Talk:Friedrich Engels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pantheist or Atheist?

The article should decide if Engels was a naturalist pantheist or an atheist. Because that is presently presented in a contradictory way.

a wrong location information

Hey, the monument of Marx and Engels can be situated in Berlin (propably in Ex-East(ern)-Berlin), sure, but it is not situated on Alexanderplatz! This is wrong definitly! I know it because I was in Berlin very often. The Alexanderplatz hasn't green places/spaces or trees even.

Here the result of my recherche: The monument of Marx and Engels is nearby the "Palace of the Republik" in the direction to Alexanderplatz (Alexander square / place).

The monument is a part of the Marx-Engels Forum which is situated at the back of the "Palast der Republik". Yes, both are situated in the Eastern part of Berlin as both are monuments of the former GDR. The monument is situated in Berlin Mitte, in the near of the Alexanderplatz but NOT on the Alexanderplatz, definetly not. Here is a picture of the Alexanderplatz: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Berlin_Alexanderplatz_Fernsehturm.JPG cattleyard 2005-10-19

did he

Did Friedrich Engels own a factory?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) .

More to the point: Did he own human beings? The description of factory workers as "slaves" strikes me as being a bit over-stated or, at least, confusing the term's metaphorical use with its use to describe actual, state-endorsed ownership of people. Should Engels really be included in the list of slave owners? Geeman 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. This category should be removed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"he described the workers in factories that he inherited as slaves", says 132.241.246.111.

Do you have a citation for that? I'm sure he describes many workers as slaves. That does not, in fact, make him a slaveholder. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There very likely is a reference for Engels describing factory workers as slaves. It's not an unusual metaphor for such people--heck, I've used it myself. My point is that it does not matter. This description of "workers as slaves" is different from the common use version of the word "slave" and does not qualify as something should list him amongst people who actually purchased other human beings with money, owned them, was able to transfer ownership of them, and owned the product of their labor. Does anyone have a reference for THAT? If not, his name should be removed from the list of slaveowners and the link removed from the bottom of this article.

Geeman 08:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stirner assertion

This assertion isn't right on a few levels:

"Note that Marx left out of his criticism one person of Bauer's circle: Max Stirner, whose book Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Ego and Its Own) had appeared in October 1844 and which Engels met with some approval (letter to Marx, 19 November). Stirner's book ultimately had the effect that Marx — and Engels — abandoned the humanistic materialism of Ludwig Feuerbach and developed Marx's own Historical Materialism, sketched in his Die Deutsche Ideologie (1845/46, published first in 1932)."

The only cited fact is that Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" was met with some approval by Engels. The November 19, 1844 letter bears this out, but only this. To suggest that Stirner's book ultimately caused a supposed break with "humanistic materialism" and put Marx on the road to "Historical Materialism" is POV and sounds to me like OR. This sort of musing (or mind-reading) regarding Marx's reasons for thinking the way he did doesn't belong in the Engels piece, anyway. I'm taking it out if there are no serious objections.--Dialecticas 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Frederich?

On 10 December 2006 an anonymous user changed 'Friedrich' to 'Frederich' in several places. This seems entirely wrong to me. Is there any justification for this change? It hasn't been reverted. Colonies Chris 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It also seems wrong to me. marxists.org uses Frederick, the BBC uses Friederich, and Gutenburg uses Friedrich (which I think is correct). We should use his original name but should first produce an authoritative source for it (!) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after double-checking a number of sources, I am so convinced it really is Friedrich that I will change it back. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation/Error of Fact

Text currently states or implies ('Back in Manchester') that Engels and Marx not only both lived in London, but that the Marxes and Engels shared a common dwelling. This contradicts known facts (e.g. Karl Marx) as well as the given reference (by Lenin) which states no such thing. I have corrected this and added appropriate reference. Also, FWIW, I don't think either Marx or Engels can be called 'Marxists' and IIRC Marx actually made a statement to that effect. Lycurgus 05:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Household Artillery

Could someone tell me where I can find some information about the Household Artillery? Did Engels write of his experience in this unit and the people he met? I am trying to research where Julius Kroehl might have served in the Prussian Army prior to arriving in American in 1844? Considering that both Engels and Kroehl were from merchant familiest (albeit, from different parts of the Kingdom), would they have experienced similar frustrations with the system? maclilus (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sergius Stepniak

Was present at some point during the funeral proceedings (probably at Waterloo Station: source The Times). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The section on his books has subjective analysis of them in addition to summation. This should be removed, and perhaps only listed/linked instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.102.159 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Appearance in fiction

Is it worth noting that he appears pretty significantly in Bull and Steven Brus's, novel Freedom and Necessity (1997)?

As it is fiction and anybody can be dipicted in any way in a work of fiction I would have to say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.26.136 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Major Works

I find it odd that The Communist Manifesto isn't listed under Major Works. While most of the work is Marx, Engels still is credited for a portion of authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.26.136 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Word instance edit

Please note for correction:

"While most of the associates of Marx and Engels were German immigrants living in Brussels, some of there new associates were Belgians." DPGallagher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpgallagher (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Capital II & III only

Engels did not publish Marx's notebooks (theories of surplus-value) which is commonly regarded as volume IV of Capital. Kautsky, a correspondent of Engels had done this instead. The only volumes of Capital Engels published after Marx's death were of course - volume II which took him 3 years and volume III which took him 9 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hegel's quote on history repeating itself

This is a minor point (and belongs more to Karl Marx then here, but in "18th Brumaire (...)" Marx remarks "[Hegel] forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce". The current wording seems to attribute the whole thing to Hegel, which is, to my knowledge, untrue (and definitely does not follow from citation to "18th Brumaire ..."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.129.165 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

German Communist

I think that categorizing Friedrich Engels as a 'German Communist' is spurious. Friedrich Engels was a marxist, not a communist. The school of communism is different from the school of marxism. --24.163.65.156 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the amount he wrote about Communism, the Manifesto, etc, you could definitely class him as a Communist. Remember, even Marx wasn't a Marxist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Marx disagreed with what others were doing in his name, no? If not Marxist or Communist for Engels how about Socialist? Empty Hat

Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, not the Marxist Manifesto, not the Socialist Manifesto178.210.114.106 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement over first meeting

These two statements in the biography need resolution: Under Manchester: "Marx mistakenly thought that Engels was still associated with the Berliner Young Hegelians, with whom he (Marx) had just broken." Under Paris: "Engels first met Marx at the Café de la Régence on the Place du Palais, 28 August 1844."

Either one statement is inaccurate or the second statement is ambiguous. What is meant by "Engels first met Marx..."? Assuming the first statement is true the second should be something like: "After their initial encounter in Manchester, the first time Engels and Marx met in Paris..." Geeleezee (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) geeleezee

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

In 1848 he co-authored The Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, and later he supported Marx financially to do research and write Das Kapital. Should be rephrased to. In 1848 he co-authored The Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, and later he supported Marx financially with his research and also wrote Das Kapital. 72.210.74.12 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The wording you suggest makes it sound like Engels wrote Das Kapital, which is inaccurate. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014

In the section "Manchester", I suggest changing the sentence:

In the book, Engels gave way to his views on the "grim future of capitalism and the industrial age" ...

TO:

In the book, Engels put forth his views on the "grim future of capitalism and the industrial age" ...

An author does not "give way to" their views in a book. "Expounded" would be another alternative. PatSunter (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Young Engels, ca. 1840 - authenticity of photograph?

Is this genuine? It seems suspiciously good for such an early photograph (1840). It seems to have been lifted from a Swedish blog with no citation for provenance. Brownturkey (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it be worth asking for an opinion at sv:Diskussion:Friedrich_Engels? I see it's not used at their article. Or even maybe at de:Diskussion:Friedrich Engels, where it is? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's well-known photograph of Engels and even appeared on a West-German(!) stamp from 1970. For the good quality see Daguerreotype.149.172.66.78 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The same photo/daguerreotype is among those of the photo plate section of the Hunt 2009 biography (). It's definitely him. It gives the date as 1840. On the previous page there's a self-portrait sketch from 1 year earlier, age 19, and you can see they are the same person. One page before that is a photo/daguerreotype of his parents (no date given). One can see some family resemblance between Engels père and Engels fils between the sketch and the preceding photo. Karmanatory (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Arrest for political not religious views

The article implies that Engels was facing arrest in 1848 due to his religious beliefs: "Engels was raised Christian Pietist. As he grew up, his relationship with his parents became strained because he developed atheist beliefs. His mother wrote to him of her concerns: She said that he had "really gone too far" and "begged" him "to proceed no further." She continued: "You have paid more heed to other people, to strangers, and have taken no account of your mother's pleas. God alone knows what I have felt and suffered of late. I was trembling when I picked up the newspaper and saw therein that a warrant was out for my son's arrest.""

I suggest that this be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

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) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish publication

We have a new external link to Engels' On Historical Materialism in Yiddish. While I'm sure that all Yiddish readers may be very pleased by this, and that the Steven Spielberg Digital Yiddish Library is in itself a very worthy project, I was wondering if Engels had some special relationship with Yiddish or with Jewish culture in general. If so, I cannot find it. Is it en-wiki policy to add foreign language links for authors? Where do we stop? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed this totally superfluous link. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling

In 'Brussels' his name is stated as Engles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.50.234 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I am surprised it has taken this long. 47.18.142.81 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Frederick??

Why does the article talk about "Frederick" when his name was Friedrich? Should we start translating all personal names now?Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The anlgicised name is not only incorrect but awkward and out of place. It should only be used when quoting or referring to a source which uses the anglicised name. There also appears to be very little consistency; "Friedrich" is used 33 times throughout the article, while "Frederick" is used 68 times. I hope to see this matter cleared up in the near future. 47.18.142.81 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you make the corrections, by changing the appropriate usages to Friedrich, when you get a chance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made 68 replacements. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if this is the time to explicitly point out that some book titles have immortalised Frederick in their titles. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd wait until we change them all back to Frederick. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Engels and the Slavs

A recent edit by Joel B. Lewis removed a large amount of text (a comment by Engels about the Slavs) without explanation. I would like to see a reason for that edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I too would like to know why Engels' remark about the Slavs was removed. The comment was factual, and it was supported with properly attributed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspencork (talk • contribs)

Because the text was added as a non-contextualised gobbet, with no attempt to explain its significance in the development of Engels thought. As your edits elsewhere make clear, you believe that this text is a condemnation of Engels in his own words, so your edit-warring to introduce it into this article can be seen as an attempt to poison the well and turn the article into an attack piece. If you want this to be in the article, you should argue your case on this page and convince other editors of its merit. RolandR (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the first instance, I was told the sources cited were "questionable." Subsequently, I reedited my post to incorporate a source that was already cited and accepted in the article (and proving that the first source cited was identical to the one already accepted). Engels' work was already introduced, and elucidating on what he actually said in that article is entirely relevant and part of the subject of a book by George Watson: Lost Literature of Socialism. Aspencork (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit did not elucidate anything. It was a context-free non sequitur. --JBL (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. All of the edits by this editor are attempts to introduce a particular ideological slant to WP. But even if that weren't the case, the text in question is being added as a non-sequitur without context, breaking the flow of the paragraph. --JBL (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't even pretend you wouldn't delete a new and separate paragraph dealing solely with Engels advocating genocide: which he did. Prove you're not being mendacious and agree to give me the go ahead and I will write such a stand alone paragraph quoting Engels and citing Watson. Aspencork (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are a crap editor making crap edits. As long as your edits are poorly thought out hackish attempts to push a particular point of view, I will be happy to revert them. If you were to stop making crap edits and instead were to make constructive additions to WP, I (and everyone else) would be considerably less likely to revert you. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Citing a study of socialist's works wherein the author reveals and discusses at length Engels' advocacy of genocide is truthful and relevant to a fuller understanding of who Engels was and what he believed. Your personal attack doesn't change that fact but does reveal you have no substantive reason, other than promoting your particular ideological slant, for reversing my edit. Aspencork (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, please see WP:NPA. Editors are expected to refrain from making outright personal attacks like the one above, and maintain a certain decorum. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks do you have anything useful to say or do you operate purely at the level of passive aggression? --JBL (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Users can be blocked for violating WP:NPA, as you did above. Though blocks do not always follow for every violation of WP:NPA, they do sometimes follow for particularly egregious violations, and that is a particularly egregious violation. You may or may not consider it "useful" for me to point this out, but it remains true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, passive aggression it is. Please never ping or interact with me again unless your comments are strictly limited to article content. --JBL (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No. If you behave in inappropriate way on a talk page, then your behavior can properly be criticized there. If you continue to behave inappropriately, I certainly might take the issue elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject to substantive objections, this is the change I propose to make to this article in twenty-four hours:

Starting with an article called "The Magyar Struggle", written on 8 January 1849, Friedrich Engels, himself, began a series of reports on the Revolution and War for Independence of the newly founded Hungarian Republic.[51] Engels' “The Magyar Struggle” is also notable for Engels’ giving voice to his prejudiced view that Slavs were racially inferior and his conclusion that the Slavs must be extirpated because they were impeding the progress of socialism.[footnote below] Engels' articles on the Hungarian Republic became a regular feature in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung under the heading: "From the Theater of War."[52]

Pp. 6, 77 & 78 Watson, George. Lost Literature of Socialism. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1998. Aspencork (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I object to this edit. The quote is still not contextualised, no explanation is given of its background, and no argument made for its importance in the totality of Engels' thought and writings. I also question the reliability of the source; I have never heard of this author or work, and it is clearly not a major recognised source. Further, there is no way of knowing whether the loaded terms "prejudiced", "inferior" and "impeding" were in the purported source, or are the editor's own interpretation. RolandR (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If Engels' article "The Magyar Struggle" was important enough to mention in this Wiki article about Engels, then the subject of the article is also important. Hence, my edit for elucidation is, in fact, "contextualized." Engels article "The Magyar Struggle" is a racist rant against the Slavs; wherein, he calls for their elimination: that is the very definition of "prejudice." As such, it is self-evident that no further explanation is needed. If you would take the time to read the Engels article for yourself, you would immediately see the pertinency of Watson's remarks. Watson's respected authorship of several books on literature and politics; plus, his tenure at the prestigious Cambridge University speak for themselves. The fact that you may not have heard of Watson or doubt his expertise doesn't negate his relation of the evidentiary facts nor his credentials to write on politic; hence, your doubts are irrelevant. Your objection is not substantive. Aspencork (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It is evident that you have already determined your position. You will only accept "substantive" objections, but any which challenge your own interpretation are deemed to be "not substantive". It is not possible to discuss matters in this way, where you set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner. I have made a substantive objection to your edit. You disagree. There is therefore no consensus for you to make the edit, unless others agree with you. And perhaps their arguments will also prove to be "not substantive"? RolandR (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

But then you pretend to be the "judge, jury and executioner" that serves to deny and obfuscate the facts for non-substantive reasons. For your objection to be substantive, you are obligated to prove that my edit is not factual. You have not done that, and you cannot do that, since, any intelligent reader, as George Watson relates, can discern the inherent prejudice and racism in Engels' "The Magyar Struggle": "the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." One can only imagine the deviant mindset of one who labors so diligently to deny and obfuscate the facts; thus, keeping others seeking to learn more about a given subject on Wiki in ignorance.Aspencork (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I happily endorse all of RolandR's comments; your replies to the objections are non-responsive. (This was all totally predictable, since you are doing exactly the same thing you've been doing.) --JBL (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Echoing "non-substance" is still non-substance. Aspencork (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I eagerly await your deep and thoughtful tut-tutting of Aspencork. --JBL (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I second JBL and others in reverting the attempt to damn Engels "in his own words". I see a lot of this nonsense on wikipedia, and this is one of the worst examples. What we have here is simply a cherry-picked quotation, inserted without any reference to reliable sources. You can't simply drop a random quotation just because YOU think it's terribly important - it has to "fit" within the standard body of literature about Engels. You may think YOU have a nice "gotcha" to beat Engels with, but what you think does not matter. You have to establish BOTH the meaning and notability of the quote by referencing reliable sources. It is clear however, that no attempt to do this has been made. Instead this quote-bomb invites the reader to interpret the quote as they see fit. Some readers who are not familiar with Engels, may simply read the quote with reference to the contemporary culture of political correctness, i.e. in an ahistorical and non-standard way. The editor who wants to stick this quote into the article is apparently counting on this outcome. It is a clear POV/OR-push and a disservice to readers. I'll also add the the POV being implied here - that Engels advocated genocide and racial cleansing, like Hitler - is ludicrously FRINGE. It is nowhere to be found in the scholarly literature on Marxism or Nazism, but it is very popular among pundits on the American Right and their audiences. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone else introduced the Engels article "The Magyar Struggle"; hence, it is in no manner 'cherry picking' to discuss and reveal what that article is actually about. It is plainly and clearly a racist diatribe against the Slavs which ends by advocating the bloody extinction of the Slavs. Author W.O. Henderson, in his book Friedrich Engels: Young Revolutionary (p. 154 and already cited as a 'source' in this article), quotes Engels verbatim, which you are very obviously afraid to do. Author Mark Levene makes the same revelation in his Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 2: The Rise of the West and the Coming of Genocide (p. 175); so, this knowledge is destined to be more mainstream in the near future. Perhaps the reason this information isn't in the realm of mainstream knowledge at present is because there is a cult of socialist guardians who wish to perpetuate a lie through omission. You can pretend that Engels didn't say what he said, but Engels' work speaks for itself. Respected and credentialed authors -- not 'fringe' -- such as Watson, Henderson and Levens, are letting the cat out of the bag, to your great dismay. Aspencork (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I checked your new sources. They are indeed reliable and serious studies - you may benefit from reading them cover to cover. Unfortunately none advance the interpretation that you do - although Levene (who quotes Marx on the Slav issue BTW, in the context of analyzing Marx and List as early theorists of "underdevelopment") correctly identifies some parallels between Hegelianism and emerging nationalism and the early Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels were men of their times, and Marx is famous for seeing British colonialism in India as a cruel but progressive force, and a precondition for the future struggle for socialism by Indian workers. Marx and Engels also saw the Russian nation-state as oppressive, backward and dangerous, which is the main gist of your Engels quote. Much later, Marx developed a more nuanced understanding of Russian society and foresaw a major role for the Russian peasantry in the European revolution. Generally, Marx and Engels had some nasty things to say about virtually everyone besides each other - they were jerks - though they held the Brits and Americans in very high regard as the most advanced capitalist societies. Well anyhow - all of these are serious historical issues worth discussing, but they are very far from what you're trying to do here.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's a weak rebuttal in view of the facts. Just like Watson, Warren and Levene do note how Engels claims that 'non-historic' peoples have no right to exist and that the Germans have a rightful destiny to "'take terrible revenge on the Slavs" and "wipe out completely those obstinate peoples so that their very names will be forgotten.'" Aspencork (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone looking to assess consensus here should note that Aspencork is inappropriately canvassing other editors to support their edit: "I could use your endorsement of my proposed edit for the Engels article, if you're so inclined. Please bring friends."[1] RolandR (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I did seek to enlist support for my proposed change from an "editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic" and who had already expressed a concern for the truth similar to my own, because it's very apparent there is a clique on Wiki that is campaigning against the change. There's is no other explanation for the sudden appearance of certain confrontational individuals, e.g., Joel B. Lewis and DanielRigal, who suddenly appear as an aligned group in these various forums when there is no indication that they ever before posted about or were concerned with this article before I proposed a change for elucidation on Engels' overt racism and call for genocide. The only way you, or the others already mentioned, would know that is by "inappropriately stalking" -- a form of 'harassment' called 'Wikihounding' -- me.Aspencork (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:TINC.--JBL (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See 'Wikihounding' and then explain how you came to be in orbit here. Aspencork (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

From your link: " Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." The "related problems" here are your crap edits, which are systematically terrible in the way that I and several other editors have explained to you. --JBL (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See 'Wikihounding' and then explain how you came to be in orbit here. Aspencork (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that using quotes from primary sources without explaining their significance in secondary sources to explain their significance is contrary to reliable sources and other policies. Also, Watson was a professor of Victorian English literature. That did not make him an expert on the political significance of an article written and published in German in Germany. His book, Lost Literature of Socialism was not published by an academic publisher and forms no part of mainstream scholarship on the subject. TFD (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Watson's credentials, which are quite superior to yours as a subject matter expert, include being a professor who has authored and published extensively on politic topics including Marxism. Per Cambridge: Watson was a "noted scholar in literature, literary criticism and liberal political thought," or didn't Joel B. Lewis tell you that when he invited you here. Furthermore, Chapter 2, "Millar or Marx?", of Watson's book was independently published in Wilson Quarterly and Chapter 7, "Adolph Hitler", was thoroughly reviewed in the Independent under the heading of "Hitler and the socialist dream'. It's your 'opinion' that forms no part of mainstream scholarship on this subject. You really should read the thread before you comment, because the current proposed change contains no quotes and now includes the work of W.O. Henderson, Friedrich Engels: Young Revolutionary (p. 154), whose work is already cited as a 'source' for this article.

Starting with an article called "The Magyar Struggle", written on 8 January 1849, Friedrich Engels, himself, began a series of reports on the Revolution and War for Independence of the newly founded Hungarian Republic.[51] Engels' “The Magyar Struggle” is also notable for Engels’ giving voice to his prejudiced view that Slavs were racially inferior and his conclusion that the Slavs must be extirpated because they were impeding the progress of socialism.[footnote below] Engels' articles on the Hungarian Republic became a regular feature in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung under the heading: "From the Theater of War."[52]

Pp. 6, 77 & 78, Watson, George. Lost Literature of Socialism. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1998.

... and now we can add:

P. 154, Henderson, W.O. Friedrich Engels: Young Revolutionary. London: Cass, 1976.

P. 175, Levene, Mark. Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 2: The Rise of the West and the Coming of Genocide. London: I. B. Tauris 2005.

This clique's rejection of even W.O. Henderson's work -- one of three sources being proffered -- as being authoritative and credible is quite revealing of your true motives and intent. Aspencork (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself tiresomely. Literally no one else who has joined this discussion has endorsed your proposed edits in any way. You might take this as a hint about the likelyhood of your edits ever becoming part of the text of this article, but evidently you won't. We could, probably, keep discussing on this talk page ad infinitum, but frankly I am already finding this boring. So, instead, why don't you go ahead and report us all to WP:ANI or something and make the case that every single person who has engaged in discussion with you here is acting inappropriately? Possibly having things explained by people who weren't already drawn to this discussion will be clarifying. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really a pity that you enjoy Wikihounding more than you do the sharing of facts with a broader public. Three credentialed and credible authors have been cited, including one already being used to substantively support this article; yet, all three were dismissed as 'fringe'. BTW, in your case, I can make a case for harassment. Keep it up. Aspencork (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I request that instead of making empty threats you carry through with it and make a case somewhere. Otherwise, I have no further interest in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, he's a scholar of liberal political thought. And Watson's work has been "reviewed" in liberal The Independent, by Watson himself. Why didn't you say so sooner? Here we were dismissing Watson because we stupidly assumed he's a "conservative" - but he's actually a liberal! Have we forgotten Phil Ochs' commandment:"love me, I'm a liberal"? Ok, I assume these revelation will remove all substantive objections to your high-quality edit. you win.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you're not in a position to out-of-hand discount his academic expertise; especially since his observations are echoed by the likes of Warren and Levene. Aspencork (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

his observations are NOT echoed by Levene or Henderson - if you actually bothered to read them as opposed to merely dumping the results of your google query. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You've already admitted Engels wrote those words; so, you flail in vain to defend him against his own words. Warren reports that Engels "threw caution to the wind" and let his readers see his real thoughts on the matter: "'The German Austrians and the Magyars ... will take terrible revenge on the Slavs ... and wipe out completely those obstinate peoples so that their very names will be forgotten.'" Both Warren and Levene remark on Engels' claim that 'non-historic' peoples, e.g., the Slavs, have no right to exist. Aspencork (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already discussed your sources and the topic of Engels' article. But you insist on playing broken telephone. Yawn. Bye. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your repeated refrain that Warren and Levene did not report on Engels' avowal that the Slavs as a 'non-historic' people have no right to exist, does not count as 'discussion'.Aspencork (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Would the quote and analysis from Roman Rozdolsky’s Engels and the "Nonhistoric" Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848 meet the exacting standards that are apparently required? Hammersbach (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, certainly - as long as you present Roslosky's analysis accurately, preferably in a section devoted to Engels' thought on national development (it's a complex topic). Roslodky is a noted Marx scholar (and a Marxist). If you are familiar with his work, more power to you. But if you're going to use Roslodsky as a way of slipping Watson's POV into the article, you can expect to be reverted.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The best approach is to take recent academic writing that establishes the relative weight of each aspect of Engels' biography and explains the relative weight of different views of his theories. W.O. Henderson was able to write a book in two volumes about Engels and have it published by Routledge, without mentioning Rozdolsky. Otherwise the article will be chocablock with obscure opinions rather than presenting "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." TFD (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No? Hmmm, that’s interesting. To the argument that the “best approach is to take recent academic writing…”, Rozdolsky earned his PhD in political science (writing his dissertation about Marx and Engels) and was a professor at the University of Lviv. William Otto Henderson was… I have no idea as I can’t find anything pertaining to his academic bona fides. Rozdolsky wrote the work I reference sometime around 1950 while Henderson’s tome was published in 1976 so I’m not sure why Henderson’s would be considered recent enough to cite but Rozdolsy’s too ancient. Ernest Mandel called Rozdolsky’s book “certainly his most brilliant” work where he applies Marxist analysis the works of Engels; I’m still searching for a quality review of Henderson’s as I am sure one exists somewhere. As for Henderson not citing Rozdolsky, Rozdolsky’s first socialist work that was published in English appears to have occurred in 1965. It’s quite possible that Henderson was never aware it as it as it was only seven pages long. (It was reproduced in a book that was published 1995… by Routledge) Engels and the "Nonhistoric" Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848 wasn’t published in English until 1987. The works of Rozdolsky are authoritative, academic, and can be reliably sourced. As such, they are more than acceptable for this article. If you desire further information, you may read about him here.[2] Hammersbach (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ee WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is possible that a theory written decades ago enjoys support today. E=MC2 and evolution for example have held up. We establish that by reading modern science, or in this case social science, texts. Whether or not someone has a PhD is irrelevant, hundreds of thousands of people have earned PhDs, it does not mean that every theory anyone of them had deserves more attention in Wikipedia articles than they have received in the literature. TFD (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, that’s interesting. I am already pretty familiar with policy here on the Might Wik, familiar enough to know that the finger wagging above is just a bit of bluster. The fact is Rozdolsky was a recognized academic whose field of expertise was Marxism. The objection to using his work really just boils down to a case of WP:IJDLI. Perhaps if the above editor would lower his drawbridge and actually read what Rozdolsky wrote he might not object so much. Afterall, Roman was an unabashed Marxist to the end. Hammersbach (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually proposing an edit? Or just having a theoretical discussion about a hypothetical edit? --JBL (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my objection to Aspencork's edit is that it's a transparently terrible edit -- no consulting of scholars (liberal, Marxist, or otherwise) is necessary to determine that. What Guccisamsclub said sounds reasonable to me. --JBL (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your 'opinion' is baseless and cannot stand up to the facts as presented by noted historians: “[I]n this article, ‘The Magyar Struggle’, Engels threw caution to the wind and advocated armed resistance against those who sought to deprive the people of the reforms that they had gained from the revolution. He declared that the Magyars had not yet been defeated and that even if defeated they would rise again. ‘One day the wild barbaric Slav counter-revolution will overwhelm the Habsburg monarchy and then the camarilla in Vienna will come face to face with their allies in their true colours.’ ‘The first victorious rising of the French workers – which Louis Napoleon is doing his best to provoke – will free the Austrian Germans and Magyars and will give them the opportunity to take terrible revenge upon the Slav savages.’ ‘The universal war which will follow will crush the Slav alliance and will wipe out completely those obstinate peoples so that their very names will be forgotten.’ ‘The next world war will wipe out not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but it will also destroy these utterly reactionary races.’ ‘And that will be a real step forward.’” (p. 154, W.O Henderson, The life of Friedrich Engels, 1976). “Friedrich Engels … ranted against the oppression of the German nationality, claimed the reconquest of German-speaking areas on the left side of the Rhine as a matter of national honour, and ‘the Germanisation of Holland and Belgium … a political necessity’. A sense of injured national pride clearly troubled all manner of Germans. And whatever their ideological proclivities, all, to a greater or lesser degrees, consoled themselves with the proposition that only so-called ‘historic’ nations, like themselves, had the right to existence.” (p. 175, Mark Levene, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 2: The Rise of the West and the Coming of Genocide, 2005). "Engels publicly advocated genocide in 1849 … [wanting] whole races to be killed” (p. 6, George Watson, Lost Literature of Socialism. 1998). The excuse that Engels 'did not mean what he wrote because only a few authors have addressed what he wrote' has no substantive merit. Aspencork (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Friedrich Engels. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/04/01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

German?

Encyclopedia Britannica titles him "Friedrich Engels GERMAN PHILOSOPHER". I think many other encyclopedias do likewise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Image date

The photo of Engels which is dated 1840, is this correct? The file page of the photo seems to contradict this, and I don't know much about photography at the time but 1840 seems awfully early for a photographic portrait. Lizard (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks quite doubtful. Is it possible that, for whatever reason, it has been given a misleading name? The source given is here, the website of David Nessle and the text around it (in Swedish) gives no clue as to it's date. The explanation in the image file description, seems to suggest there may be two possible mentions in correspondence for a photograph which may be this one. And that the dates would be 1857 or 1859. The front of a book, the year 1929 and Moscow are also mentioned, but I can't quite make out what is meant. The image also appears on the cover of this book by W. O. Henderson, first published in 1976, and I suspect it's also used on the frontispiece as the list of Illustrations lists it as "Friedrich Engels at the age of 25, 1845, by courtesy of the Radio Times Hulton Picture Library". The uploader User:DieBuche seems to be still active, so maybe he will see this and come over to explain a bit more. To me Engels looks more like age 37 or 39, than 20, in this photo. And yes 1840 is an early date for photography in general. In the meantime I'll boldly adjust the caption to what I think may be closer to the possible likely provenance. To add further confusion, the referece given in the caption here s to this book by Tristram Hunt, but I don't know if the image appears in the book or what the caption is there. The online sample text has no pictures. If that book gives a real date, then maybe User:DieBuche may have to amend his file description. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To chip in, I was admin at commons and prbably only transfered or zploaded it, I cannot provide any info on the date. Would be intersting to see if that book refers to the same photo. --DieBuche (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry to drag you over here. Thanks for clarifying, DieBuche. I'll leave the caption as is for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This source seems quite clear? The date was 1845. But it has "Copyright: © Lordprice Collection / Alamy Stock Photo", alas. There's also a remarkably similar one used by BBC here but which has "Getty Images" on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So the copyright situation is unclear - is it Hulton Picture Library? is it Lordprice Collection? is it Getty Images? Is suspect the latter, as Hulton Press Library was was bought by Getty Images for £8.6 million in 1996. So before the image gets deleted, I'll update the caption to 1845. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above, "the referece given in the caption here s to this book by Tristram Hunt, but I don't know if the image appears in the book or what the caption is there"—this was already explained in my talk page comment of 27 March 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Engels&diff=653696132&oldid=651340474), that Hunt 2009 dates the photo as 1840. Too bad someone set up a robot to archive comments too quickly. But this is Wikipedia, where it's better to prematurely hide and lose information and have Chinese whispers than just allow talk threads to stand. And yet a comment from 2005 still stands at the top of this page as I write this? Karmanatory (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, any claim by any present-day organization like Getty Images that they own a copyright on this photograph has got to be pure bullshit. I challenge anyone to even irrefutably identify the name of the person who took the photo, let alone identify the chain of generations of people who may have bought or inherited that copyright in the circa 180 years since then. Is any copyright from circa 180 years ago even legally enforceable at all anymore? I doubt it. Prove me wrong. Notwithstanding that such outdated property, if still legally protected after 180 years, would be theft of historical heritage of the commons by this point anyway. So regarding "is it Hulton Picture Library? is it Lordprice Collection? is it Getty Images?"—it's Chinese whispers, is what it is. Karmanatory (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

missing racism sections both here and for Marx

Why is there no mention of what racists both Marx and Engels were? Anti-black, anti-Mexican, anti-semitic, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Um Marx was Not anti-Semitic, he was Jewish himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.208.161.217 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Engels in Brighton 1877

My sources are Κарл Μаркс Фридрих Энгельс. Собрание фотографий. Moskow 1976, pp. 261-264; Boris Rudjak: Die Photographien von Friedrich Engels Marx im Zentralen Parteiarchiv des Instituts für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der KPdSU. In Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 4, Berlin 1981, p. 436. TRegards --WhoisWhoME (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

See IISG Amsterdam. --WhoisWhoME (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This may be a book that's difficult to find outside Russia? Do you know if it's ever been published, perhaps in translation, in English? I have no reason to doubt your sources, but you might want to make these details clear at the page for the source image at Commons i.e. correct the details which are inaccurate over there. Otherwise there will be a conflict and another editor might easily come along and revert your caption like I did. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I own this books. The russian book is print in English, French and German too. Amsterdam own 2/3 of the Marx-Engels handwriting and many photos. Regards --WhoisWhoME (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am very glad for you. Thanks for the info. But, if that book can be relied on, we still need to update the date and location at the Commons image source page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Done --WhoisWhoME (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. You did what? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

here. Regards --WhoisWhoME (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, that's a totally different image? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Friedrich Engels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202100844/http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/769/39653 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/769/39653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104010406/http://simplycharly.com:80/marx/tristram_hunt_marx_interview.htm to http://simplycharly.com/marx/tristram_hunt_marx_interview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201052904/http://www.cpgb.org.uk:80/home/weekly-worker/ww930/supplement-early-human-kinship-was-matrilineal to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/ww930/supplement-early-human-kinship-was-matrilineal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713065737/http://www.ringmar.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=814:engels-qof-rifled-cannonq-1860&catid=98:wonders-of-technology&Itemid=142 to http://www.ringmar.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=814:engels-qof-rifled-cannonq-1860&catid=98:wonders-of-technology&Itemid=142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: all work, although last one requires log-in/subscription. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Condition of the Working Class in England

Article first says The book was published in English in 1887. and then says In late May 1845 Engels published the English version of his new book. Can both statements be true ?! TGcoa (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It was first publised, in German, in late May 1845. I have corrected the text. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Anglicised version of his name?

A number of sources (including some referenced in the article) Anglicise Engels' first name as Frederick, rather than Friedrich. Should this be included in the lede, or included in a note as on the Mao Zedong article? Kujilia (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think those sources, even if we quite them, are misguided. His name was Friedrich. I also think the situation with Mao Zedong is somewhat different. But happy to go with consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Mao was not the greatest comparison to make. I see where you're coming from. I just find it curious that websites such as the Marxist Internet Archive and other publications which aren't (a) antiquated or (b) unknowing about who Engels was still use the anglicised version. I have no strong feelings either way; I'm just curious as to what Wikipedia editors think of this. Kujilia (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

When did Engels meet Marx

The article seems to give two different dates for Engels fist meeting Marx--first on his way to Manchester, in the offices of the Rheinische Zeitung, and then, later, in Paris. The latter is not explicit in saying "first" meeting, but seems to be a conclusion that could be drawn from "earlier correspondence," and "prior to meeting Marx." Although possibly not contradictory, the references are confusing.

Bgladish (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's less than perfectly clear. So the offices of Rheinische Zeitung, where the two met in "late November 1842", was in Cologne, yes? It might be much clearer if the article stated that instead of just saying "On his way to Manchester", which might even suggest it was somewhere in England. It looks like the phrase "Prior to meeting Marx, Engels had become established as a fully developed materialist and scientific socialist, independent of Marx's philosophical development." should be moved back to that meeting in Cologne. But we ought to check what is said on p.71 of P. N. Fedoseyev et al. However, somewhat contradicting that claim, the Rheinische Zeitung article says this (emphasis added): "Frederick Engels, who first established close personal relations with Karl Marx in 1844, later affirmed that it was Marx's journalism at the Rheinische Zeitung which led him "from pure politics to economic relationships and so to socialism." (sourced to McLellan p.57). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Feminist categories

@Martinevans123: I'm having trouble understanding your edit summary. the article does not currently seem to support it - do you mean the article does not support Engels' status as a feminist? If so why reinstate the categories? feminist (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. For some reason I thought you had added them. Please go ahead and remove. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I am subconsciously internally conflicted. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Irish

On the sands at Ramsgate there was a performing dwarf – a clown – who was surrounded by a crowd of small boys; he was dressed as a Brazilian general. Engels spoke to him in Portuguese, then in Spanish, but got no answer. At last the “general” spoke a word. “Ah"! called out Engels, “this Brazilian is an Irishman “And he addressed him in his own language. The poor wretch wept with joy when he heard him talk.

— Paul Lafargue, Personal Recollections of Engels (1905),
[3]

This seems fairly feeble support for the statement that…

Engels was … able to write and speak in languages including … Irish …

Being able to say hello is no guide to his ability to write in a language at all. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes that seems rather weak support. Although the same source also says: "His wife, who was of Irish origin, and a warm patriot, was in close relation with the Irish, who were numerous in Manchester, and knew of their plans. Many Fenians sought refuge in her house, and among them the man who planned the rescue of the Irish prisoners from the prison van." He and Mary Burns in fact never married. But it seems likely he may have spoken Irish with her? All supposition if course. I'm also assuming Burns was an Irish-speaker. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

p.s. quite a good little article on Engels and the Irish here, although it says nothing about his knowledge of the language. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

However, looking to the de.wiki article Friedrich Engels, it says this (sources copied over in German):

"Engels spoke twelve languages ​​actively and twenty passively, including ancient Greek, Old Norse, Arabic, Bulgarian, Danish, English, French, Frisian, Gothic, Irish, Italian, Latin, Dutch, Norwegian, Persian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Scottish, Swedish, Serbo-Croat, Spanish, Czech.

So I think perhaps the entry here could be expanded somewhat? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement in the de.wiki article above is not entirely clear - I think "spoke" probably means "understood"? But were his 20 "passive" languages wholly different to his 12 "active"? It is curious that the list actually contains 23. Also, his native tongue of German is not included. So that would make 24? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

References

How Engels met Mary Burns

"In Manchester, Engels met Mary Burns, a fierce young Irish woman with radical opinions who worked in the Engels factory."

But there doesn't seem to be much consensus? At any rate, at least may it seem less final that it's how they met.

From the Smithsonian article: If Mary was not a factory girl, there were not too many other ways in which she could have made a living. She lacked the education to teach, and the only other respectable employment available was probably domestic service; an 1841 census does suggest that she and her younger sister, Lizzie, worked as servants for a while. A ”Mary Burn” of the right age and “born in this parish” is recorded in the household of a master painter named George Chadfield, and it may be, as Belinda Webb suggests, that Burns took this job because it offered accommodation. Her mother had died in 1835, and she and her sister had to come to terms with a stepmother when their father remarried a year later; perhaps there were pressing reasons for their leaving home. Certainly a career in domestic service would have taught Mary and Lizzie the skills they needed to keep house for Engels, which they did for many years beginning in 1843.

Not every historian of the period believes that Mary was in service, though. Webb, noting that Engels described taking frequent, lengthy walking tours of the city, argues that Mary would scarcely have had the time to act as his guide to Manchester had she labored as a factory hand or servant, and may instead have been a prostitute. Webb notes that Burns was said to have sold oranges at Manchester’s Hall of Science–and “orange selling” had long been a euphemism for involvement in the sex trade. Nell Gwyn, King Charles II’s “Protestant Whore,” famously hawked fruit at Drury Lane Theater, and the radical poet Georg Weerth–whom Mary knew, and who was one of Engels’ closest associates—penned some double entendre-laced lines in which he described a dark-eyed Irish strumpet named Mary who sold her “juicy fruits” to “bearded acquaintances” at the Liverpool docks.

(Mary initially being a prostitute appears more likely.)

CLML427 (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent spellings in article

The current article has inconsistent spellings with:

• both US and UK spellings, e.g. both 'labor' and 'labour';
• references to both Das Kapital and Capital.

If the article is made consistent, which of the above should be selected?
Hsq7278 18:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As Engels lived for some of his life in England, I'd suggest that British English should be used. And I think Das Kapital, as in the article name, is preferable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Have changed accordingly as this approach makes sense
Hsq7278 23:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)