to be important. The name's meaning refering to this article's topic has played an important role in history, of which someone is likely aware who has accomplished the steps of thought necessary before they would insert the term into the Wikipedia article search engine.--Schwalker (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I believe criticisms of specific things Marx wrote or did belong in this article, and criticisms of things followers of Marx said or did belong in the Marxism article.  This would require some parsing of the current "criticisms" section because it is not always clear to me whether marx actually said or wrote something for which he is being criticized.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: A recent edit removed most of the categories from the Karl Marx page, and created a sort of master "Karl Marx" category, under which these categories were then put.  I don't think this works well with the way Wikipedia structures its categories.  I recommend against this innovation. -Moorlock 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: :Vision Thing aded the following quote from marx
::Marx, as we have seen, looked forward to the "annihilation" of "reactionary races." The examples he gave were "Croats, Pandurs, Czechs and similar scum." 
:But did not provide a citation from Marx.  If the quote is of marx, there should be a citation of the source where marx wrote it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua Muravchik took over that quote from Max Nomad's book Apostles of Revolution (New York: Collier, 1961) p. 102. -- Vision  Thing -- 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please trace it to the actul source by marx.  We can quote Muravchik for Muravchik's views; we can quote Nomad for Nomad's views.  But everything by mar is published, and we should have a citation for anything he said.  if there is no citation for a source written by Marx, I do not consider the source reliable. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you support your view with appropriate quote from Wikipedia's policy? -- Vision  Thing -- 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: V requires that you provide a verifiable source.  NOR makes it clear that secondary sources are required for interpretations or analysis but I am not questioning the interpretation of this quote from Marx, I question whether he ever aid it. if you cannot provide a verifiable source that he said it, out it goes.  ALL of marx's works have been published, so there is not reason not to provide the source from marx's writings.  Why can you not do this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my best to discover from which Marx's work or letter the original quote came from, but unfortunately I was unable to get access to Max Nomad's book. However, WP:OR says: "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." So it is perfectly in line with the policy to use a secondary source which is based on primary and other secondary source. -- Vision  Thing -- 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're saying Nomad does not provide a full citation?  What is Nomad's source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that I don't have access to his book. -- Vision  Thing -- 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you Schwalker, this is a perfect example of why we need reliable sources.  if the article claims Marx said it, let us have a source for marx.  if the article includes an interpretation of what marx wrote, let us clearly identify the point of view and provide a secondary source and make it clear that it is that source's interpretation.  It is very bad practice to present an interpretation of Marx and claim that it is what Marx "really" said. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you two claiming that "Heaven on Earth" is not a reliable source? If you are, you have no ground for that in any Wikipedia policy that I know of. -- Vision  Thing -- 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism''