Talk:The Communist Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Troubling trends in page edits and lack of Talk page text[edit]

One of the things that I liked (past tense) about Wikipedia is that you could hit the talk button to see why particular edits were preformed and what the rational was for the edits. However, with this page and with "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" the talk pages have been moved elsewhere (or removed) so that dissent about the edits cannot be seen. With this page, the planks of the communist manifesto have been removed and the talk page has no content to explain this removal. This gives Wikipedia a feel of being corrupted/co-opted. What gives? 70.171.238.95 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been removed or hidden. As with all talk pages, closed threads are archived; they can easily be seen here. RolandR (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
RolandR (talk), there is no explanation at that archive link as to why the ten planks are not present in the entry. I used to link to that sub-topic and now it is not in the article. HafizHanif (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked about the relevant and popular information regarding the short-term demands / ten planks of this work without response, so I recently added that portion along with some other edits. My contribution identifies the clear edict and sums up the approach this ideology has. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ten points[edit]

Added the summary list of demands from source text per conversation [with Indopug from last year]. --HafizHanif (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where Indopug strongly disagreed with your proposal, and nobody supported it. Unless you can cite a reliable source which explicitly identifies these "ten planks" and singles them out as particularly significant, your edit is unacceptable original research. RolandR (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If the issue is the use of "ten planks" then I will remove that... but the "measures" (the term used) are clearly listed at page 243-44 at the source I cited. Why is there such a fuss about this clear source summary of the manifest?? --HafizHanif (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the OR and RS issues that RolandR brings up, I have to say that if you think the ten points are a good summary of the Manifesto, you've missed the entire point of the Manifesto. Please read Eric Hobsbawm's "On the Communist Manifesto"—cited in the article—for a good primer on the topic.—indopug (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would state otherwise. You went on for several months putting together an article according to your point of view, what YOU believed to be a substantial effort in defining what this work is, meant, and what it spoke to... without including what the general public is familiar with. Some time ago this article was fine until people began butchering it, writing in their own fanfare, and removing important and vital summaries, like the ten measures. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic effort, these ten points speak to the effort of the manifesto. I say "summary" in speaking to the soluble effort the manifesto is identifying; the ten measures are summarized solutions. The ten measures are easy to understand. They are easy to read points that would assist someone desiring to find what the message of the manifesto would render... and you think they are not important or not worth listening. They are highlighted and counted in the manifesto itself. Referencing what another man opines regarding the work is besides the point of the actual work and what the work is highlighting. Arbitration sounds like the next step to cease these silly objections.--HafizHanif (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug:, @RolandR:, In response to your assumption that I was using OR; starting from page 90 to 96 at this citation, you can read for yourselves how the central bank in the U.S. was developed in following measure 5 of the Communist Manifesto. I advise you two to also peruse the citations this author uses.[1]

Looking again at the U.S.; I think measure 10 regarding free public schools is a given, but I can also find that citation if necessary to elaborate the obvious. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I mean by original research and synthesis: using your own tendentious interpretation of a primary source, to draw your own highly contentious conclusions. An edit such as that is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia; you nead to find a {{WP:RS|reliable source]] which advances this claim. And I doubt that you will find one; this is a staple of the wilder fringes of the US right, not to be found in any acceptable mainstream source. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@RolandR:, please identity my contentious conclusion. Where have I written any of my own opinions in editing the article?? Or extrapolating what I opined in this talk thread? I simply copied and pasted ( quoted without using quotations ) the ten measures directly from the source. So, what any reader would interpret would be their own private interpretation, not something I am "contentiously" proposing or advancing any "claim," for where have I claimed anything?? Please QUOTE my "contentious claims" I've edited into the article. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Have you already forgotten what you wrote above just an hour ago: "starting from page 90 to 96 at this citation, you can read for yourselves how the central bank in the U.S. was developed in following measure 5 of the Communist Manifesto"? RolandR (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@RolandR:, as I just stated, this is the first instance of writing my opinion. No where in the article did I express any such opinion. You are arguing after the fact of my expressed opinion here in the talk page, but can you find my opinion or whatever you are suspiciously calling "contentious" in the main article??? I'll wait. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the exact edit / contribution I made:

List of measures:'
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[2]

. --HafizHanif (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

These simple and short ten phrases / measures succinctly summarize the aim of the manifesto's effort ( they are listed in the above section ). They speak volumes in addressing the changes Marx and Engels wrote about ( the rest of the manifesto ). The general public would best be served if allowed to read and identify these ten measures. This would assist the reader in understanding what Marx and Engel's aims / demands were. Since the Wikipedia effort is providing an encyclopedia where the common person can find decent citations and concise information when conducting research for school, work, or the like, not having these ten measures included in the article would be a disservice to those searching Wikipedia for highlighted and summarized information. When has any manifesto not been known to have a list of demands? Not having the list of demands of the Communist Manifesto in this wiki entry neuters the article.

Regarding the manner in which this objection is being voiced:

I've found the manner in which I've been treated quite discouraging in furthering the wiki effort. Two individuals are calling "consensus" when only three ( myself and them two ) have opined recently on this particular matter and article. Not sure if one of them is a WP:SOCK, but further discussion may make this entire matter clearer and show motive in obstructing the simple addition of the ten measures. I expressed my concern when my edit was removed several months ago when one of these individuals took it upon themselves to conduct an entire rewrite of the article. I didn't object and let them continue without issue. That effort did affect the statistics of readership of the article. I applaud the effort of this person in editing, but again, not including what is so simple and concise as those ten measures is like not including water when trying to make soup. They initially desired to assist in including the ten measures, then chose against them, which I found quite odd. One could review the editing history and the dialogue at my talk page for clarity and the dubiousness of the editor who rewrote the entire article and now acts as the article's co-manager. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, that you strike through, or remove the comments about other editors. This helps bot-summoned editors like me concentrate on the content issues.Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion. I separated my complaint from the request and reasoning for my editing contribution. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)