User talk:Schwalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Schwalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : Poole - HAL 9000[edit]

My apologies for the delay, the article has now been restored as a contested prod. Note that the article may still be liable for an articles for deletion discussion. Please improve on the article and add reliable sources to reduce such likelihood. - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the Jewish Question[edit]

Hallo, I see you've put the On the Jewish Question article into the Category: Anti-Judaism. I guess the reason is that Marx's essay is considered to take a standpoint hostile to Judaism. I've removed the article from that category again. Please note that the article gives the sourced information that most critical scholars reject the argument that Marx would be an anti-Semit (I have not checked that source myself). So there must be a good reason to put the article into the category "anti-judaism". Schwalker 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this category is totally appropriate considering Marx offers a radical critique of Judaism throughout the essay, coming to some fairly negative conclusions about Jews and Judaism. I'm not saying that Marx was an anti-Semite, only that this particular tract is very much against Judaism -- thus it belongs in the category. Have you ever read it? --Wassermann 07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

re report to WP:AIV regarding Eugenics vandalisation[edit]

I have removed the report to AIV as there was only one minor warning given to the ip. Furthermore, it appears that this might be a content dispute since the ip is substituting text. I have commented at their talkpage that this is inappropriate and that changes should be discussed and consensus gained for such changes. If the ip continues to ignore discussion then warn them, and if they ignore the warnings bring it back to AIV. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I thought there had already been two warnings, by me and User:ConfuciusOrnis, on the IP's talk-page. However, thanks for your notification. --Schwalker 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV report[edit]

Okay, you reported (talk · contribs) on the page (diff) for "insulting me on their talk-page after a warning". I'm not sure which IP you are talking about here, but looking through this IP's contributions, I see no edits to any talk pages. Initially, when I removed your report, I had not checked that user's contributions, and just looked at the talk page and saw no warnings for the supposed insults. My apologies if this incident has caused you any incovenience. On a side note, articles that are currently being edit-warred over are not semi-protected, but rather are full protected (see Wikipedia:Protection policy) ~ Sebi [talk] 11:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Elaborating on this; when I used the term "received no warnings" in my edit summary, I was not referring to the IP address' supposed homophobic comments, but rather, for the insults you said that a similar IP had placed on your talk page. ~ Sebi [talk] 11:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand now, but a single attack on a talk page does not warrant a block. If protection is necessary in content disputes no matter who is involved, full protection will be used, and not semi-protection. ~ Sebi [talk] 12:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


If you were aware of the controversy, but have deliberately not reflected that in the article, then it would a form of intellectual dishonesty and against the spirit of cooperative and consensual editing of Wikipedia. So I will assume that you are not aware of the controversy, and therefore encourage you to read more widely before you contribute to the article in question. In the meantime, I will endeavour to find you a reference. Grant | Talk 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning why I should not edit Classical Marxism is clever. However, if I'm not mistaken, in the last instance it seems to depend on the existence of a scholary controversy which till now has only been claimed in wikipedia user-space. So I won't guarantee not to revert the article back to the well sourced version again in the next time.
To read about a subject before I edit an article is what I've tried so far on en.wikipedia. Thank you for encouragement to continue this practice.
Please let me repeat, that I don't demand you to find a reference for me. Instead, the wikipedia-article should be supported with references.
Greetings --Schwalker 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that in the interest of resolving this discussion I have taken the liberty of transferring your reasoning from the various edit summaries and put them into a discussion on the talk page so that others may also contribute to this debate. Cheers, JenLouise 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Grant65 and JenLouise, I've removed edit summaries from the talk page again, and answered on User talk:JenLouise. Cheers, --Schwalker 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scwalker, I don't know if that is how things are meant to work on Wikipedia - I'm not sure how else you are meant to get a resolution of this issue if people can't participate in the discussion. However its really neither here nor there to me as long as it does get resolved.
Regarding the title "Classical Marxism" thats the term that was used in my sociology theory subjects and I just assumed it was widely used so I didn't bother with references (and yes it did just look at Marx and Engels) but when I get a chance I'll go and find my uni notes and try and find a proper reference for it. JenLouise 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism of Hitler[edit]

You removed material from this article with the edit summary, "Hitler as a vegetarian -removed sentence which did not contribute to the article's topic; neither nor S. Devi herself are a reliable source)".[1] I am not the author of this material, nor do I care much for its inclusion, but Devi isn't being used as a reliable source - Devi's position is being represented in relation to her beliefs about Hitler's vegetarianism. If there is a question about the accuracy of these statements, or their interpretation, please raise that issue on the talk page, but claiming the source isn't reliable when it is used to represent the proponent, isn't a valid argument. —Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the content for a completely different reason. Please see Talk:Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler#Content_removed. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the revert, sorry about that. --MPerel 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MPerel, no problem. --Schwalker (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The original text was correct and covers far more than just p. 88; Read the chapter and the other sources. The racial policies of Nazi Germany were based on achieving racial purity of the Aryan race. These racial policies were directly related to Nazi beliefs about the environment and what they put in their bodies. Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer notes how the Nazi officials on racial policy were concerned with the weakening of the genetic profile of Germans from radium and X-rays; tobacco use is described by Nazi racial hygienists as an "obstacle to racial policy" and linked by Nazi's to the "corruption of the German germ plasm"; the same was true for alochol use. Concerns about alcohol's effect upon genetic health were raised, and chronic alcoholics were sterilized under the Sterilization Law to protect the "German germ plasm". In the same vein, Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could, according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race. Hitler attributed the origins of his beliefs to Wagner's ideas about racial purity which influenced the ideas behind Nazism and race. In an 1881 essay, Wagner claimed that the human race had become contaminated and impure through racial mixing and the eating of animal flesh. Wagner believed that the original diet was vegetarian. Proctor describes Wagner's call for a "a new kind of purify Germany" from "the eating of animal flesh" and "Jewish aggression". Wagner claimed that abstaining from a fleshy diet would allow a human moral redemption... (See also: Wagner's essay) Rudacille summarizes Proctor's position from Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (also duplicated in The Nazi War on Cancer) which restates the same idea: "The Nazis wanted to return to what they saw as the original, natural state of human life and society. On the other hand, Nazi medical authorities also wanted to breed a better human, and this induced them to entertain radical measures to alter and 'improve' the course of human biological history." These ideas are said to have a "strong anti-Semitic element": "Jews were blamed for having suppressed more natural German healing practices...Judaism itself was blamed for an ethic that sanctioned animal abuse..." The connection between Nazi Germany and animal protection and environmentalism is described in Rudacille's summary, leading to Nazi legislation: "Laws against vivisection and kosher slaughter were followed by wildlife legislation in 1934 and 1934." Rudacille's book quotes the following from Goebbel's diary: "Meat-eating is a perversion of our human nature. When we reach a higher level of civilization, we shall doubtless overcome it." Proctor quotes an even more revealing passage from Goebbel: "The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race...Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle." —Viriditas | Talk 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your long explanation nad please excuse me that I'm not able at the moment to address each source that you've presented. I still can't see that they would sufficiently support the sentence in the wikipedia article:

Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could (...) according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race.

I don't know of a clear statement by H. himself or a scholar ascribing to him that the had such a belief. For example, vegetarianism was not a part of the Nuremberg laws, and is not mentioned in "Racial policy of Nazi Germany". I think the article should not confuse things which in deed may be interconnected, but in a different way. Vegetarianism and environmentalism were according to some scholars a part of Nazi ideology. Most scholars agree that H. himself practiced or pretended some form of vegetarianism. But this alone does not imply that we should ascribe a belief to H. that vegetarianism would be an effective means to "protect" or "spiritually renew" an Aryan race. --Schwalker (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But this alone does not imply that we should ascribe a belief to H. that vegetarianism would be an effective means to "protect" or "spiritually renew" an Aryan race.
But that's exactly what it was, what Wagner said, (according to Proctor) and what Hitler believed after reading Wagner. In fact, the quote from Hitler is a paraphrase from Wagner! I'll simply find more references for you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, please don't find references for me, I'm not important here. Rather the article has to be well sourced. When editing Wikipedia, we also must keep in mind the Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position policy.
H. was interested in Wagner's operas, and attended the Bayreuth festivals and was befriend with Richard's daughter in law Winifred Wagner. But as far as I know, it is unknown what Hitler had read, and who exactly had influenced his opinions and attitudes.
Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have a communication problem. I just finished explaining to you that it is known, and the article explicitly mentions that Hitler became a vegetarian because of Wagner's beliefs. These beliefs are directly linked to the racial policy of the Nazi's. What part of this do you disagree with and why? —Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I've looked up Robert Procter: The Nazi War on Cancer, p. 136. He writes (with additional boldface emphasize by me on passages which seem to support my doubts):

Hitler appears to have given up meat in 1931, though the reasons behind his decision (if reasons are to be expected in such matters) are not entirely clear. Several of his biographers point to the influence of the nationalist antisemitic composer, Richard Wagner. In an 1881 essay, Wagner had claimed that the human race had become contaminated and impure through racial mixing and the eating of animal flesh (the original human diet in his viewe, too, was vegetarian); a new kind of socialism was needed to purify Germany of these twin evilsm calling upon "true and hearty fellowship with the vegetarians, the protectors of animals, and the friends if temperance" to save the German people from Jewish aggression. Wagner claimed that abstaining from a fleshy diet would allow a human redemption - possibly even for the Jews.[43] Hitler seems to have taken at least part of the message to heart: "I don't touch meat largely of what Wagner says on the subject."[44]

To summarize: For Procter, Hitlers reasons for vegetarianism are not entirely clear, Wagner's position was that vegetarianism would allow human, not just "Aryan" redemption, and Hitler seems to have taken part of the message to heart, which is not necessarily the whole of Wagner's concept.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The central thesis of Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer is the relationship between Nazi's, and cancer. Proctor argues throughout the book that "...cancer prevention also fit with the Nazi emphasis on natural modes of living. Hitler, we should recall, was a vegetarian and did not smoke or drink...Vegetarian peoples seems to have very low cancer rates, a view endorsed by Liek and one that grew in popularity in the Nazi era.." If you had actually read the biographies that Proctor refers to, you would understand why Proctor writes "though the reasons behind his decision...are not entirely clear". There are two simple reasons: 1) Hitler's vegetarianism was attributed to Wagner and several other reasons, such as Hitler's concern for his personal health, and 2) this leads right into Proctor's thesis, Hitler's concern for cancer. Proctor does not question the Wagner explanation in any way, but in fact supports it throughout his book. According to Proctor's publisher, "...he also concludes that the Nazis' forward-looking health activism ultimately came from the same twisted root as their medical crimes: the ideal of a sanitary racial utopia reserved exclusively for pure and healthy Germans." [2] In fact, Hitler's reasons for vegetarianism are as clear as they need to be. Proctor's rationale for stating that they weren't, was in order to buttress his cancer argument; Proctor does not cast doubt on the reasons for Hitler's vegetarianism in any way, nor the Wagner explanation which the publisher goes to great lengths to support: "Proctor shows that cancer also became an important social metaphor, as the Nazis portrayed Jews and other "enemies of the Volk" as tumors that must be eliminated from the German body politic." Proctor argues that Hitler's reasons are not entirely clear for one reason: in order to support Proctor's idea that concern for cancer was Hitler's primary motivation for a vegetarian diet. This does not say anything to detract from Hitler's position. The article did not say that Wagner believed that a vegetarian diet could...according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race", it said Hitler. I don't understand then, why you have replied with "Wagner's position was that vegetarianism would allow human, not just "Aryan" redemption, and Hitler seems to have taken part of the message to heart, which is not necessarily the whole of Wagner's concept." Please explain. I will add the disputed material to this section, again:

Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate his personal health problems and according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race.

There is nothing about Wagner in the above. In The Scalpel and the Butterfly, Rudacille writes, "Wagner...believed that civilization could be regenerated through vegetarianism". Hitler's "civilization" was not concerned with "spiritually renewing" Jews, and according to Rudacille, "of course the Jews, and all forms of unnatural "Jewish" though, must be purged." What is this civilization, then? Obviously, one composed of Aryans. Reminding you again of Proctor's thesis which concludes, "...that the Nazis' forward-looking health activism ultimately came from...the ideal of a sanitary racial utopia reserved exclusively for pure and healthy Germans." So we have consensus across the board. Not Wagner's "humanity", not "civilization", but a racial utopia reserved for pure Germans: the so-called "Aryan race". But you have ignored this distinction, changing it to the "human race" as Wagner used it, but not as Hitler used it. What did the Nazi's mean by the "human race"? Who was going to get "spiritually renewed" in Nazi Germany?

Only the "pure-blooded" Aryan type, the highest, was essential to the organic whole....Non-Aryan types were sub-human and degenerate accretions which were ranked biologically between human beings and chimpanzees. They were described by the S.S. Main Office as "a creation of nature, apparently completely similar biologically to the human with hands, feet, and a sort of brain, with eyes and mouth, which is, however, completely different, a horrible creature who is only an attempt at being human..." It was the value of a people (Volkswert), of a living race, that was the basic unit of measurement of worth for Hitler. The members of the Aryan race were considered fully human. (Walter et al. 1990. ISBN 0809131919)

The concept of the "human race" is used differently by Hitler and the Nazis. Using the term "Aryan race" to make this distinction clear is a form of disambiguation. Unless you can actually address this issue, I'm going to add it back into the article as it was originally supported by Proctor and other authors. The very notion is even supported by Proctor's publisher. It seems like you are arguing against an idea that the text does not even express. —Viriditas | Talk 10:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I would like to see you rewrite the material in question to meet my objections. That way, we will not have to edit war over it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And to revisit my promise to simply find more references for you:

The vision of the future was a world where animals would not be unnecessarily harmed...meat-eating became a symbol of the decay of other civilizations; and vegetarianism became a symbol of the new, pure civilization that was to be Germany's future....Wagner's thinking was particularly influential...The human race, Nazis argued, had become contaminated and impure through a mixing of the races and the eating of animal flesh. "Regeneration of the human race" was linked to animal protection and vegetarianism. Wagner's principal concern was with the biological purification of Germany and its political future. He believed that socialists had to ally with vegetarians, animal protectionists, and friends of temperance to save mankind from Jewish aggression...In an essay, entitled "Heldentum und Christenheit" (Heroism and Christianity), Wagner articulated an anti-Semitic theory of history, which linked vegetarianism to Germany's future... (Arluke, Sanders. 1996. ISBN 1566394414)

Viriditas | Talk 12:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Gregory Moore's Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor (2002 Cambridge University Press; ISBN 0521812305) further supports the idea that Wagner was concerned with spiritually renewing the Aryan race, not the human race. I've added a small portion of the material to a footnote. The full text reveals a great deal more. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still carry out original research by combining facts and asumptions in order to arrive at a new theory:

  • 1. Wagner...believed that civilization could be regenerated through vegetarianism. This is Rudacille's paraphrase of Wagner's ideas.
  • 2. Hitler was influenced by Wagner. This is what several scholars say, while it is still unclear how, and to what extent. For example, the young H. possibly also had been influenced by Karl Lueger or Lanz von Liebenfels.
  • 3. for Hitler, the term "civilization" can only mean "a civilization composed of Aryans". Well, this is very doubtfull. Rather, the Nazi's goal was to keep what they believed to be the Arayn race pure, and apart from other people. But this does not rule out to acknowledge other civilizations, for example on other continents.

However, now you combine these points to conclude: Hitler ... believed that (only) a civilization composed of Aryans could be regenerated through vegetarianism, and this according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany. But we don't have a direct quote to support this conclusion, and to construct such a synthesis on our own is prohibited for an author of Wikipedia. --Schwalker (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas[edit]

Hi Schwalker. Okay. Firstly, the neutrality template. See Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. The birth date will not be re-added to the article, and if that's the reason for the neutrality template, it really should not be there.

This edit ([3]) is telling - you seem to want de Zayas labeled as a revisionist. Any such claim will need multiple very reliable sources. Such a notable figure's being a revisionist would not be confined to one cherry-picked review from an online discussion forum ([4]), unless the claim was a nonsense.

This is also, I believe, why you want the award from the Ingolstadt Research Institute for Contemporary History included, and to describe them as a "far-right revisionist group". I can't find any evidence of this being the case. I find evidence of their being revisionist (eg [5]), but not "far right". You say "I'm not sure how problems can be solved by silencing important facts". The onus is upon you to show how the group is important and hence if their award deserves mention - do they have an article? A useful and typical cut-off point for whether awards should be included on an English Wikipedia biography is whether the awarding group has an article. 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points on my talk page:
  • The birthday - nope, if it's being removed, even by anonymous IPs, then it can stay out. A birthday adds very little to an article.
  • That quote says he "sided with the revisionists" on one occasion. It does not call him a revisionist.
  • If the H-net article is wrong, then find a number of reliable references describing it as anything more than an online discussion forum and change it. There are seven fairly solid references in the H-net article from diffierent sources, all of which describe it as an online forum or messageboard. While it is indeed a reputable forum, with a great deal of interest and subscription, it's also less subject to scrutiny or peer review than a journal or even a major newspaper of record.
  • I've addressed your point about the Ingolstadt institute on Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas.
  • Re the addendum - I just picked a link at random describing them as "far right" - there weren't many. I couldn't find any describing them as revisionist. Neıl 10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to avoid any use of the term "revisionist" in the article, as it is a very loaded term (almost an epithet when used to describe a historian). As the sole source for this term is one review on H-Net, then I do not think it should be used. If there were plenty of sources accusing de Zayas of being revisionist, then it would be a different issue. But one? It's not enough - WP:UNDUE may be of interest. Is this review from H-Net the sole reliable source that describes de Zayas as "revisionist" (or siding with the revisionists)?Perhaps an example would help. This scholarly work describes Bill Clinton as a crook. The piece is available via Google Scholar [6], and is from a reputable source. Does this mean we should then include in the Bill Cinton article the statement that Bill Clinton has been described as a crook? Of course not.
You have made a good case for the birthdate to be included given it is available in the public domain, so okay. I do wonder why IP addresses are constantly trying to remove it - are we sure 31 May 1947 is correct? Is there more than one source for it?
You are right - the IHR described the Ingolstadt institute as revisionist, and not far right. My error. Neıl 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the paper "The ‘Practical Turn’and the Convergence of Traditions" by M Luntley, Philosophical Explorations 1998 is not on politices but on philosophical logic. Since I don't have access to the text, I would guess that the author doesn't really claim that Bill Clinton was a crook, but that he only uses the sentence as a hypothetical example. Teachers often use such examples in their class to address their students on an emotional level and motivate them to start thinking on their own. However, I've readded a more accurate version of the critique of de Z.' alleged revisionism with two additional citations of H-Net reviews, one calling de Z. a revisionist, and the other describes the reviewed book as nearly frankly revisionist, and in particular critisizes a chapter written by Z.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I started today listing the reliable sources for all disputed issues. Perhaps you like to add your sources too?--KarlV (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked for new ideas, and I do agree that listing the sources could be a step towards a more factual work on the article. I did not know before that there are so many seemingly independent sources for de Z.'s birthdates. Greeting --Schwalker (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there are more sources. I think more factual work is crucial, because we have here a classical situation, where a living person is interested in the manipulation of the article about him. I can understand that, but he is a public person and he can not avoid that also critical content of reliable sources are mentioned. It seems that he has a strong and agressive acting Lobby. I do not think that wikipedia will tolerate that any longer. Regards--KarlV (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Is this RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, they sourced from I did not notice it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On The Jewish Question[edit]

I've commenced a discussion there, on the Talk page, on the issue. Please join in. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice regarding the T/t discussion. I have 2 issues of concern to me. You mentioned the Stenning 1926 imprint. I'm not familiar with it. Could you please post on my Talk page a more precise citation so I could research that imprint? It interests me very much. The other matter is opening up a WP article like so: "On the Jewish question" which may address your concerns (I hope). I would certainly support that. I think the current "Big T" article is merely one school of Marxism's review of Marx's work by that title. Trotsky has another view. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I've identified the work:
    Translated by H. J. Stenning.
    (New York: International Publishers.
    1926. Pp. 208. ... "On the Jewish question"
Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

In order to get proper consensus for a move, you need to properly list this request at WP:RM. There is no centralized area for discussion and if anything it appears the consensus may be against your position after a brief skimming of the page. Please complete the process properly, listed under today's date, and in 5 days we will see if consensus has emerged. JPG-GR (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've filed the same request on 29 April 2008 and, after it had been changed by another user, on 30 April 2008. Now you won't expect me to file the same request a third time and start the process from the begining. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Then, as you yourself stated on my talk page, there is no consensus to support the move and the issue is closed. JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see you are not an Wikipedia-administrator, or would have rights to close processes which other users have started. --Schwalker (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't need to be an administrator to see consensus (or a lack thereof) nor to understand and follow through with policy. JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Marxists[edit]

Dear Schwalker,

I noticed you restored the Prominent Marxist list on the Marxist sidebar as a large collection of names.

The Frankford School, I'd point out right away and as a side note, is not an individual, and if it was, its mother must have hated it, what would it call itself - T.F. School?

Anyway, couldn't help myself there, when we speak of prominent Marxists its Marx, Engels and Lenin. They are the major contributors, period. Most people would include Trotsky (though he is despised in some quarters despite being probably more famous than Lenin historically by his own actions/writing), and I think its justified to include Luxemburg and Kautsky. Especially Gramsci and Bertstein in a way are real stretches, though, IMO.

The others--- Most people don't know of them, they are not prominent, either popularly, or theoretically, on the level of Marx and Engels- which is the defining issue when you put M&E into a list like this. Why can't they all be resigned to the "More Marxists" section? You say "You Can't Get Around" some of the obscure individuals who are unknown outside of their currents, but to a non-Marxist who is most likely to come upon this box, your diluting the truly famous Marxists with scores of relative unknowns, which is very anti-social, you know.

So-hopefully you'll mull that over, all I'm saying is:

"Think of the children, think of the children!"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboring (talkcontribs) 18:34, 29 July 2008 Signature added --Schwalker (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Samboring,
I think you are writing of this two edits of mine. And perhaps you agree with, or are responsible for this removal of some names and the addition of Bernstein's.
I'm of the opinion that every leading and most influential Marxist theorist of each era does belong into the template. I don't know if later Marxists were less or more smart than Marx and Engels themselves. But the younger theorists always know what has happened in history until now, so they have a different point to start from.
For the Encyclopaedia, it is the knowledge and opinion of the experts in a field which is important, not how prominent someone is for a broad audience. Our task is to educate the broad audience, not to reinforce their prejudice. Besides, we have to keep in mind that for certain decades ago, and in their own countries, some of these pepople, for example Bernstein, Luxemburg or Gramsci were much better known then they are today, or then they are in other countries. But encyclopeadic relevance is an universal concept, not a question of time and place of the reader.
The Frankfurt school is a whole group of social scientists who colaborated since the 1920s at the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt. Since they are very important and influential for Marxism, I think it is justified to use this umbrealla term "Frankfurt School" in this template.
I have also followed the (your?) proposal "strongly recommend an actual page for listing all recognized Marxists" and reinstalled the more comprehensive List of contributors to Marxist theory.
Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Language[edit]

My apologies for any offence. I understand Marx had a relationship with his housekeeper and I believe she is buried in the grave (with his wife). You can see her name on the headstone

jonathan Telaviv1 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I do not feel offended personally. I hope you don't mind my revert too much. I'm aiming to support the sober work on the article as far as I can. The name on the picture of the gravestone reads "Helena Demuth", which is Helene Demuth. It seems that other relatives of Karl like his children and grandchildren have been burried there, too. I'm not sure whether Helene and Karl had a relationship or children. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

German "politician" stubs[edit]

This is exactly why editors like you Schwalker are needed who have the knowledge to expand these stubs. The point is that Claussen is a member of the SPD and most of the time implies that they are a politician. Most of the articles started are politicians but we can't be held accountable for the several who may not be and are just party members and may be sociologists or whatever. We run by categories and picked up weiss through his article being categorized as a CDU politician. Please do not scold ALbert in the way that you did when most of the article started are politicians and is obvious from German wikipedia. Most of his and my stubs do make sense. The system is taken from german wikipedia where the articles are organised by party under German politicians by party'. I am certain that the vast majority in the lists are politicians, there may be a number who have got mixed in for being party members and not much else. Either way these srtubs are a start, and whether Claussen is a sociologist or not, it leaves the gateway open to editors such as yourself who know who they are and can expand them accordingly. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


  • "A curtain had fallen, my holy of holies was rent asunder, and new gods had to be installed." Karl Marx, Letter to his father, 10 November 1837, MEGA I (i) 2, pp.213-221 paragraph 14--Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) --Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

Please do not throw accusations of "vandalism" around lightly, even in edit summaries. This is especially true when an editor provides information supporting the validity of the edit quoted directly from Wikipedia policies, such as WP:USER#NOTOWN. In my opinion, your user page is in violation of this policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Good Luck! I know in your heart you're a great person. And never loose faith in yourself! Keep up the good work.

Henri L. Bergson once said, “Think like a man of action, and act like a man of thought.”
:) Brendon is here 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)