| Revision as of 17:02, 6 May 2012 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 editsm GA class for Religion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:12, 30 December 2024 edit undoA. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,227 edits Restored revision 1263850330 by Yue (talk): WP:NOTFORUM/WP:TALKTags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
|
{{notice|{{large|'''This page is about Marx, not ].'''}}}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{circles}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{controversial (history)}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=GA|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|continental=yes|modern=yes|philosopher=yes|class=GA|importance=high|political=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=GA|listas=Marx, Karl|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=GA |
|
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=GA |
|
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes |
|
|
|Prussia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|importance=high|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}}} |
|
|
{{British-English}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=January 31, 2005 |
|
|action1date=January 31, 2005 |
| Line 64: |
Line 34: |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|topic=World history |
|
|topic=World history |
|
|
|otd1date=2019-03-14|otd1oldid=887614006 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Marx, Karl|1= |
|
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=50|small=no|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=top|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|continental=yes|modern=yes|philosopher=yes|importance=high|political=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top|Prussia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{British-English}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader={{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize=125K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter=13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft=4 |
|
|algo = old(50d) |
|
|algo=old(50d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Karl Marx/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive=Talk:Karl Marx/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== House in Trier, Germany, where Marx spent his childhood and youth == |
|
== Quotations == |
|
|
|
|
|
User:Redthoreau has just restored two completely superfluous quotations praising Marx, one from Che Guevara and the other from Robert C. Tucker. I can appreciate the reasons why someone might want to restore the quotation from Tucker (although I wouldn't restore it myself, as I think there are better ways of saying that Marx was a significant figure). I can't see any proper reason for restoring the one from Guevara. It's just Guevara saying how wonderful Marx and Marxism are, and it's no more relevant or appropriate than a quotation from Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises (or any number of other right-wing figures) about what a terrible person Marx was or how destructive Marxism is. The purpose of this article is to provide a neutral account of Marx, not to make him look as good as possible. Redthoreau, please see ]. ] (]) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I actually think the Tucker quote is no less POV than the Che quote. Tucker spent his entire life studying Communism, the Soviet system, etc. Even if he disagreed with every single thing that Marx wrote, his perception of Marx's influence is likely to be distorted. Regards, <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span> (]) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::As I said, it's a quote that I wouldn't prefer to use myself - though I can see why others might. Hopefully the implications for NPOV of filling the article full of block quotations praising Marx are reasonably clear; it comes across as simply a way of promoting Marxism, just as filling the articles full of quotations attacking Marx would be a way of attacking Marxism. ] (]) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::On a different issue, I have problems with edit. I can't see any good reason for changing "Marxist" to "Marxian". The change should be undone, as it introduces more obscure and less readily comprehensible terminology. ] (]) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Polisher, quoting a Marxist revolutionary who carried out revolution based on their interpretation of Marx is of course a relevant person to cite in a section on Marx’s political influence with Marxism. Ayn Rand is irrelevant here, but had she proclaimed herself a "Smith(ian) revolutionary" ''(from Adam Smith)'' and become a well known and influential figure in Smith(ism), then perhaps her take on Mr. Smith would be relevant to his article. As for the Tucker quote, again this is the view of a notable individual who studied Marxism. Just as the critical views of Marx are relevant in the criticism section, a positive view of Marx is relevant to a section on his legacy. As for your running litany of objections that read more like ], I would remind you of ]. ] ] (]) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Sorry, that's an excuse for POV pushing, and a pretty cheesy one. The section entitled "Marxism" is about Marxism. It's grotesque to suggest that it should reflect only Marxist views. Under ], anti-Marxist views, from Ayn Rand or anyone else, are no less relevant than pro-Marxist views. Placing a giant quotation from Guevara at the start of the section gives it undue emphasis and is simply a way of using the article to promote Marxism - it's pro-Marxist POV pushing, just as placing a giant quotation from Ayn Rand about horrible Marxism is would be anti-Marxist POV-pushing. I am sceptical that the Guevara quotation should be included at all, but if you think it should be, please find a way of including it so that it doesn't seem to dominate the entire section. Same remarks apply to Tucker. ] (]) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Also, the fact that there is a section entitled "Criticism" in this article shouldn't be used as an excuse to turn the "Legacy" section into nothing but a collection of comments praising Marx or talking about how important he is. "Legacy" does not mean the same thing as "Praise". A person can have a negative or a mixed legacy as well as a positive one. In principle, I would be in favour of amalgamating the "Legacy" and the "Criticism" section into one; there seems little justification for having two separate sections, when criticism of Marx is certainly relevant to his legacy and vice versa. You might conceivably have a point if the "Criticism" section were only about criticism of Marx, but it isn't. A sentence such as "in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008 some thinkers like Terry Eagleton, David Harvey, and David McNally have given renewed impetus to the debate on whether Marx was right that capitalism inherently tends towards crisis" is not a "criticism" of Marx, even though it appears in the "Criticism" section. On the contrary, it's a statement suggesting that Marx has an enduring importance - and its presence in the "Criticism" section simply shows how pointless having a section devoted to "Criticism" is. If criticisms of Marx in the "Criticism" section are going to be followed by comments suggesting that Marx might have been right all along, then calling the section "Criticism" is simply wrong, and the logic of having a separate section isn't apparent. ] (]) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Of note, I have always preferred "Legacy" sections to "Criticism" ones. ] ] (]) 05:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tucker quotation == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just removed the following content, which was added by Redthoreau: "As a result, ] has hypothesized that 'knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time', while postulating that 'not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought.'" There are at least two problems with it. Firstly, it is poorly written: it seems very strange to say that someone "hypothesized" that knowledge of a writer's work is "virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time" or that he "postulated" that it's bad to not be well grounded in the writings of one or another author. I appreciate that the point of using terms like "hypothesized" and "postulated" is to preserve NPOV, but it just seems like very strange and awkward writing. Secondly, that's the second time that Tucker's views are mentioned in that paragraph, and the source used is the same as for the previous mention. It makes no sense at all to cite Tucker twice in that way. He should be cited once, with all relevant material kept together. I would ask Redthoreau to please work out the problems of this material on talk before readding anything. ] (]) 04:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: I believe your concerns were valid, and have tried to rework the sentence while taking into account your critique per ]. Thoughts? ] ] (]) 05:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: What you've done is an improvement over the way you added the material before. I am, however, unsure that it serves any useful or encyclopedic purpose to quote someone as saying that "knowledge of Marx's and Engels' writings are 'virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time.'" ] is a relevant policy here. ] (]) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The "encyclopedic purpose" I believe lies in the fact that it lets the reader know that according to some academics ''(particularly those with a favorable opinion of Marxism like the distinguished Tucker)'' being well versed in what Marx said is a necessary prerequisite to being an "scholarly individual." I don’t particularly hold this view ''(which I know is irrelevant)'' but I have encountered it ''(which is know is also irrelevant)''. However, I believe it is a prevalent view in academia ''(especially in many of the Humanities)'' and well within the confines of ] to let the reader know that this perspective exists. Do you question per Undue whether this view in fact is representative enough for inclusion, because I believe it could be sourced numerous times if need be? ] ] (]) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I doubt very strongly that it is helpful to readers to quote someone saying that knowledge of Marx's writings is essential to being properly educated or scholarly. One could probably say that, not only about Marx's writings, but about the writings of every noteworthy figure in the history of western philosophy, but what would be the point? If a particular writer was clearly very influential, then it ought to be obvious that it's a good idea to know something about his writings. ] (]) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why was the picture changed? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, the brownish, full-body shot of Marx on a chair is much better than the one being used now. Why was it changed? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Agree. I see this has been reverted. ] (]) 20:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Founder of Social Science == |
|
|
|
|
|
Marx was a philosopher, but he wrote in the tradition of holding philosophy and science to be one and the same. This is evident in his thesis on Democritean and Epicurean philosophy, his rejection of idealist philosophy, and naturalist and empericist bases for all of his concepts, especially that of Man. There is also an implicit naturalist moral theory throughout all his work, particularly in his earlier writings, which many conveniently pay less attention to. This is in stark contrast to the economic and sociological theories found in social science, which pride themselves as being free of morality and based upon statistics, mathematical calculations, and behavioural psychology. As such, he was not a sociologist or social scientist as people claim. He could instead be classified as a natural philosopher and empiricist in the tradition of Aristotle, rather than an idealist in the Platonic tradition (like the Hegelians and Kantians). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please find a source for any material you want to include. Material in Misplaced Pages articles needs sources: see ]. ] (]) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
], the father of Karl Marx, bought the small mansard roof building in ]´s Simeonstrasse in 1819 <ref>{{cite book |last1=Longuet |first1=Robert-Jean |title=Karl Marx mein Urgroßvater |date=1977 |location=Berlin |page=16}}</ref> when Karl was only one year old. The later socialist grew up here with his parents and five siblings and moved out aged 17 after his graduation from secondary school (Gymnasium). Yet as a grown up man, he returned to Trier several times to visit his relatives. |
|
: Well here in UK college level sociology you study Weber, Durkheim and Marx's views as the three main views, looking at each topic (crime, education, family etc) in context of those and other views, so yes Marx and the result of his influence is important to understanding sociology, the study of society. Now if you dont mind I want to go back to sitting on my ass all day. |
|
|
|
Compared to today, little has changed in the historical city center of Trier: The main characteristics of the old town around the market place have been preserved and looked more or less the same back in the days when Karl Marx lived there <ref>{{cite book |last1=Neffe |first1=Jürgen |title=Marx der Unvollendete |date=2017 |publisher=Bertelsmann |isbn=ISBN-13 978-3570102732 |page=41}}</ref>. In particular the neighbourhood of the house to the Trier's most famous landmark, the Roman city gate ], is still impressive. In most parts unchanged to this day, it is likely that Karl Marx took the very same route to school every day that tourists can walk today <ref>{{cite book |last1=Monz |first1=Heinz |date=1964 |location=Trier |page=164}}</ref>. |
|
] (]) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The house in Simeonstraße had a lasting impact on Karl Marx, especially since he had been educated here in home schooling until the age of 12 <ref>{{cite book |last1=Baumeister |first1=Jens |title=Wie der Wein Karl Marx zum Kommunisten machte: Ein Kommunist als Streiter für die Moselwinzer |date=2017 |location=Trier |isbn=ISBN 978-3000564710 |page=32}}</ref>. |
|
|
As an adult, Karl Marx returned to live with his family in this house during his visits several times. For example in 1841 after his doctoral studies in Berlin, Marx travelled back to Trier. The main reason for his return home was to be close to his long-term fiancée ]. Also in the following year, 1842, Karl Marx spent some months in the house in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) in order to take care of family matters <ref>{{cite book |last1=Longuet |first1=Robert-Jean |title=Karl Marx mein Urgroßvater |date=1977 |location=Berlin |page=52}}</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location of the house |
|
:: Trivially, the introductory chapter of ''Capitalism and Modern Social Theory'' by Anthony Giddens (an established authority in sociology and the former head of the ]) positions Marx (along with Durkheim and Weber) as one of the founders of the modern social sciences. This is also a basic tidbit you're likely to run into in any introductory theoretical text on anthropology, sociology, or social theory. If I can remember the actual context of where Marx was cited I'll quote Giddens, but maybe someone could help me out on where it should or shouldn't go. ] (]) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The former home of Karl Marx in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) looks rather unremarkable at the beginning of Trier's shopping promenade close to the famous Porta Nigra. Only a few minutes walk leads visitors to the bronze statue of Karl Marx by ] – a present from the People's Republic of China to Trier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
== description of class struggle in lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024 == |
|
Some changes have been going on recently in regards to the description of class struggle in the lead. |
|
|
#The read, "...class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class which controls production and a lower class which produces the labour for such goods." |
|
|
#] this to "... class struggle: an ownership class controls production and profits from the labour of a lower class which produces such goods." |
|
|
#This is, in my opinion, not the best wording, -- we no longer have the "between" which indicates a struggle, and "produces such goods" is rendered unintelligible and referentless with "the labour for" excised. I changed it to "... class struggle: in capitalism, this struggle is between the capitalist class, which owns the means of production, and the workers, who have only their labour power to sell." I feel that this is more precise, more clearly worded, and actually more in line with Marx's conception of class struggle. |
|
|
:::Since the sentence is about class struggle in general ("all societies"), I feel it necessary to specify that the struggle between the owners of the means of production and (wage) laborers is the form this struggle takes ''under capitalism''. |
|
|
:::"Controls production" is too vague (controls what aspect of production?); I think we need to specify ownership of the means of production. |
|
|
:::The point of the Marxist analysis of the lower class is that their only asset is their labor power. Many social analysis acknowledge a rift between powerful and powerless classes, but the point of Marxist analysis hinges on the distinction between those with and those without access to the means of production. I do think that my proposed version describes class struggle concisely and more or less precisely; if others disagree, I would still be in favor of the older version (No. 1 above), as it's clearer than the one that replaced it. ] (]) 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As an afterthought and a point of etiquette, non-trivial changes to the wording in the lead should probably never be classified as minor edits... ] (]) 22:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Karl Marx|answered=yes}} |
|
:: You misunderstood completely and carelessly. Read the lead sentence that you wrote, then read the sentence right after. Marx's analysis is describe by (generic) two classes one ownership, one labour based throughout history (feudalism and so on), then the next sentence it states "heavily critical of current form of society, capitalism," making it confusing to read as capitalism is introduced twice. Marx's analysis of dialetic is ''historical'', all societies feudalism>capitalism etc progress through the class struggle, the next part is a definition after the semi-colon of class struggle generically. Then we have a sentence after describing Marx's capitalism specifically. The way you have written it introduced capitalism twice one sentence after the other. The version I put it to was used for a long time before you changed it and makes better sense. ] (]) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Moses Mordecai Levi, otherwise known as Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818-March 14, 1883) was a German-Jewish philosopher, economist, historian, revolutionary, and journalist from Trier, Germany. ] (]) 12:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> <br />— ]<sup></nowiki>]]</nowiki>]]</sup> ⋮ 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am not finding any reliable sources on this. The only ones I found were articles using his Jewish identity to attack him. Here is one very biased article that mentions Moses mordecai Levi https://www.news24.com/news24/karl-marx-and-his-hateful-dream-of-atheism-20120913 |
|
|
:There is also a random reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/karlmarx/comments/riufhh/was_karl_marx_his_birth_name/ |
|
|
:The only potentially legitimate source I found is where it says his paternal grandfather's name was Mordechai Levi |
|
|
:All the other sources are baseless conspiracy theories connecting him to the Rothschilds. |
|
|
:Please present reliable sources before starting a topic on talk pages. ] (]) 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Labour, class struggle and false consciousness == |
|
== Critiques of Marx as a person. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little to nothing about the personal character or contradictions of Marx as a human being. Seems one sided. Not looking for character assassination but a more balanced view. ] (]) 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
I thought this section was informative but doesn't emphasize that alienation, class struggle, and especially labour and labour-power all stem from what can be taken as a first premise, that the concepts all stem from private ownership of the means of production. The description of this is included in "Economy, History, and Society" but appears secondary to these ideas, whereas I think most would agree that Marx's defining innovation was to show precisely that/why private ownership of the means of production in industrial society is so problematic. Without this first premise, if it can be construed as such, concepts of alienation, etc. appear almost non-sensicle or isolated as part of his overall philosophy. It's worth noting, however, the concept of human-nature appears a primary premise before anything is said of the means of production (his view of human nature involving work appears universal across all societies), though Marx's aim is to show how human-nature is transformed in a new society with private ownership of the means of production. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Any suggestions on what to add? Please elaborate a bit more ] (]) 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Did Marx's parents convert to escape persecution, as many Jews did, or did they sincerely practice Christianity? == |
|
Is this mentioned in the article? What about the lead, seems pretty important to me. ] (]) 16:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asking here because this is not mentioned at all in the article and I'm wondering if it's applicable ] (]) 12:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Major problems with (lack of) referencing == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Marx's family were not very religious Jews. After they converted, they were not very religious Christians either. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am very worried about the recent edits to the article (mainly by {{user|WellsSouth}}). A lot of unteferenced content has been added, looking just at the first half (up to and including ''The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession'' section), I count numerous sentences, and two entire unreferenced paras. I tagged them all, and I am deeply worried that the article is no longer GA due to insufficient referencing. On a side note, many new headings use improper capitalization (regular nouns and adjectives should not be capitalized). Lastly, a number of paragraphs added seem simply irrelevant. In the mentioned ''The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession'' two out of three paras simply deal with the recession, and do not mention Marx or his thought at all. This article is not a place to discuss world's history during Marx's lifetime. I am afraid that if this is not going to be fixed, we should revert the article to a previous version, before the swaths of unreferenced content were added (per ]). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Heinrich Michael in Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society goes in detail why Heinrich Marx converted in chapter Karl's Marx Parents. Basically Heinrich converted so he could keep he's job as a lawyer. ] (]) 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*I couldn't agree more: I was inclined to revert the lot. ] (]) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* I last looked at this yesterday evening sometime, there was one edit that seemed unobjectionable. It seems to have exploded since then, and I can't really find sources for much of this information. I think it should go. ] (]) 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'm going to revert. I consider to be fairly typical: it involves the citation of a primary source in a paragraph whose importance is not clear and which contains original research/analysis. is a typical example of a slightly different kind, which likewise seems to involve original research and extrapolation and the reference given is quite unclear; you'll find more of the same in the editor's other contributions. That referencing, by the way, is not up to par with GA standards. I've reverted to a version from mid-April, which is 30k lighter. Thank you all. ] (]) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**Good catch, I didn't notice that many of the refs added where to primary sources (so, OR). To prevent Wells good faithed work from being wasted, I'd suggest moving all of the content he added here, perhaps somebody could salvage some of it with better references? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
Location of the house
The former home of Karl Marx in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) looks rather unremarkable at the beginning of Trier's shopping promenade close to the famous Porta Nigra. Only a few minutes walk leads visitors to the bronze statue of Karl Marx by Wu Weishan – a present from the People's Republic of China to Trier.
Moses Mordecai Levi, otherwise known as Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818-March 14, 1883) was a German-Jewish philosopher, economist, historian, revolutionary, and journalist from Trier, Germany. Prism Steno Book (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Little to nothing about the personal character or contradictions of Marx as a human being. Seems one sided. Not looking for character assassination but a more balanced view. Redonefifty (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.