Talk:Karl Marx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Karl Marx has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The lead says "was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist." While Marx had an interest in these topics, it was enough to be described as such? Aozyk (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Marx is notable for one are of his work, not for all those things, together. Spumuq (talq) 08:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The phrase seems accurate
philosopher: Green tickY
economist: Green tickY
sociologist: Green tickY
revolutionary socialist: Green tickY
journalist (day job): Green tickY
Neonorange (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if he is notable for his daily job (journalist). Others, I think, are certainly valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Marx qualifies a journalist also
  • eleven years writing for the New York Tribune, 1852—1963.
  • editor Rheinische Zeitung, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, ...
  • see "The Grub Street Years", Christopher Hitchens for The Guardian (particularly "Of the toil he had to perform to make ends meet...)
Neonorange (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt that he was a journalist, but per MOS:BIO the lead should only include professions for which the subject is notable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If he only been a correspondent for the New York Tribune, that alone might not establish notability. But his being the publisher of the two left-wing journals certainly does. If he had died after the first one closed, he would still be notable, just not as notable. Furthermore, we normally mention a person's gainful occupation or profession, even if they are not notable in the field, since it is important for understanding the person, regardless of the reason for their notability. BIOS does not say we should not. TFD (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Great article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.14.157 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx Nationality[edit]

«German/Stateless» is not a nationality. [1] [2] Bald is not a hair color. Spumuq (talq) 15:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is an attempt to express that he was a subject of the German Empire who renounced his citizenship. The lede states, "Born in Germany, he later became stateless and spent much of his life in London in the United Kingdom." Since he this is not BLP, we should cover his lifetime. IDK about bald, he seems to have a lot of hair. It's not like he's Matt Frewer. Ogress smash! 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing that Spumuq is trying to apply this RFC, where "bald is not a hair color" is given as an argument against having "none" as a religion. I don't think the arguments there directly apply here; besides the fact that nationality is not religion, it's simply not accurate to state that Marx's nationality was only German if it actually wasn't his entire life. Maybe adjusting the wording to say "German until statelessness" (or something less awkward) would make everyone happy. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)