User talk:Pass3456

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Pass3456! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Wilhelm Röpke[edit]


Thanks for your useful & interesting contributions. I think the page is now noticeably more well rounded (Alainjoseph (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

Tarja Turunen[edit]

The Good Article review has started. Please refer to the talk page. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mate[edit]

How's going? I am currently trying to rename.--Olaf g (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what a nice surprise. Can you imagine Social market economy without Mr. Mustard and Charmrock? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought about. Also to see how things work out in en.wikipedia and what the differences are and what we could learn. I a currently reading your de.wikipedia article on structuralism and I will give you feedback in a jiffy. :-) Best, --Olaf g (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you in advance!
P.s. en:WP has a reliable sources noticeboard and a original research noticeboard. On a first glance it seems to be better organized. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What is a reliable source noticeboard? Could you give me the link please? You got mail. Good night, --Olaf g (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Pass3456 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Music barnstar.png The Music Barnstar
For your work on Tarja Turunen.--INeverCry 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Budget Deficit 1971 to 2001.png[edit]

The File:Budget Deficit 1971 to 2001.png that you created has been removed from the Bill Clinton article. Can you please address the concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

New Deal[edit]

Thanks for summarizing my article. :) Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It was just a pleasure :-) --Pass3456 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm new at this so I don't know if I'm sending you a message correctly but you asked for a source that proves that there is no emerging consensus in an edit so I'm sending you a link Economists like Gary North, George Selgin, Roger Garrison and Mark Thornton also disagree with the explanation. In my opinion, it's better not to place absolutisms in a debate with many sides, specially a social science like Economics. It's not like it's a discussion between Evolution X Creation in here. Leobons (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with that. I feel like I'm doing the wrong thing coming to this page to reply to you. Is it this way that it's done? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leobons (talkcontribs) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can´t be wrong when its successful :-) --Pass3456 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good. So I just put the sources you had asked for. I'll be more careful next time. It's from UC Berkeley so I guess it's a quite reliable source. I wasn't warned of your response in this page, just of what you wrote in my page. Maybe you won't be warned about this either so if there's a better place to talk, let me know :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leobons (talkcontribs) 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hello Pass3456,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarence Barber: Population, Housing, and the Depression[edit]

Thank you for your work in helping to improve Causes of the Great Depression.

I'm responding to your comment on the talk page of Causes of the Great Depression. I wanted to make sure you did not misunderstand the article by Lawrence Barber. When you spoke of explanations of the depression in Barber's article which were problematic, were you referring to the explanations which were in first 5 pages of the article? It's important to note that Barber was not necessarily lending his support to those theories. He criticizes some of them at the end of the article. I would be interested to know if you believe there are very serious problems with Barber's own main argument beginning on page 436.

I read a biography of Barber on one website which said that he was an internationally renowned economist, even though he tended to publish his articles in the Canadian journals rather than the more prestigious journals. I am not an economist, and I honestly do not know how much acceptance his hypothesis gained in the academic community. If there is clearly a consensus among those contributors to Wikipedia who are economists that this theory has not gained enough acceptance to be in the article, then you can certainly remove it. Barber did say at the beginning of his article (which he wrote in 1978) that his hypothesis had "only recently received serious attention. He also quoted from two other economists who saw the lack of demand for housing as one of the most important causes which turned the recession into a major depression. Also, I'm sure there are many economists who believe that low rates of immigration in general can cause serious problems with a national economy in countries where the birthrate is low. I wouldn't be surprised if they were sympathetic to Barber's arguments.

So please let me know your opinion about all of this.JDefauw (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

First of all I want to thank you for your great work on the Causes of the Great Depression. Even the population dynamics theory has the best possible plausibility since you rewrote it.
I also read that Barber was a respected economist. That is fine for me and the theory is clearly a scientific opinon. Nevertheless the population dynamics theory is pretty much opposed to the major explanations. The vast growth of productivity since industrialization proved that population growth was no longer the most important factor for economic growth. But that is just my opinion. Pass3456 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. I suppose we could say that Barber's explanation is heterodox. Under the heading "Specific theories of Cause", there are nine different theories, and at least some of them are probably heterodox. It would be helpful to the layperson if we could identify which theories are identifying causes which are widely accepted as the main causes of the Depression, and which theories are identifying minor causes or are considered to be heterodox. I'm afraid it might be difficult to get a consensus when we try to classify the theories. In any case, I think we greatly improved the article, and I enjoyed working on it with everybody.
The article has truly improved. I think that the bigger problems left are the passages that haven´t been checked by now. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I need help clarifying a sentence in Neo-liberalism.[edit]

When I was proofreading the section on Germany in the article Neo-liberalism, I noticed that the meaning of one of the sentences was unclear, and I'm not totally sure what was the intended meaning. The statement in question is: "An example is Eucken's criticism of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for not differing between market regulation and laissez-faire." Does this mean that Hayek argued that market regulation and laissez-faire are synonymous concepts, and therefore did not differentiate between the two concepts? If that is the meaning, then we can clarify the sentence by using the term "differentiating" instead of "differing". The other possibility is that Hayek was being criticized for not opposing market self-regulation and laissez-faire.

By the way, I agree that the paragraph that was recently removed from the article was very helpful, and you did the right thing by restoring it. If there is a discussion about that, I'll state my position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talkcontribs) 03:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Road to Serfdom" was being criticized for not differentiating between market regulation and Laissez-faire. (Eucken thought that the rejection of Economic interventionism should not go as far as to condemn any kind of market regulation.
-> Walter Eucken rejected both, a Planned economy as well as laisse-faire. He promoted a strong role for the state in regulating the market to protect competition et cetera.
The source for the sentence is: Oswalt, Walter. "Zur Einführung: Walter Eucken (1891–1950)". In Goldschmidt, Nils; Wohlgemuth, Michael (in German). Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik. p. 128. ISBN 978-3-16-148297-7 (German). --Pass3456 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

President Hoover and Liquidationism[edit]

Neoliberalism is now a low priority. We need to decide what to do about the recent revisions in Causes of the Great Depression. Your wrote in a previous version of the article, "Bradford de Jong wrote that President Hoover rejected the idea of implementing expansionary fiscal policy to combat the Depression and tried to keep the federal budget balanced in 1930-1931 in adherence to Friedrich Hayek's theory." I read the article by Bradford de Jong that is cited in the present version of the article. I read it very quickly and so I may have missed it; however, I did not see that statement in the article by de Jong. Did I miss it? Or is there another source where he said that?

As long as the references support the material, we could say that some prominent mainstream scholars believe that the policies of the Hoover administration were liquidationist policies despite Hoover's statement that he did not side with the liquidationists (we may also want to verify that last statement). We do need to keep in mind that the chairman of the Federal Reserve does not take orders from the President. Therefore, the statement above concerning what de Jong wrote, if we can verify it, would help to support the opinion the policies of Hoover himself were liquidationist policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talkcontribs) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I adress that question on Talk:Causes_of_the_Great_Depression#President_Hoover_and_Liquidationism. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean "under-emphasizes" or "over-emphasizes"?[edit]

In your recent contribution to Causes of the Great Depression, you wrote, "Kuehn also argues that the Austrian School under-emphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy. . . ." I think you intended to say "over-emphasizes". I did not want to change it without being absolutely sure. You may remove this message once we have settled this.JDefauw (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Thank you for informing me. "Under-emphasizes" is accurate. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)--Pass3456 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neoliberalism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franz Oppenheimer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Hamilton and Halutz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Pass3456 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Feldman[edit]

Hi. I ran across the Gerald Feldman article when I was scouting for some possible candidates for the Did you know? (DYK) feature on the main page. Thanks for a nice new contribution. The article has most of the good attributes that we look for in new articles to feature at DYK, but I decided I couldn't nominate it (at least not yet) because I found that much of the article text was closely paraphrased from the sources. I took it upon myself to reword some of the text to make it less similar to the cited sources, but I didn't finish that task.

This message is to alert you to the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing issue, which gets into some of the finer points of contributing to Wikipedia -- but is important. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I´m sorry for that. I rewrote some more, now there shouldn´t be any close paraphrasing at all. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I nominated the article at DYK. See Template:Did you know nominations/Gerald Feldman. You may have better ideas for the hook fact... --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gerald Feldman[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Gerald Feldman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gerald Feldman[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! He is now featured at Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to addit there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ps: looking at your user page, would you prefer to have it a red link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all! --Pass3456 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

seen any mice around?

Kharon2 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for providing the citation[edit]

Thank-you for providing the citation at ANI. I'll respond here, as that thread is, for the moment, winding down. In my opinion, your statement did not follow from the article. It is an inference, one you may well believe to be valid, but I do not. If Goldberg had declared that Clinton was a "nice fascist", I would agree that he went too far. But he didn't. Nor did Bernstein, but it looks to me like he wanted to leave that impression. On your other point, it is interesting that Bernstein takes care to distinguish Goldberg from populist ranters such as Limbaugh and Coulter, calling him "a serious and thoughtful writer".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was off-wiki for some weeks and just became aware of the ANI discussion. I see that Carrite has addressed the specific concerns that I had in a post on his talk page. I hope that the situation improves but if not, probably the best way to proceed is by a user Request for Comment. ANI is a bit of a drama-fest, and the impression I get is that going there is pretty much a waste of time except for dealing with out-and-out vandals and bigots. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links[edit]

I undid this edit because interwiki links are now provided by Wikidata. Wikipedia editors need not bother with inter-wiki links in article text anymore. Cheers, hydrox (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Hi, I tried to add this to the interwiki-links bot got the message "Site link dewiki:Weltwirtschaftskrise ab 2007 already used by item Q2558741." What does that mean? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The de-wiki article was for some reason linked to an empty list (wikidata:Q2558741). Should be now fixed.. --hydrox (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Pass3456 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on a noticeboard filing[edit]

at WP:AN3 in reference to your interactions with LesLein at New Deal.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A solution would be most welcome. --Pass3456 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
He has been blocked for 48 hours, as you can see at the noticeboard. If you continue to have problems I would strongly encourage you to make more extensive use of the noticeboards (such as WP:DRN, WP:RFM, WP:AN3 and WP:ANI, and if it continues despite admin intervention, eventually WP:RFARB). I'm not going to be tracking this very closely, I just happened to notice the activity in my watchlist, so this will be up to you and the other editors. However, I think that this user has enough of an edit history now that admins will be more inclined to take action. That should not prevent you from trying to work things out on talk pages etc, but sometimes it requires action to get people to pay attention. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I responded to your comment here. —Dentren | Talk 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your comment here. — Dentren | Talk 19:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Income Inequality in the United States ...[edit]

Hi Pass3456. Appreciate the work on the "Causes" section of the article and think that, in general, its an improvement. I like the fact that the opening explanation of causes is a 'non-political' listing ... enumerating general concepts that will be discussed in further detail below. In fact, couldn't the blocks in the body of the 'causes' section be organized to correspond to the opening list (i.e. globalization, skills, superstar, immigration, policy and politics)? Education might fit under skills? Taxation, unions, and executive pay might fit under policy and politics? A couple of quick thoughts. Would it be possible to eliminate the three bullet-points beneath the 'policy and politics' line item at the opening of the section? It would seem to make more sense to keep the opening line descriptions short and flesh those bullet-point items out in greater detail in the body of the 'policy and politics' section, itself. BTW, the subsequent comment by Paul Krugman is POV because it attempts to sway the reader into accepting that only certain items in the above list are the culprits while others are not. That is not our job here. Isn't it to present the facts and let the reader decide? Thanks for your help.Tolinjr (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tolinjr, thank you for your appreciation.
Generally I would agree that it makes sense to introduce the different hypotheses in the lead (opening explanation) and then present and discuss them in the blocks (the Paul Krugman, Jacob S. Hacker, Paul Pierson, Larry Bartels, Nathan Kelly, Timothy Smeeding, Eric Posner, Glen Weyl ans Ed Dolan evaluation would be part of the discussion in the fitting block(s)).
That said, I don´t think that the listing in the opening explanation and the blocks in the causes section fit together. Some blocks are not represented in the opening list and vice versa. Additionally some blocks (e.g. Education) may be connected to several points of the listing. A completion would be needed as well as a careful examination of the literature to draw the right connections. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Agree. I think you get the basic idea. Would it make sense to add a couple more line-items at the beginning ... perhaps demographic (race/gender), etc? It seems smart (and more fair) to list and then describe potential causes first. Having someone pass judgment (such as Krugman's quote with his personal opinion as to the causes), at the beginning of the section, before they are even explained to the reader, seems a bit POVish. I have no problem it being used, but think it would be better suited in the body of a sub-section.
The 'superstar' hypothesis is not exactly what Posner and Weyl were researching (they were merely arguing that patrimonial (inherited)-capitalism as proposed by Krugman and Piketty was not taking place). But, as it turns out, yes, their results do support the superstar theory.
I am hesitant to make broad changes to the article, particularly moving chunks that 'belong' to someone else. My goal is not to offend (although it seems that I already have), but to make the article more balanced and honest. Suggestions?
Btw, Jason Newsted (Metallica) was a neighbor of mine for ten years. He now lives on a farm in southwest Michigan, north of Gull Lake. FYI. Tolinjr (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it would definitely make sense to add more line-items at the beginning. Especially since some causes are very traditional like e.g. "Race and gender disparities" or "Education". At the end there could be the broader hypothesis on why inequality widened so significantly since the 1970s and at the very end the broader hypothesis on special causes since 2000 especially the Globalization - economies of scale - the winner takes it all nexus (which holds some truth in my opinion).
I made the experience that it is usefull to propose broader changes lead on the talk page. Something like that:
After that other users can contribute their knowledge, probably propose some changes that can be discussed. If necessary I would do my best to help objectify the discussion. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I fully understand that opinions as to cause range all over the place on this topic. Sadly, the article's political nature makes it highly-charged and difficult to edit. I am open to all opinions, as long as the article is open to all opinions. Not really familiar with 'winner takes it all' theory, but could guess. The key issue for me is that some editors (mostly socialists) want to point to capitalism as the culprit. As a struggling small business owner, I can tell you that small and mid-size businesses are not the cause of this problem. This is easily understood when all of the facts show that those causing the consolidation of wealth are making $2,000,000+ per year (not small and mid-size business income). The reason those editors keep pointing to capitalism, however, is that they want to justify it's replacement with government-centered socialism. This is their opportunity to use the article to influence. So there is a political foundation to all of this. In my opinion, small business capitalism has been wonderful here, and I just don't want to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' by destroying those underpinnings. I tend to think that large corporations and our federal government are working in concert for their own self-interests, to the detriment of the rest of us. Anyway, I'll hang tight and see what happens on the article. I agree with your recommendations and will support whatever edits you make to bring objectivity to the article.Tolinjr (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In Germany there is the tradition of Ordoliberalism which basically says that competition drives economic prosperity, but in a laissez-faire state competition fades out as the strong devour the weak. Therefore they proposed a strong state to regulate competition. Well so far for the theory, in reality German corporations became as big as everywhere else. On the one hand I support the notion that usually big companies are more internationally-competitive. On the other hand I observe that the market power of big companies overwhelms those of small companies, big companies can pretty much dictate prices and conditions. That is a question of inequality too. For some subcontractors minimum wage might as well be maximum wage because the prices are so low. Bottom line: is there too much state intervention or to less or too wrong (and how would it be right)? In accordance with most economists I´m still puzzled. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Analogously to minimum wage there's also the idea of maximum wage. Another method to achieve the goal is a very high tax burden on the top incomes, at least income dollar/euro millionaires, such as 90%, which isn't even historically unprecedented (look what's just in). Trickle-down economics don't work. Trickle-up do.
Of course, by now the influence of the hyper-rich to effectively shout down all talk of raising taxes for the rich with cries and whines of "SOCIALISM!!! We rich have it so hard!" (yeah right, because high taxes = socialism = Soviet-style totalitarianism – George Orwell, as a socialist, would have been deeply offended by this equation) is so overwhelming that there is only one road (to serfdom, ironically, if "only" for the masses), namely towards plutocracy/corporatocracy and socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, also known as privatizing profits and socializing losses, where the government's role is merely as servant of big-business interests, redistributing income from the poor to the rich and keeping the poor's lives under surveillance with their secret services or other government agencies such as employment offices (so that the rich don't have to pay for it) lest the poor do not work hard enough and indulge in any unnecessary luxuries (because presumably, luxurious consumption by the rich will suffice to keep the economy growing).
Ironically (or not so much, since Orwell wasn't anti-socialism, after all, and opposed right-wing totalitarianism too), this scenario resembles 1984 so much that you've got to be really deluded (or rich enough to not care) to deny that Orwell (and Marx too) had a point, to put it very mildly. Guess whose backing the other major form of totalitarianism besides Stalinism had? Yep, that of big corporations.
Funny enough, after the end of that, both the biggest parties in Germany were dominated by Marxists or Christian socialists respectively who wanted to implement some form of socialism, the CDU/CSU (who are now thought of as the more right-wing one) initially even more zealously than the (traditionally left-wing) SPD.
I know these are all standard left-wing talking points. Doesn't mean they're wrong. Of course, the rational answer to political (usually economical, at least in the biggest ones) debates is: treat it like science. Run experiments. Decide on set-ups and success conditions beforehand. Set aside countries, provinces or even only cities/towns and implement big-government social democracy (been there, done that, haven't we?), minarchy, Freiwirtschaft, democratic socialism (ever heard of Project Cybersyn?), unconditional basic income and other ideas and compare their effects. Interestingly, (undogmatic at least) left-wingers are in my experience far more open to experiments and learning from historical examples than right-wingers are. (Except libertarians, who should really get their sandboxes to play in, although preferrably only with their own kind.) Wonder why that is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The Christian Social Party also sheds light on a major reason why many Christians were (and still are) so violently opposed to Marxism even when they agreed with the basic idea of socialism, and therefore came up with their religious re-branding thereof as Christian socialism: Marx was not only a critic of religion, but also a Jew (Antisemitism having accompanied Christianity ever since the very beginning). And for all of the finger-pointing that Christians just love engaging in at the "dirty atheist commies" who murdered millions of people, they are in total, 100% denial of the very, very Christian underpinnings of Nazism, because it makes a hash of their moral superiority. (The Nazis, too, liked certain aspects of socialism and pretended to be just as much against capitalism as Marxism, which is why they called themselves national socialists, after all: they wanted pseudo-socialism – i. e., a strong government mitigating but not eliminating class differences – only within the confines of the Volksgemeinschaft.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen article needs attention[edit]

I know economics and politics are more important, but it's not true that there is nothing to do anymore at Tarja Turunen. The article's quality constantly suffers from outdated information and phrasings. Part of this problem is the tendency of contributors to engage in journalism and recentism and failing to anticipate this problem by writing more robustly. Will you take care of that? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm re-reading it in a couple of days and as allways will tend to delete stuff with broken links or obscure sources. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)