Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Marx and his Environs

How about an article with a map from a London Baedekkers travel guide dated 1867? And plot on it all the great peoples home locations and the locations of the stock exchanges,brokerages and street exchanges where bills and drafts were discounted...centered on Karl Marx's home at that time? Some how I don't think Marxian scholarship would ever be the same...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-Taught Political Economist?

The first sentence of this entry says Marx was a "self-taught political economist." What is that supposed to mean exactly? (Adam Smith, incidentally, was a moral philosopher by training and self-taught in political economy.) The entry itself says Marx started studying political economy after he met Engels and read his The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. I have forgotten the source, but I did read somewhere that Engels, who was an industrialist, helped Marx in his study of political economy when they became friends. Clearly, Marx was not "self-taught" in the subject. -- Ecosophia09 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You require more study on the subject....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Last words

Can't we say that his last words were: "Go on! Get out! Last word are for fools who haven't said enough!"? Because I read that in The Secret Life of the English Language. 96.61.180.182 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

untitled, from somebody, not me though

Why is it that Karl Marx has a controversy section while Ayn Rand's Page does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.117.146 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks the above IP user doth make a strong point!--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not that Ayn Rand doesn't have one, that isnt that important. What matters more is that good articles (or better articles) are mature and well written enough to include criticism, when appropriate, whithin the article itself. I have started a new talk about this here, please discuss. ValenShephard (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ibid

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Style recommendations says: "Do not use ibid., Id., or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition ..." I myself would correct the Karl Marx references currently numbered as 36, 37, 38, 40, and 41, but if the problem described in the guideline has already occurred, I would be mismatching the references. Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZZuDP8hGg5IC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=This+work,+that+was+published+posthumously+under+the+editorship+of&source=bl&ots=P-SbZ9J9fW&sig=sw5tv4Tug4DhFLu73NumXNlnGDc&hl=en&ei=uamdTN6KFpHevQPyna2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBQ. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While the Communist Manifesto is public domain, the material comes from the forward a recent edition (which is likely copyrighted). MER-C 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a copivio. The book linked to includes material which is the same as, or very close to, this entire article. However, the book includes text which existed in this article back in 2003, well before most of the text that the book and article share existed in this article. I don't see how that could happen if the text was copied from the book to the article, but it easily could happen if the book is a copy of an earlier version of this article. The listed publisher, ebookeden.com, produces many editions of public domain works, a number of which contain text similar to Wikipedia articles (e.g. [1] [2]). VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The person who added the text has a history of copyright infringement and major contributions of extensive copyright violators can be removed per WP:COPYVIO. It's safest to remove. MER-C 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like eBookEden swiped the text from this article. They are the ones who are violating licensing law by not attributing the text to Wikipedia. Of course, if there's an editor with a history of copyvio, we should look at his edits, but I think it's clear that its eBookEden thats violating intellectual property rights. Removing a couple sentences to be on the safe side is OK with me, but large parts of the article shouldn't be purged because ebookeden used them.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't intend on killing the entire article, just the bit that Robertsch55 added. MER-C 02:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is ridiculous, and thoughtless vandalism too. Ebookeden and Google are those who violate Robertsch55's, my, and other user's GNU license by not attribtuting the article to the revision history of this article from Wikipedia. Robertsch55 had added the sentence back on 29 March 29 2007. I'm not sure if the content is correct or very important but I have restored it because the reason to delete it is obviously not valid, Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx' thought

The whole section on Marx' thought needs to be rewritten, mainly in a chronological manner: first the philosophical work of the young Marx, then historical materialism, then critique of political economy. The current version is a diffuse medley of this phases. E.g., you can explain the concept of commoditiy fetishism only in the framework of value form analyses, not as a description of "spiritual loss", nor as an example of "what Engels called 'false consciousness' ", nor as a result of "alienation of human work". The modern view on Engels is, that he did not understand Marx' value form analyses at all, --Schwalker (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"The modern view?" Are all scholars in agreement? Whose view? I am all for clarifying the page and improving the organization.

But substantive work on "Marxism" or "marxian thought" really belongs in the marxism article; on this page we should as you suggest just document the development of marx's ideas in their historical and biographical context, when possible discerning his views distinct from Engels (but the collected works have a huge correspondence between marx and Enggels in which Marx seems to agree with a great deal of what Engles says) and other marxists. But this is precisely what is attempted in the "career" section - not just biography but anintellectual biography.

However, you might wish to check the page history. I remember when a user (not I) added what is now the "influences" section - you may call it a mishmash, but it was that user's attempt to take a much bigger mish-mash and put some order to it. His point - that some of Marx's ideas came from engaging german idealist philosophers and their German critics, other ideas came from engaging French physiocrats, and other ideas came from engaging brittish political economists, made some sense at the time and still makes some sense and perhaps someone can take this section, which as usual has degraded over the years, and restore it to a clear discussion of these distinct engagements in Marx's thoughts. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Only referring to your initial three questions for now. For a presentation in English language availiable in fulltext on books.google, we can take the book by Michael Eldred: Critique of competitive freedom and the bourgeois-democratic state from 1984, where Eldred writes in the preface (p. xliv-xlv):

"Form-analysis, in marking itself off from developmental theory, takes as its starting-point ithe striking autonomy of the argumentation in Capital when understood as a systematic argumentation aiming at the conceputalisation of epochal categories. The debate between systematic theory and developmental theory finds a firm ground for contestation in the interpretation of the Marxian capital-analysis. There, the decisive point is a clarification of the distinction between a logical-dialectical and a logical-historical mode of presentation. The theorist who has occupied himself most internsively with this question is Hans-Georg Backhaus. He has shed light upon the methodological problems of Marx's textes in relation to the perplexing phenomenon of the various versions (published by Marx himself) of the Marxian value theory. According to Backhaus, of the four versions of the Marxian formanalysis of commodities and money, the first, wich appeard in the Critique of 1859, presents the value theory most consistently as a dialectival, 'logical' argumentation. The logical analysis is clearly separated from the historical, which latter comprises only the last two pages of the analysis of commodities and money in the first chapter of the Critique.

In this pseudo-historical appendix to the first version of the Marxian value theory however one must see the germ of its later 'historicisation' and 'vulgarisation' by Marx himself, abobe all however by the later Engels and the Marxist interpreters. (Backhaus 1981, p. 156f)

This statement by Backhaus is the result of a painstaking study of Marxian and Engelsian texts as well as of letters written by both. Backhaus shows that even Engels did not consistently represent a logical-historical interpretation, but rather oscillated from an historical-logical position in the 1859 review of the Critique, to a logical position in the Konspekt and Anti-Dühring to a final logical-historical position in the foreword and appendix to the third volume of Capital if 1894-95. The Engelsian theory of simple commodity production developed in this appendix can be viewed as a consistent conclusion to the tendency towards historicisation already present in the value theory as presented by Marx in the second edition of Capital. Backhaus also shows that Marx's silence on Engels' 1859 review, which confusedly outlines a logical-historical mode of presentation, can plausibly be interpreted as a nunsureness and unclarity on Marx's part as to the distinguishing characteristics of his 'materialist' manner of presentation as opposed to an Hegelian 'idealist' presentation."

It should be noted at this point, that while Backhaus' critique of Engels' interpretations has been accepted by a large fraction of scholars of Marx' critique of political economy, Backhaus' interpretation of Marx himself, and of the development of Marx' different presentations of form analysis as a degression from more to less consistency has also been disputed (one reason for this dispute may be that Backhaus is making guesses on Marx silence), greetings --Schwalker (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I would suggest this is a significant view that should be included (and perhaps dealt with in more detail in the marxism article) but one man's analysis, even if accepted by many scholars, is not the same thing as "the modern view." It is often very important to attribute views precisely and accurately, and then to be careful to distinguish between practical unanimity (the universe began with the big bang) to various degrees of agreement - mainstream, majority, minority, fringe.

Certainly, this article should focus on Marx's ideas, and not Engels'. I think this is the critical point. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I was wondering why there were some pretty text heavy quotes in the lead. Couldn't those be moved to the individual subsections instead of clogging up the lead? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've tried to clean the lead up a little bit. Or, at least, I've tried to make it look a little cleaner. Still, the "We see then..." block quote is pretty gigantic even for an article body, let alone the lead. The lead seems to flow just fine without the quote. The quote does, however, seem well-selected, and IMO should indeed be moved down somewhere. And that might be all it takes to put the lead at, say, 8.5 on a 1-to-10 perfection scale. In order for it to achieve at least a 9, it might want to complement the fact that "few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century" with a reminder that little of anything avoided Marx's influence. In other words, as Terrell Carver puts it (on p. 1 of Marx's Social Theory), "The impact of Karl Marx on our intellectual life has been profound. In the arts and sciences his work has influenced almost every discipline from aesthetics to theology, including anthropology, geography, history, jurisprudence, linguistics, literary criticism, almost all branches of philosophy, political science and psychology." If the lead needs a quotation, I believe, it needn't look any further than that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think all three quotes should be taken out of the intro and moved down to the article itself. The intro should be about explaining the importance of Marx himself, not for explaining his ideas to the reader. Wolfview (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for paragraph review

I've just added a new passage to the article, and I'm wondering if other editors wouldn't mind taking a careful look at it. The passage is located in Karl Marx#Philosophy; it begins with "Unlike insects and arachnids..." and concludes with "...revises Hegelian 'work' into material labour." I consider myself articulate enough in Marxian philosophy to write such a paragraph, but not articulate enough to know that what I write won't turn out to be a steamy, stinking heap of misinterpretation. If my addition contains mistakes or needs improvements, please feel free to fix the mistakes, make the improvements, offer me feedback as to how I can fix/improve the text, and/or (if there's just no hope) remove the thing in its entirety. Thank you in advance, Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how the section used to read:

Marxian thought rests on the fundamental assumption that it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour" and the capacity to transform nature "labour power." For Marx, this is a natural capacity for physical activity, but it is intimately tied to the active role of human consciousness:

“ A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. ” — (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1)

Marx did not believe that all people worked the same way, or that how one works is entirely personal and individual. Instead, he argued that work is a social activity and that the conditions and forms under and through which people work are socially determined and change over time.

I think that the above is much clearer and more accessible than the current version. I wonder if one step towards improvement is restoring some of this earlier language. Nevertheless, I see what you are getting at. Marx's notion of labor is very much tied to his understanding of alienation and consciousness both of which come from Hegel. So your addition makes sense. I have two alternate proposals: a simple fix would be to place your discussion of Hegel earlier i.e. before the quote from Capital. The bigger fix is to have a section on Marx's philosophy with a more elaborate treatment of influences on Marx's philosophy ... the article used to have such a section, broken down into Hegel and German idealists; Proudhoun and French Physiocrats; and Smith/Ricardo and British Political-Economists. This section still exists, but in an emaciated and poorly-written form. The material you added could go in that section, as part of a larger rewrite of that section. This would address user:Schwalker's criticisms, above, as well, i think.

In short, i think what you are trying to add is important and aside from revising the wording for clarity I am asking whether putting this in another place might help. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr.

So, I read in this article and heard from a third party that Karl Marx had (has?) a doctrine degree. Does the article not say "Dr. Karl Marx" at the begining? Just curious. 207.72.181.151 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

so, like, what is a "doctrine" degree? Have you even read the article? We discuss marx's education in the section called ... well, I will let you try to figure this one out. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, in addition to holding a university degree in philosophy, he was also known as "The Red Terror Doctor". The latter (unofficial) title had more to do with his views than with his academic qualifications. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Marx and armed uprising in Belgium

Hi everyone. I note that the WP article on Friedrich Engels (section "Return to Prussia") states "Engels stayed in Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany." As evident from the sources, Marx himself was involved in similar activities in Belgium, February 1848, when he bought weapons for insurgent workers, and for which he was expelled from that country by royal order (Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life” in Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 223; cf. Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, 1999, pp. 126-7). I think including a line or two to that effect would provide interesting and relevant information. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would propose the following phrasing: "In February 1848, Marx used the sum of 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers." Justus Maximus (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. As there is no response, I assume there is no objection, in fact I can see no reason why there should be any. I will include the above accordingly, then. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets get some other opinions first shall we, especially as to the relevance of the material --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge there have been no objections. Of course the material is relevant. It shows he supported armed insurrection in Belgium and explains why he was expelled. The material should be included until someone produces evidence that there is something wrong with it. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are proposing loads of changes over so many pages, all with the same POV. About the only way of monitoring you is to wait for an edit to be made. Its an excessive quote in my view, in the meantime you should respect WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have the text please from the sources you are quoting to support the edit. If they do then I am happy with a shorted form of the material. However given your history I am not taking the sources on trust without sight of the text. --Snowded ^TALK 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You've failed to give any acceptable reason why the quote is "excessive". Given your history of vehement opposition to inclusion of any sources linking Marx to anything inconvenient to his followers, you can't really be trusted. I'm giving the text anyway:

"In mid-February his mother had belatedly sent him the huge sum of 6,000 gold francs as his share of old Heinrich Marx's legacy, and most of this windfall was immediately put to subversive use ... There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself. 'The German workers [in Brussels] decided to arm themselves,' she admitted. 'Daggers, revolvers, etc. were procured. Karl willingly provided money, for he had just come into an inheritance. In all this the government saw conspiracy and criminal plans. Marx receives money and buys weapons, he must therefore be got rid of'" - Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life”, quoted in Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, p. 127.

The above throws light on the actual events and will improve the article. I now request its immediate inclusion in the article and a stop to this obstructive behavior. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any POV being pushed here, and we have a source. If anyone questions the objectivity of the source I suggest that the attribution be provided in the main text of the article (i.e "According to Jenny Marx, ....."). But the material is clearly relevant to this article, and sourced. I see no grounds for keeping it out of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I am usually accused of "anti-Marxism" every time I provide sources inconvenient to certain political quarters. My interest, of course, is purely historical and is totally unconnected with politics. You may also wish to comment on my post on Marx's apparently anti-Semitic language, above. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is based on a story by Marx's wife, presumably told decades after the event. It is not sourced to Marx, the revolutionaries he presumbly supported or the Belgian authorities. The book used as a source notes elsewhere the contradiction between the Communist manifesto supporting the 'abolition of all right of inheritance' and Marx accepting an inheritance.[3] It does not say he gave it to the revolution. Unsupported and trivial. TFD (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can argue over whether this source meets our WP:RS rules. But I certainly do not see it as anti-Marx or anti-Marxist in any way. I do however think that the quote revelas that Jenny's point is not about his spending money on arms (what sane and moral person wouldn't, back then?) but rather his being a target of state persecution. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Judging from edits like this one, I'd say it's a safe bet that Justus Maximus is not Marx's biggest fan. However, considering in isolation the particular line in question here, I'd say it actually benefits the article by bridging the idea immediately preceding it (that protests and rebellions took place in Europe) to the idea immediately following it (that Marx was arrested in Belgium and expelled from the country); it explains why, in regards to protests and rebellions, the Belgian authorities would arrest and exile Marx. One qualification, though: The source material does not actually say that Marx used "the sum of 6,000 gold francs ... to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers." What it says is that A) Marx received an inheritance of 6,000 gold francs; and B) Marx "provided money" (in some unstated amount) to the revolutionary workers (who "decided to arm themselves"). He was able to provide money, in general, because of his inheritance; he did not necessarily provide the entirety of the inheritance. Anyway, despite Justus Maximus's apparently anti-Marxist sentiments, his proposed addition would (IMHO) actually cast a positive light on Marx, because it would reveal an extraordinarily sincere philosopher and social theorist--one who "put his money where his mouth was", even though (overall) the impoverished Marx had far more things to say than he had money to give. (And, on that note, here's some food for thought: An Amazon reviewer of the source quoted above points out that Marx's influence has been compared to that of Jesus. And it was Jesus, after all, who pointed out that, relative to their respective assets, poor donors actually give more than rich ones. Both Jesus and Marx were viewed as radicals and were subjected to persecution, and...I'm just going to stop, because I could have way too much fun with this. ;-)) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wheen actually provides Jenny Marx's statement precisely in the context of evidence for Marx's involvement. As he points out, "The tone of injured innocence is hardly justified by her confession: if the authorities could connect her husband with the arsenal of 'daggers, revolvers, etc.' he would be in the soup right up to his bushy eyebrows". The obvious implication being that Jenny's confession would have sufficed as evidence in a court of law. If so, it should also suffice for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It does cast Marx in a good light, although I think JM was trying to use the story as a springboard for his views about Marxism and terrorism. But I do not see that this type of anecdote can be used unless it is supported by reliable sources. Also Francis Wheen's book is probably a poor source - he is a journalist, not an historian. TFD (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read about those incidents and I certainly think they are relevant in order to shed light on the relation between Marx' phisolophy and his attitude towards politically based action. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you aren't a historian yourself as amply documented by your inability to distinguish between the "Jewish Question" and Marx's On the Jewish Question, above. Unlike you, Wheen can tell the difference. He may be a journalist, but he provides sources for all his material. His book has enjoyed wide critical acclaim, including in Marxist circles. As it stands, the article says "Europe experienced a series of protests, rebellions, and often violent upheavals ... The Belgian authorities arrested and expelled Marx from Belgium." Clearly, my edit provides the missing data elucidating the events. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Instead of "provid[ing] the missing data elucidating the events", you might want to consult reliable sources, such as this article in a book published by Routledge: "The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium, against the optimistic expections of the Democratic Association. This was surely pure fiction without evidence. In his article 'The Antwerp Death Sentences' of 3 September 1848, Engels claimed that democrats should never rise in arms...."[4] TFD (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Having publicly demonstrated your ignorance of historical facts, above, you are now deploying your old "my-source-is-more-reliable-than-your-source" trick. It doesn't fool anyone. If you bothered to read some history, including Wheen, you will notice that the "no-evidence" claim is totally unfounded and has been refuted. What Engels says about the Democrats is totally irrelevant and off-topic. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If Engels "claimed that democrats should never rise in arms", what was he doing taking part in armed uprisings in Germany 1849 as per your WP article Friedrich Engels??? So much for your "reliable sources"!!! Justus Maximus (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion, the quote should be included as suggested by Slrubenstein. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Books by journalists are not reliable sources for history, rather we should rely on articles by academics published in the academic press. Engels was clearly writing to the Belgian Democrats to discourage them from using violence in that dispute, not because he opposed violence, but because he thought that it would be ineffective. Incidentally, since you claim "[Marx] bought weapons for insurgent workers", it would be helpful if you explained who they were. Are you referring to returning workers who were armed by the French government? If Marx had wanted to arm them, would it not have been easier to do this before they entered Belgium? TFD (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Now now, JM, let's play nice, shall we? I found the Wheen book online and had a look. As it turns out, Marx was expelled from Belgium (pp. 125-126) before the Belgian cops arrested him (pp. 126-127). Wheen does not even connect the expulsion decree to the arrest, apart from noting that Marx was busy packing his bags when the authorities stormed in. As for Jenny's statement, Wheen actually points out that the police could not have known what Jenny knew, else Karl would have been in a lot more trouble than he was already in (p. 127). In other words, Jenny had information that could have been used against Karl, but she overreacted in assuming that authorities also had this information. So, even if Wheen is correct in stating that "the police's suspicions of Marx may not have been quite as capricious as they seem" (p. 126), Wheen goes on to note that these suspicions weren't as solid as they seemed to Jenny. They were, after all, suspicions, and suspicions are, by definition, uncertain. Having examined the source first-hand, I take back my suggestion that Marx's financial contributions had anything to do with either the expulsion or the arrest. Wheen does assert that there may have been a basis for the police's suspicions, but he does not indicate that they were acting on any particular suspicion when they arrested him. Regardless of whose source is more reliable, TFD's source actually specifies the suspicion on which the Belgian police acted: Not that Marx was enabling others to be armed, but rather that he, himself, was armed--a suspicion that proved to be baseless and, therefore, unfair. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Slrubenstein and ·Maunus·ƛ, this material is valid and relevant for inclusion. --Martin (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found three secondary sources that corroborate the text:

• Paul M. Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, HarperCollins, 2007,

"All the same, one way or another Marx got considerable sums of money by inheritance. His father's death brought him 6000 gold francs, some of which he spent on arming Belgian workmen."

• Saul Kussiel Padover, Karl Marx, an intimate biography, McGraw-Hill, 1978, page 205:

"When, early in the year 1848, Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance, which amounted to around 6000 francs, instead of husbanding the money for the support of his family, he spent about 5000 francs helping to buy arms"

• Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on earth: the rise and fall of socialism Encounter Books, 2002, page 74:

"Marx had recently received an inheritance from his father, and he soon spent most of it buying guns and daggers for German rebels in Belgium, leading to his arrest and expulsion from that country."

--Martin (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If one accepts that Marx actually purchased and supplied arms (I'd query whether sources cited might be possibly based on Jenny Marx's later recollections, rather than a more contemporary primary source), it does not logically follow that "This lead to Marx's arrest and expulsion from Belgium...". Something lead to his arrest, but are there actually sources that state it was the purchase of arms? I see little point in starting another edit-war over this, so I'll leave the article as is for now, though I think it needs to be addressed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the quotes provided above that Mark got some money, he spent some of that on Belgian workers (according to one source on weapons), he got expelled from Belgium. Its not at all clear that they are linked or that he spent the 6K on weapons. Its also pretty clear that there is no agreement here yet as to the wording --Snowded ^TALK 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Two sources say the money was spent on "arms", a third states "guns and daggers", "arms" is another word for weapons, you know. @Andy, the third source explicitly states buying guns and daggers for German rebels in Belgium lead to his arrest and expulsion. --Martin (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If the Joshua Muravchik responsible for the third source is the same one as featured in the Wikipedia article, I'd think that given his present political persuasions and somewhat colourful political past, he might not be the most obvious source for a neutral scholarly assessment of the question? Still, I've not seen his Book: does it indicate what he bases his statements about this issue on? 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

Well to be fair, Joshua Muravchik's work is criticised here. But never the less, being arrested and expelled by the Belgian authorities for firearm offences is an objective fact that could be verified with primary sources like Police records, and not really subject to political viewpoint. However fortunately we do have a quite a number of secondary sources that substantiates that fact. For example another two, and the second author is considered a revolutionary Russian Marxist activist and historian:

• Hiroshi Uchida, Marx for the 21st century, Routledge, 2006, page 176:

"The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium"

• Boris Nicolaievsky, Karl Marx - Man and Fighter, READ BOOKS, 2007, page 143:

"According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels. The police had their opportunity of dealing with the exiles at last. They worked in close touch with the Prussian ambassador, who had in his possession on February 29, only a day or two after it was drawn up, a list of those who were to be expelled. Marx's name was at the top of the list"

--Martin (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, your discussion here is a violation of your topic ban. You are supporting the views of User talk:Justus Maximus, who has been blocked for tendentious editing, just as you earlier supported User:Marknutley who is blocked for tendentious editing. If you continue to violate your edit restrictions I will report it to ARBCOM. TFD (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I am agreeing with Slrubenstein and ·Maunus·ƛ, that this material is valid for inclusion[5]. As for your other accusation, perhaps if you cannot respond to this, you ought to revert yourself. --Martin (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And in any case how does "The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms..." become 'a substantiation' of claims that he 'did' carry arms? If Hiroshi Uchida says the claims were unfair, shouldn't the article reflect this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see TFD has now removed the relevant section as a 'shaggy dog story'. Though I'm inclined to agree that the sourcing seems tenuous, I'm not entirely sure that just dismissing it is the best approach. Would it perhaps be better to state that "some sources have suggested that Marx..., but that the claim is of uncertain providence", or something like that? From a personal political perspective (yes, I have one!), I cannot see this as being that significant anyway. Continental Europe at the time seems to have been full of people attempting to achieve consensus through the barrel of a gun, so the suggestion that Marx might be at it too is hardly outrageous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I agree TFD's removal of the sourced text was somewhat untoward. In regard to you earlier comment, there are no claims Marx carried arms. The claim was that he gave money for the purpose of obtaining arms. Note that I had qualified the claim as a Belgian Police claim according to the view of the Marxist activist and historian Boris Nicolaievsky. --Martin (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not actually said TFD's removal was 'untoward', Martin. I've instead suggested that there should be something else said on the subject instead - IMO your edit wasn't acceptable, but neither was a complete dismissal of the issue. Regarding Nicolaievsky, whether he was a 'Marxist historian' or not is of no consequence or not when deciding whether he is a reliable source when it comes to what actually happened in Belgium in 1848. If he got his data on what the Belgian police claimed from a verifiable source, it is significant. If he didn't it isn't. He could of course be lying through his teeth, we'll likely never know for sure, but accepting something he says because he was a Marxist is rather dubious.

I'm inclined to suggest we all sleep on this, and see whether a compromise wording might be possible. I don't think we are actually that far apart on this particular issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to take issue with the reliability of Joshua Muravchik due to his political outlook, yet when I present a source that basically confirms the text with a cite from Boris Nicolaievsky, who is ideologically at the opposite end of Muravchik, you say it is of no consequence. That seems like a contradictory stance. What is demonstrated is that authors from both left and the right agree that Marx was expelled from Belgium because the police claimed he spent his money arming revolutionary workers. --Martin (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So you find that a right-wing and left wing unreliable source agree and assume they must both be correct. There has been considerable study of Marx and there is no reason that we need to use popular books as sources. The only reason one would use them is that they contain claims that have not been accepted by mainstream historians. Also, they lead us into discussions about what really happened which is a misuse of other editors' time. We have an unsubstantiated claim by Jenny Marx made years after the event that her husband provided money for workers to buy weapons. We do not by the way have any reliable sources that these workers obtained or used weapons in Belgium in 1848. Reliable sources state that the French government supplied unemployed Belgian workers with weapons in Paris and these workers then returned to Belgium in an attempt to overthrow the government. We know that Marx was arrested on suspicion of carrying arms and was ejected from the country, but in fact the accusation was false. The types of additional sources that Martintg has provided are unreliable. Boris Nicolaevsky for example was a communist activist (writing in 1933), not a mainstream historian. Wheen and Muravchick are neoconservatives writing outside the academic mainstream. We just do not know what Marx did with the 6,000 francs he received. TFD (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Francis Wheen is hardly a NeoCon, TFD, I don't think The Guardian employs many of them as journalists. Back on the original topic, I don't think at this point there seems to be enough evidence from reliable sources to say that Marx was definitely expelled from Belgium on suspicion of 'supplying arms' or of 'providing money for arms' (not the same thing), though It would be reasonable enough for the article to say that 'some sources' claimed he was.

One other point. Martin's version read "In February, according to Belgian Police, Marx used 5,000 of the 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers." Since the Belgian police aren't actually cited, this wording is incorrect in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He signed the Euston Manifesto. TFD (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt many NeoCons would sign it. They tend not to suggest that labour unions are "bedrock organizations in the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism" for instance. It seems to have been mostly written by a bunch of rightward-moving ex-lefties as an attempt to 'realign' the British left. Some of the signatories may have NeoCon sympathies, but I don't think Wheen has moved quite that far. This is rather off-topic anyway. Wheen's book needs to be judged on its scholarship, not on his politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A book by a journalist about a nineteenth century subject is not scholarship. The term neoconservative btw refers to a leftists who moved to the right. People like Muravchick and Jean Kirkpatrick. The Henry Jackson Society called the manifesto "a welcome and worthy endeavour". TFD (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship isn't about who you are, but what you do. I've only ever glanced at Wheen's book, so I'll not judge one way or another. If it cites the primary sources he gets his statements about Marx in Belgium from, we may be able to see how 'scholarly' he is. The meaning of NeoCon is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not and cannot read through books and make our personal judgments on scholarship. Instead we accept the scholarship of peer-reviewed articles and books from the academic press. While non-scholarly texts are allowed, in my experience the vast majority of content disputes have involved editors using non-scholarly sources for claims that do not appear in mainstream academic writing. TFD (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that peer review journals do not cover every aspect of a persons life. How many academic peer-reviewed articles are there on the life of Michael Jackson? Books are perfectly fine for use as reliable sources.

I have found five eight sources now that state Marx was expelled from Belgium for supplying money to purchase arms, in addition those already found by others, including one from Marx's own wife. Given that the claim that Marx was expelled from Belgium for supplying money for arms has been out there for a while, please find a source that refutes that claim, and it doesn't have to be from an academic journal.

@Andy, re this "Since the Belgian police aren't actually cited, this wording is incorrect in any case" are you serious? The sources state he was arrested in Belgium by the police, so it is pretty certain that it would have been the Belgian police, not the Spanish Police. In case you are not convinced, here are three additional sources, note the last one is published by Oxford University Press:

• Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers, M.E. Sharpe, 2008, page 144:

"Marx was arrested by Belgian police for spending his inheritance from his father (6,000 gold francs) on arming Belgian workers with rifles"

• The Karl Marx library, Volume 1, McGraw-Hill, 1977, preface page xxii:

"Marx urged German refugees to join the Belgians in revolt. He had just received 6000 francs in partial settlement of his father's estate, and he contributed about 5000 francs to buy weapons"

• Sue Curry Jansen, Censorship: the knot that binds power and knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1988

"During the revolutions of 1848, Marx urged German workers to join the demonstrators in Belgium and Paris. He also contributed 5000 francs to buy arms. As a result, he was immediately jailed and subsequently expelled from Belgium"

Seriously guys, do you want to concede this point and restore the edit reverted by TFD, or should I take the ten sources found so far to WP:RSN? --Martin (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I'm not disputing that some good sources suggest Marx was arrested by the Belgian Police. All I'm saying is that writing 'according to the Belgian Police...' is incorrect, they aren't the source actually cited. There is then the question of what to do about the Hiroshi Uchida quote you found earlier: "The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium". Would he likely have written 'unfairly' without some evidence that the claim was in fact unfair? I think this indicates restoring the edit as is would be a little questionable. It doesn't have to come down to that or nothing though. As I said earlier, I think a compromise should be possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say there was anything wrong with using books, I said we should use books from academic publishers. The reason is that they are written by experts in the subject matter, and reviewed by other writers before publication, and enter academic discourse where they can be challenged by subsequent scholars. I see you have provided two such sources, both of which claim that Marx was arrested and expelled from Belgium for providing funding to the revolution, although they differ on the amount given. But Marx's biographers claim he was expelled for carrying arms.

The correct approach to editing is to obtain the best sources and reflect what they say, rather than comb for sources to support what we believe should be in articles. A book by an economist is a better source for understanding Marx's economic theories than his biography. (Mark Skousen would not be my first choice of sources.) And a book on censorship is not really where I would look first for biographical detail on Marx. But this is what happens when you desire to put in information that mainstream biographers have ignored.

BTW does it seem reasonable that the Belgians would expel Marx if they believed he had contributed that money for armed insurrection? Do you think that in the U. S. today an alien who entered and gave a fortune to domestic terrorists would be escorted to the border?

TFD (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the 'Hiroshi Uchida' quote, (I found it on Google Books), and firstly, the chapter in the cited book isn't by him/her, but by Akihiro Matoba (it is entitled "The Brussels Democratic Association and the Communist Manifesto"). A bit more context:"The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium, against the optimistic expectations of the Democratic Association. This was surely pure fiction without evidence". I'm not sure this really proves anything one way or another though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

@Andy, compared to nine other sources you are giving to WP:UNDUE weight to the words of Uchida, which are not very detailed in any case. We can't fill in the blanks in the absence of anything else and speculate "Would he likely have written 'unfairly' without some evidence that the claim was in fact unfair?" is pointless. The phrase "according to the Belgian Police" is entirely neutral, it was on the basis of their claim that Marx was expelled, it does not make any assertion as to the veracity of the underlying claim, so I'm not sure I understand your objection --Martin (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

@TFD, as I said, the claim Marx was expelled for funding arms purchases has been out there for a while now, it even is in the preface of the first volume of "The Karl Marx library" published by McGraw-Hill in 1977. The point of the diverse sources is that it demonstrates that this fact is widely accepted. You accept Marx was expelled from Belgium, what was the reason? Ten sources so far point to use of his money to purchase arms. Find a source that directly contradicts or refutes that claim. --Martin (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not look for lots of sources to prove something, that is just a waste of everyone's time. We use the most reliable, in this case books and articles by historians in the academic press, which state that he was expelled for being armed. TFD (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that, so please provide a source from a historian published in the academic press that refutes the claim (which is even found in the preface to "The Karl Marx library" of all places) that Marx was expelled from Belgium for supplying money to purchase arms. --Martin (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin, regarding the Boris Nicolaievsky book you cited earlier, it is clear that the version it gives is incompatible with a simple statement that Marx was 'arrested and expelled by the Belgian authorities for firearm offences". It says nothing of the sort. Instead it relates that he received "...a police order giving him twenty-four hours to leave Brussels" (P. 144), but while he was still preparing to go, he writes "...a commissary of police, accompanied by ten municipal guards, entered my apartments, searched the whole house and ended by arresting me on the pretext that I had no papers" (footnote to p 145, translated there from Marx's French).Can I ask you to check your other sources to ensure that they actually say what you claim? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the text inserted into the article reads "according to Belgian Police, Marx used 5,000 of the 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers", while Nicolaievsky writes "According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels. The police had their opportunity of dealing with the exiles at last. They worked in close touch with the Prussian ambassador, who had in his possession on February 29, only a day or two after it was drawn up, a list of those who were to be expelled. Marx's name was at the top of the list". I think what I wrote was a fair summary of what the multiple sources say. As for the footnote you found quoting Marx, he is expressing his personal view of why he was expelled. So what? --Martin (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"So what"? You cited Nicolaievsky as evidence that Marx had been "'arrested and expelled by the Belgian authorities for firearm offences", that's what. It doesn't say that, so you shouldn't have claimed it did. Is that too hard to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No I cited Nicolaievsky claim that "According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels". That was the original basis of the discussion here. --Martin (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Andy, compared to nine other sources you are giving to WP:UNDUE weight to the words of Uchida". No I'm not Martin, I'm not actually giving Uchida's words any weight at all, as he/she didn't write them. Please read what I stated above about who actually did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you actually arguing about then? --Martin (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, I'm arguing about checking sources properly, so that discussing who says what doesn't waste an inordinate amount of our time. If you can't be bothered to get simple facts straight, don't expect to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You only joined this project a month or two ago, with only 600 edits to your credit, I'm not sure your criticism is entirely valid. --Martin (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"You only joined this project a month or two ago, with only 600 edits to your credit, I'm not sure your criticism is entirely valid". See non sequitur (logic). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us put a stop, right now, to aspersions on the motives of editors. All that matters is that an edit complies with NPOV, NOR, and V. It shouldn't matter whether the editor is a member of the John Birch Society or the Socialist Worker's Party. Also, sources do not have to be scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles; books published by credible presses can certainly be reliablesources. It seems clear that some people claim Marx gave money to help pay to arm workers. There is no valid argument for keeping this out of the article. We just need to word it in an NPOV way that sticks to what the reliable sources say. let's focus on the wording rather than mud-slinging at editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"some people claim Marx gave money to help pay to arm workers". Yes, even a few credible sources. If anyone wishes to include a statement that "some people claim" this in the article, I'd not object. I've already said as much. What shouldn't be included without WP:RS is that Marx did this, or that he was charged with firearms offences. There is apparently little or no reference to this in most scholarly works (or if their is, we've not been provided with citations), and there is hardly a shortage of those on Marx. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you appear to be misrepresenting the situation. The article text in question that TFD reverted does not state "he was charged with firearms offences" it states: "Marx used 5,000 of the 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers"[6]. We have quite a number of sources that verifies that. In fact I requested uninvolved comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Karl_Marx_and_his_6000_francs and the sources are deemed sufficiently reliable. There is no justification for this revert and it should be undone. --Martin (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not telling us about that earlier. I don't suppose you even considered letting others make an input? I see you've dropped the claim that the Belgian police were the source for this information. Given that one of the sources you cited was from 'Marx for the 21st century' (though not by Hiroshi Uchida), I'll be interested to see how you work the statement that Marx was unfairly arrested into the article. Or are reliable sources only reliable for the point you asked about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we write that a pro-Marxist writer in the 1930s writing outside academic writing and modern neoconservative writers writing outside academic writing and modern neoconservative writers with no historical background writing within academic writing make this claim, but historical writers within academic writing do not make this claim? Based on the evidence, do you believe that Marx gave 5 or 6 thousand gold francs to a Belgian uprising (which Engels opposed and never happened) or do you think that it is just a myth picked up by writers who are not historians? TFD (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin, one other point. You earlier stated that Marx being 'arrested and expelled by the Belgian authorities for firearm offences' was 'objective fact'. The sources you yourself give show otherwise. That you no longer make this claim doesn't make me pointing out that you had claimed it 'misrepresentation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"...I requested uninvolved comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Karl_Marx_and_his_6000_francs and the sources are deemed sufficiently reliable".True enough (in the opinion of the person who answered). However, as it says on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, "This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject.". What is going on here is a content dispute, surely? If it isn't, what is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that this really happened? The story seems to be repeated only by non-historians and historians never mention it. It might be true, but I would like to see it sourced to a book by a real historian. What I find difficult is that the Belgian authorities did not mention this. And it seems certain that Marx was expelled from Belgium because he was a rabble rouser using trumped-up charges of having weapons. If he had given money to rebels then there would be evidence that the rebels had obtained weapons and if the police had known about this they would have charged Marx. Why would he have given his money to the Belgian revolution, when Engels asked them not to rebel, instead of to the French or Prussian rebellians? Maybe it's a story he told his wife. TFD (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, does any historian dispute this claim? You seem profoundly to misunderstand our NPOV policy. We represent all significant views. Not views we like; the point of NPOV is to force us to include views we do not like. Also, you cannot argue from a negative. If a historian writes that the claim that Marx spent 5,000 of an inheritance to buy arms is a false claim, of course we would include that view. But the fact that you cannot find a historin who holds this view is not evidence that there exists the view "Marx did not do this," except in your own head, and, sorry, editors' views do not go into articles. You seem to care what Marx "really" did. It is not our job to do this. If you wish to write an articlke on what Marx really did, find another venue to publish it. here we simply provide different views from different sources. So far I have not heard any argument from you except (1) you do not like the view and (2) you cannot find evidence anyone rejects the view. Not the way to edit Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes we accept all significant views, but views that are ignored by historians cannot be considered significant. Of course we should not conduct our own research into the events in Brussels in 1848 to see whether this narrative was likely, but of course would not have to do this if we restricted historical sources to historians. It seems that an historian would be better able to judge historical events than an economist and the peers who reviewed his work, being historians not economists, would be more likely to find errors.

Jerrold Siegal, a professor of history at Princeton, wrote in his book published by them, which was well-reviewed in The Journal of Modern History,[7] "[Marx] received a sizeable advance on his share of the family estate in 1848 to float the Neue Rheinische Zeitung". Marx's father had in fact died ten years earlier.[8] The paper was launched after Marx left Belgium.[9]

Apparently the "Marx gave all his money to the revolution" story can be traced to Franz Mehring's 1936 biography where he wrote that according to Jenny Marx and Marx's friends, he used an advance of 7,000 thalers on his inheritance to "furthur the agitation and keep the paper alive".[10]

And of course reliable sources state that Marx was taken out of Belgium for being armed. It seems unlikely that Marx, who was setting up a newspaper and preparing to go to France just before the June Days Uprising, would use an advance on his inheritance to fund an armed uprising in Belgium, which Engels had discouraged and in fact never happened. That probably explains why historians do not advance this theory.

TFD (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD says "but views that are ignored by historians cannot be considered significant" Saul K. Padover is a historian and political scientist, he hasn't ignored it, but it seems that you have ignored him. Padover writes in his book Karl Marx, an intimate biography published by McGraw-Hill in 1978 on page 205:

"When, early in the year 1848, Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance, which amounted to around 6000 francs, instead of husbanding the money for the support of his family, he spent about 5000 francs helping to buy arms"

Moreover Siegal states "[Marx] received a sizeable advance on his share of the family estate", however Padover states "Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance", seems to be that there were two different sums are being discussed here.--Martin (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Marx had been receiving money from his inheritance throughout the years and received the balance in the form of an advance. Apparently final probate could have been delayed by his mother until her death. No sources refer to two separate receipts of money. While Padover was certainly an historian, we need further information about this book because it appears to have been published outside the academic mainstream. But how do you explain that Siegal says the money was spent on the newspaper? Since you feel the sources agree to the sum of 5,000 francs, could you please tell me why there is disagreement over what weapons were purchased and to whom they were provided. TFD (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if only marginal sources mention the claim that Marx spent his inheritance arming Belgian rebels, while his more reputable academic biographers do not mention it, it is irresponsible for wikipedia to include it. john k (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the academic biographer Saul K. Padover is less reputable than Jerrold Siegal? What about the biographer Francis Wheen, are you really suggesting that he is a marginal source? --Martin (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Before reading this talk page, I'd always known Padover as a biographer of Thomas Jefferson. On the whole, Padover and Wheen both seem to qualify as reliable sources, though. My earlier post was too strong. That being said, this does seem to be an issue that is kind of under-discussed, though, and caution is in order. Do we know whether Padover and Wheen's account are just based on Jenny Marx's later recollections, or if there is contemporary evidence that they are citing, for example? john k (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wheen does indicate that there is ample evidence beyond that from Jenny Marx. Presumably official Belgian records exists related the events and the writings of others exist too. In any case, I don't think policy requires us to verify the primary sources used by the authors of the secondary sources we cite, that seems to be delving into WP:OR. That said, no lesser person than Engels held Jenny Marx in the highest regard, describing her as a woman of sharp critical intelligence, political tact and wise without ever compromising her honour. So when Jenny states: "Marx wasted his money in radical newspaper ventures and in the purchase of arms for abortive revolutions", I don't see that as a viewpoint of a dumb blonde wife. --Martin (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Padover's book on Marx appears to have been written for a large audience, rather than an academic one, and would not have had the same fact-checking and peer-review as Seigel's book. He may have been using sources based on Jenny Marx and Marx's friends and saw no reason to question them. The same with Wheen. The point is that no books published in the academic press seem to repeat the story. If they ignore it, then it seems strange to insist on including it in this short article.

Quite right, we do not want to have to check primary sources ourselves. That is why we should use books that undergo strict fact-checking.

TFD (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If the issue seems under-discussed or ignored, that is probably because it is seen as uncontroversial and taken for granted. It is not a case of right-leaning authors saying Marx did this and left-leaning authors saying no he didn't, it seems both sides of the political spectrum agrees on this aspect and there is no discussion of it. Nine sources have been found so far, here are another three:

• Doug Lorimer's introduction to a reprint of Karl Marx's work, The Class Struggles in France: From the February Revolution to the Paris Commune, ISBN 9781876646196, page 5:

"Only a week or so earlier, Marx had received his share of his father's estate, and he contributed a large amount of it to the association to purchase arms"

• David Ashley and David Orenstein, Karl Marx: Life ad Social Environment, published in Early modern social theory: selected interpretive readings edited by Murray E. G. Smith, 1998, page 164:

"In Brussels he had spent all his savings from his share of his father's estate to buy arms for an abortive workers' revolution"

• William Otto Henderson, The life of Friedrich Engels, Taylor & Francis, 1976, page 133:

"The workers in Brussels - to whom Marx made a contribution towards their purchase of arms - proved to be singularly ineffective revolutionaries"

As I said previously, the notion that Marx funded arms purchases has been out there for quite a while now, giving ample opportunity for academic biographers to refute that claim. None have. --Martin (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the wrong approach. One does not list countless examples of a story being repeated to determine its reliability. Instead one looks for the best sources about the circumstances to see what they say. There must be tens of thousands of books and articles about Marx's life and if we go down this path we could be here a long time. Provide one good source. Obviously the intro to a book by Marx republished by the "Resistance Marxist Library"[11] will not be as reliable a source as a critically acclaimed biography of Marx published by Princeton University Press. The political views of writers is irrelevant to the reliability of scholarly writing which is one reason it is preferred to popular writing. Scholars, unlike polemicists are entitled only to their opinions not to their facts. TFD (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned previously that there would exist official Belgian records regarding this issue. This evidence is described on page 336 in David Felix's paper "Heute Deutschland! Marx as Provincial Politician" in Central European History published by Cambridge University Press in 1982 (doi: 10.1017/S0008938900010621):

"The advance from his mother totalled a sufficiently substantial 6,000 francs ($1,200), of which he expended a third to arm revolution-minded Belgian workers, according to Belgian records. This is detailed in a memorandum by an official of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, mentioned in Horst Schlechte, "Karl Marx und sein Wirkungskreis in Brüssel: Dokumente aus belgischen Archiven," Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung1 (1966): 113".

That's the thirteenth source so far, this one pointing to concrete primary evidence of official Belgian Ministry of Justice records. Either your scholar got it wrong or you are misconstruing his work. I would suspect the latter. --Martin (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Brussels, weapons and Google mining

Two editors have now presented numerous sources that Marx contributed to the armed resistance in Brussels in 1848. The sources differ over the amount of money given, the recipients (either German or Beligan) and the weapons purchased. Many of these sources just mention that the story has been told, without verifying it.

The best sources, books and articles written by historians about Marx's life and published in the academic press generally ignore what the money was used for. One major biography says that the money was used to finance the newspaper that Marx founded in 1848. Major sources that mention the story say that it was provided by friends of Marx and his wife.

When writing articles we should use the best sources and reflect what they say. If biographers ignore a story, then so should we. It is not our role to correct the way Marx, or any other subject is treated by the experts.

An editor has now presented a new source, that refers to a 1966 paper that refers to a "memorandum by an official of the Belgian Ministry of Justice" claiming that Marx gave 1,200 francs (not 5,000) to arm Belgian workers. The source used is reliable and attests to the reliability of the memo. But the passage provided does not say whether the writer attests to the information provided in the memo, nor does it say when the memo was written. Martintg has not provided the full context of the passage. Bear in mind too that in the justice system, facts are not considered proved because prosecutors have claimed that they are. Facts are established through judicial procedures.

When presenting attributed claims in articles we are bound by neutrality to explain the degree of acceptance of those claims. Certainly at the least, we need to know what the paper says about the claim. We also need an explanation why we are presenting a claim that conflicts with all other sources that editors have provided for this talk page.

TFD (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the article as it currently stands does not claim that Marx gave money for arms. It states that 'Belgian Ministry of Justice records' claimed this. Readers can decide for themselves whether to believe the records or not. Given the circumstances, I can imagine that the records might be suspect (the Belgian authorities were likely more concerned with getting Marx out of the way than with the finer points of law), but this is pure conjecture. You are right of course to suggest we need a little more context for the citation, and to also make clear that the facts are in dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We could write in articles about Iraq, "according to the Bush administration....", and we would have properly sourced material. But when we do that we want to know whether the views expressed mainstream thinking, when they were stated and whether there were other views. The parallel is actual real - in both cases authorities may have exaggerated a threat to the state in order to justify their actions. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." TFD (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We go by NPOV. We provide all major views. If there is controversy as to the veracity of a view, we say so. If we wish to emphasize that this is a view and not a fact we attribute it in the article. To say that the Bush administration claimd that Iraq was in the process of manufacturing an atopmic bomb (or whatever the specifics were) is not bad practice, it is good practice. NPOV never says exclude a major view. It says provide context and other views. In the case of the Iraq waar we would have to include Bush's view ... and the fact that no evidence was ever found and many journalists, politicians, and policy analysts have criticized the White House manipulation of intelligence reports. That is the Wikipedia way. Same here. People seem to wish to dismiss a view because they do not like it or do not give credibility to those who hold the view. But if this were our policy we would have no need for NPOV, we would only provide whatever views we thought were truthful. This is NOT the point. Historians who publish in acadmic presses are important and to be respected but they aren't gods, are not unbiased; NPOV applies to them too. We include their views because they are significant, not because they are more truthful. This discussion is really making a mess of NPOV. There must be a way to include this view, and other views, and enough context to enable readers to make informed inferences.

Certainly, that the Belgian gov't believed that Marx was giving money to revolutionaries and that this is one reason he was expelled from France makes it worth including. That at least one biographer of marx observes that there was never any evidence of this is also worth including. That other historians believe there are other reasons he was kicked out of Belgian is also relevant, if any historians make this claim. I see no reason why all these claims canot be put into a well-written and concise sentence or two. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending a point of view, merely stating that if the major sources one should use for the article, viz., modern peer-reviewed articles and books published in the academic press by historians writing about the life of Marx, or give a different narrative of the events, then we should ignore the narratives published outside the academic press or written by economists, political scientists, sociologists, etc. If we do choose to write about what Marx did with the 6,000 or 7,000 francs, then we need to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". If you want to do this then go ahead, although it would seem to give undue attention to a minor aspect of Marx's life. Also, the most recent source does not claim that the alleged donation of 1,200 francs was the reason for Marx's expulsion. The memo was more likely written after he left Belgium and for all we no may have been written long after. It appears for example that the authorities who ordered Marx deported and the police who expelled him were not working together, otherwise he would have been arrested when the deportation order was served on him. TFD (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you just not get it? I never said that we should "choose to write about what Marx did with the 6,000 or 7,000 francs," we do not know what he did not did not do and it is not up to WP editors to decide what he did or did not do. NPOV demands that we provide different views of what he did. It is McLellan who says that the accusation of giving money to revolutionaries was a reason for expulsion; McLellan is a very highly regarded biographer and certainly a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, given that Marx abandoned an academic career in part to be an active revolutionary, I do not see how his relationship with revolutionary groups, especially around 1848, is "minor." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the first time anyone has brought up McLellan as a source for the story. I can only get a snippet view, but here is what he wrote (pp. 189-190): "Two weeks earlier Marx had inherited 6000 francs from his mother...and the police suspected (there was no evidence) that he was using it to finance the revolutionary...." So now we have another version of the story. Since you seem to have access to all these sources, perhaps you could write a section for this. TFD (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already wrote a section (a day or two ago). I added McLellan as a source. Someone deleted it. Just check the article edit history. I am sure what I wrote could be agreed upon, but I am not going to edit war when others keep deleting content that is NPOV and complies with V. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that TFD would remove entirely any mention of Marx arming Belgian workers. There isn't even an attempt by TFD to formulate some kind of compromise wording, just outright reversion because apparently the sources presented does not sit well with his POV.

But because I enjoy watching TFD's squirming and denying the undeniable, lets recap the sources found that support the claim Marx financed the arming of these workers:

Highly regarded academic biographers

• Saul Kussiel Padover, Karl Marx, an intimate biography, McGraw-Hill, 1978, page 205:

"When, early in the year 1848, Marx finally received the remainder of his inheritance, which amounted to around 6000 francs, instead of husbanding the money for the support of his family, he spent about 5000 francs helping to buy arms"

• William Otto Henderson, The life of Friedrich Engels, Taylor & Francis, 1976, page 133:

"The workers in Brussels - to whom Marx made a contribution towards their purchase of arms - proved to be singularly ineffective revolutionaries"

• David McLellan, Karl Marx: a biography, Papermac, 1995

"Two weeks earlier Marx had inherited 6000 francs from his mother...and the police suspected (there was no evidence) that he was using it to finance the revolutionary..."

General biographers

• Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, Goldmann, 2002, p. 127:

"In mid-February his mother had belatedly sent him the huge sum of 6,000 gold francs as his share of old Heinrich Marx's legacy, and most of this windfall was immediately put to subversive use ... There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself. 'The German workers [in Brussels] decided to arm themselves,' she admitted. 'Daggers, revolvers, etc. were procured. Karl willingly provided money, for he had just come into an inheritance. In all this the government saw conspiracy and criminal plans. Marx receives money and buys weapons, he must therefore be got rid of"

• Paul M. Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, HarperCollins, 2007,

"All the same, one way or another Marx got considerable sums of money by inheritance. His father's death brought him 6000 gold francs, some of which he spent on arming Belgian workmen."

• Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers, M.E. Sharpe, 2008, page 144:

"Marx was arrested by Belgian police for spending his inheritance from his father (6,000 gold francs) on arming Belgian workers with rifles"

Peer reviewed work written by scholars in the academic press

• David Felix's paper "Heute Deutschland! Marx as Provincial Politician" in Central European History published by Cambridge University Press in 1982 (doi: 10.1017/S0008938900010621) page336:

"The advance from his mother totalled a sufficiently substantial 6,000 francs ($1,200), of which he expended a third to arm revolution-minded Belgian workers, according to Belgian records. This is detailed in a memorandum by an official of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, mentioned in Horst Schlechte, "Karl Marx und sein Wirkungskreis in Brüssel: Dokumente aus belgischen Archiven," Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung1 (1966): 113"

• David Ashley and David Orenstein, Karl Marx: Life ad Social Environment, published in Early modern social theory: selected interpretive readings edited by Murray E. G. Smith, 1998, page 164:

"In Brussels he had spent all his savings from his share of his father's estate to buy arms for an abortive workers' revolution"

Sundry authors of differing political persuasions

• Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on earth: the rise and fall of socialism Encounter Books, 2002, page 74:

"Marx had recently received an inheritance from his father, and he soon spent most of it buying guns and daggers for German rebels in Belgium, leading to his arrest and expulsion from that country."

• Boris Nicolaievsky, Karl Marx - Man and Fighter, READ BOOKS, 2007, page 143:

"According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels. The police had their opportunity of dealing with the exiles at last. They worked in close touch with the Prussian ambassador, who had in his possession on February 29, only a day or two after it was drawn up, a list of those who were to be expelled. Marx's name was at the top of the list"

Introductions to reprints of Marx's writings

• Doug Lorimer's introduction to a reprint of Karl Marx's work, The Class Struggles in France: From the February Revolution to the Paris Commune, ISBN 9781876646196, page 5:

"Only a week or so earlier, Marx had received his share of his father's estate, and he contributed a large amount of it to the association to purchase arms"

• The Karl Marx library, Volume 1, McGraw-Hill, 1977, preface page xxii:

"Marx urged German refugees to join the Belgians in revolt. He had just received 6000 francs in partial settlement of his father's estate, and he contributed about 5000 francs to buy weapons"

Sources provided by TFD

Let's rollback and recap what TFD offers as evidence to support his POV that Marx didn't arm anyone:

• a single quote from a single book "Marx's Fate: The Shape of a life" by Jerrold Siegal:

""[Marx] received a sizeable advance on his share of the family estate in 1848 to float the Neue Rheinische Zeitung"".

TFD argues that because Siegal omits mention that Marx spent a part of the money arming Belgian works, this is somehow construed as a refutation of the claim that Marx armed Belgian workers. That's it. That's the basis of yards and yards of prose written in defence of his reversions.

I had asked for some uninvolved comment at Wikipedia:RSN#Karl_Marx_and_his_6000_francs and two that have commented have both agreed that the sources presented are sufficiently reliable for including the text into the article[12][13]. Let's stop this disruptive nonsense now and arrive at a comprise wording. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is array of sources constitute a very convincing for mentioning the incident as fact, in order to attempt to make compromise wording that avoids mentioning it as fact or mentions that there are different viewpoints, we would need a few reliable sources that actually contradict what is stated in these sources - omission is not contradiction.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's comment "TFD does not own this page" unfairly singles me out. Justus Maximus, Martintg, and Slrunbenstein have all added versions of this story twice each, while I have removed a version twice. Martintg's comments about me are hardly collegial. I have listed their four versions below. They appear to conflict with one another and none of them mention that Marx gave some, most or all of his inheritance to support the newspaper he founded and edited, or that most biographers do not mention how he used the money at all. They all imply that Marx was expelled from Belgium for funding revolutionaries, while most sources do not. Could editors please comment on which of these versions, if any, reflects the mainstream sources.

1. In February, Marx used the sum of 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers. In early March, the Belgian authorities arrested and expelled Marx from Belgium.[Justus Maxiumus][14]
2. In February, according to Belgian Police, Marx used 5,000 of the 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers. [Martintg][15]
3. In February, Marx received an inheritance of 6,000 gold francs from his father; Belgian authorities suspected him of using this money to finance the purchase of arms by local revolutionaries and he was deported (some sources support this claim.[slrubenstein][16]
4. Marx received a substantial inheritance from his father of 6000 francs. According to Belgian Ministry of Justice records Marx used a third of this money to arm revolution-minded Belgian workers and he was subsequently deported.[Martintg][17]

TFD (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep removing sourced content while others support it. I added a version that cites McLellan. You deleted it, and restated your objections. I replied and mentioned McLellan - and then you said that this was the first mention of McLellan! Excuse me? When you deleted what I added, did you bother reading it? Because if you had, you would have seen the citation to McLellan. You should not delete material you have not even read. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin g (and Maunus and others) if you wish to edit what I wrote by all means, go ahead - i am sure it can be improved upon. But let us add content and nuance, and sources, rather than delete them as TFD does. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Your version is the best because it focuses on the facts that he was suspected and deported. I think Adding a phrase mentioning which sources support him actually being guilty of the accusation would be warranted - although possibly not necessary.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, disagreeing over content is fine, but could you please not misrepresent my edits. You never mentioned McLellan on this page and I never removed your edit. In fact, Martintg removed the reference to McLellan[18] and you have just re-instated a version of Martintg's edit without your source.[19] TFD (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I apologize. I did not realize I was restoring martin's version, my error. So we have Martin's version and mine. Please, just do not delete. If people think mmy version is better, restore that one, or if people see a good hybrid of the two, edit them toegether. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text a bit to include your version here, although I would like verification of the Somerhausen source, which appears to be rather obscure and in French. Does that work for you? --Martin (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you leave out the point that reliable sources reject this claim? NPOV demands you include even views you do not like. We have reliable sources saying thee is no evidence and proposing he spent the money on other things; these views must be included. The question of how much money he gave is trivial and not worth quibbling over; whether or not he aqctually used th money for this purpose is non-trivial and multiple views should be represnted. MY version presented another view. YOU deleted it. I want you to resore the view - attributed to a reliable source - that you deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you addressing this to me or TFD, your indent makes that confusing. I'll assume you are addressing me. Just as you didn't realise you were restoring my version, I didn't realise I was removing yours. Apologies for that. I have no problem with presenting other views as long as they are sourced. McLellan states "Two weeks earlier Marx had inherited 6000 francs from his mother...and the police suspected (there was no evidence) that he was using it to finance the revolutionary.." so perhaps we should attribute that view to McLellan as he seems to be expressing an opinion by inserting it into brackets: "(there was no evidence)". However we have official Belgian records that states otherwise. --Martin (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text further[20], is that better? I've removed the Somerhausen reference until we can get that verified. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undone TFD's edit[21] as it is an opinion not a fact as he claims in his edit summary. Opinions ought to be properly attributed. --Martin (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not evidence exists is a matter of fact. Whether or not proof exists is a matter of opinion. Understanding the difference between the two is essential for editing NPOV articles. TFD (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. TFD is edit warring again [22]. Whether evidence exists is a matter of McLellan's opinion, particularly since he does not go into any detail. Apparently he missed the evidence found by David Felix in 1982: "The advance from his mother totalled a sufficiently substantial 6,000 francs ($1,200), of which he expended a third to arm revolution-minded Belgian workers, according to Belgian records. This is detailed in a memorandum by an official of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, mentioned in Horst Schlechte, "Karl Marx und sein Wirkungskreis in Brüssel: Dokumente aus belgischen Archiven," Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung1 (1966): 113" This is a RS source that directlty contradicts McLellan's claim that no evidence exists, per your request in your edit comment. Will you now undo your edit? --Martin (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Marting, a prosecutor's memo is not evidence. TFD (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, prosecutor's memos generally detail the evidence of cases they are looking to prosecute. Felix clearly states that Marx's use of his money to arm the rebellion is "detailed in a memorandum by an official of the Belgian Ministry of Justice". It is certainly more that what McLellan gives us, an uncited four word claim in brackets "there was no evidence". Does McLellan even cite Felix or even Horst Schlechte? I suspect not. --Martin (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what was in the memo or whether it related to a prosecution? Do you even know if it was written during Marx's lifetime? If the subject is in any way notable, then you should have no difficulty in finding this. TFD (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? The document exists and discussed in Horst Schlechte's "Karl Marx und sein Wirkungskreis in Brüssel: Dokumente aus belgischen Archiven," Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung1 (1966): 113", as cited by Felix. You do understand what "Dokumente aus belgischen Archiven" means, don't you? "Documents of the Begian Archives" in case you don't. What does McLellan cite to support his claim that "there was no evidence"? Does he directly refute Felix. Does he mention Schlechte's work at all? Did McLellan attend the Belgian archives, did he mention this? So you tell us on what basis is McLellan asserting "there was no evidence". You are making the claim McLellan's assertion is a fact, it is up to you to let us know what McLellan cites to back that assertion. --Martin (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

All you have is a government document saying "he expended a third to arm revolution-minded Belgian workers". Your source does not claim they had any evidence. Did they have any evidence to make this claim, if so what was it and when did they get it? TFD (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What evidence does McLellan have to assert there is no evidence? --Martin (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to arrive at a compromise wording (see my edit to the article). If either Martin or TFD would like to suggest anything more definite can be said about the events without resorting to speculation and WP:OR, then say so. This debate is getting increasingly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is better. We still have the last sentence unsourced," Marx was subsequently deported from Belgioum". The way it is now implies that it is related to his inheritance. In fact Marx was ordered deported but was arrested by police apparently not aware of the deportation order. He had planned to leave Belgium to go to Paris anyway. This could be expanded into a new paragraph. TFD (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for the typo (fixed) - Doh! Actually, it needs more work anyway, because the invitation to Paris mentioned in the following paragraph seems to pre-date the deportation order, as I understand it. I'm not sure that e statement about his deportation implies anything much beyond the obvious - the Belgian authorities wanted to get rid of him. I'll wait to see what Martin has to say about this, then maybe have another look tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I appreciate you attempts to find a compromise, but McLellan doesn't actually refer to the specific allegation contained in the Belgian Justice Ministry memo as reported by Felix, so you can't really say "The veracity of the allegation is however disputed". All McLellan states is "(there was no evidence)" without any elaboration or citing of others. The fact that McLellan puts "there was no evidence" in brackets without cites seems to me that he is expressing an offhand opinion, otherwise he would have expanded upon that point.

Yes, obviously the Belgian authorities wanted to get rid of Marx. But Belgium being a constitutional monarchy governed by the rule of law had to find some legal reason to expel him. If you are a foreign national with a legal right to residency, the authorities can't simply expel you on a whim, they need some kind of legal basis, otherwise you would hire a lawyer and sue the government. The point of issue of the Justice Ministry memo is that it gave the goverment such a legal pretext. This is corroborated by Nicolaievsky in his book Karl Marx - Man and Fighter, READ BOOKS, 2007, page 143: "According to the police Marx gave five thousand of the six thousand francs he had just received to buy weapons for the workers of Brussels. The police had their opportunity of dealing with the exiles at last. They worked in close touch with the Prussian ambassador, who had in his possession on February 29, only a day or two after it was drawn up, a list of those who were to be expelled. Marx's name was at the top of the list"--Martin (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I should probably have written 'allegations', as I was referring to all the claims about Marx providing money, not just the Belgian MoJ's. I don't see how you can state anything definitive about why McLellan wrote what he did without speculation - it might be offhand opinion, or it might be based on further evidence. We just don't know. We do know he considered the evidence unreliable, and we say so.

As for the legality or otherwise of the actions of the Belgian authorities, frankly this is so far off-topic and in the realms of WP:OR that I don't consider it worth discussing, though I'll ad in passing that if you are seriously suggesting that under a 'constitutional monarchy', the officers of the state always work within the law, I can only assume you've never lived in one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right about McLellan's comment, it might be offhand opinion or it might be based on further evidence. We just don't know. But TFD is asserting it as fact, it was his justification for removing the attribution. As for Marx's deportation order, the question remains unanswered, on what basis was it made? At least one source, Nicolaievsky, states the basis was the Belgian police claim. What do other sources say on this aspect? --Martin (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Marx had no right to residency and the constitutional monarchy of Prussia had pressured Belgium to expel left-wing Germans. Deportation of foreigners may have been entirely discretionary. If so, Marx would have had no grounds for appeal. The fact he was planning to leave anyway may have been reason not to appeal and maybe he could not afford a lawyer, having given all his money away. BTW Wheen seems to be confused. He quotes McLellan as saying "there was no evidence", then presents Jenny Marx's story as evidence. But it is unlikely that the police took a statement from her before they arrested her husband. TFD (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for you claim that "Marx had no right to residency" and "Deportation of foreigners may have been entirely discretionary"? And why would Prussia need to pressure Belgium if it was so easy to deport someone. The fact that Marx was planning to leave anyway is irrelevant. Indeed, Wheen isn't confused, he is directly responding to McLellan's claim when he states "There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself", implying that there is additional evidence beyond Jenny Marx's story. So now we have two sources that contradict 's claim "there is no evidence". --Martin (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please think through your responses and read the sources provided. Obviously Belgium did not provide a right of residency to foreign nationals and people with a right to residency may not be deported. If you are interested in Belgian immigration policy circa 1848, here is a link to a chapter about it called, "A brutal alien policy, 1840-1861". TFD (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Could you please think through your responses and read the sources provided", I merely asked that you provide a source for your assertion, which you did. BTW, thanks for your source, it disproves your assertion that "Marx had no right to residency". In fact not only did he he have residency status in Belgium, but he was officially expelled as an alien who disturbed the public order, one of only 74 expelled on those grounds. On page 13:

"Another state interest....which alien policy had to serve was preserving public order, this implied the removal of those aliens who disturbed the public order, i.e. criminals or political activists. The number of expulsions of aliens with residency status for political reasons remained minimal. Between 1833 and 1860 only seventy-four aliens, mostly "refugees", were officially expelled for this reasons. The most notorious of them was Karl Marx"

So how do you respond to Wheen direct response to McLellan's claim when he states "There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself", you seemed to think Wheen was consfused. Did you misread the source provided? --Martin (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the passages. McLellan wrote, "the police suspected (there was no evidence) that he was using it to finance the revolutionary movement." Wheen then writes, "There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself." IOW the police had no evidence at the time but evidence came into existence later. But Wheen is relying entirely on McLellan for what the police suspected. The government memo may have been based on this suspicion or it may have been written later when evidence became available. But McLellan is the only writer who tells this story. We either accept his story or reject it, we do not pick which part we like.

Could you please provide a page showing that Marx had the right to residency. BTW you point out that "political activists" could be expelled. Marx was a political activist and even the United States has expelled aliens for political activism or even sympathy for Karl Marx.

TFD (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at that from other point of view

Firstly, sorry for divulging the Secret de Polichinelle, but this story started from this edit [23] made by the editor who is obsessed with the idea that Marx was a terrorist and even an ideological father of the Red Terror and Communist terrorism. As a result, one group of editors started to vehemently support these edits, whereas another group started to equally vehemently remove them. However, despite a visible disagreement, consensus seems to be achieved among most editors that any mention of Marx's support of the armed struggle of Belgian workers casts a shadow on Marx. Thai is not the case, however. Let me remind to everyone that the very fact of participation in armed uprising by no means has anything in common with terrorism. The right of rebellion is a natural human right, that even was/is guaranteed by constitutions of many states. Of course, this right became essentially obsolete in contemporary democratic states, however, in XIX and XX century public opinion the word "revolutionary", or "rebel" had no a priori negative connotations. I would say the opposite, many XIX-XX century revolutions and national liberation uprising were being unequivocally supported by public opinion. In connection to that, the fact (or allegations) that Marx spent a considerable part of his money to support an armed rebellion by no means can characterise him as a terrorist or criminal in contemporary public opinion.
I propose to everyone to remember that, and to present the story about Brussels as neutrally as possible, and, importantly, without taking it out of its historical context.
In my opinion, this story is relevant to this section only in connection to Marx's deportation (if such a connection exists).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul, if only you said your insightful words earlier we could have settled this a lot earlier, but it was a useful exercise as we ended up discovering some additional useful sources. As for the link, Belgium in the 19th Century was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (as it is today) where the rule of law existed. There had to be a legal pretext to justify Marx's deportation, claims that he financed arms purchases for the locals is one that the authorities used, according to some sources. --Martin (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The rule of law exists in, e.g., contemporary US also. However, even in the US, constitutions of some states contain clauses that guarantee the right of revolt. Of course, it is an anachronism now, however, the same was not true for XIX century Belgium. The rule of law you refer to was the rule of cruel laws that were not friendly towards workers, so the uprising was a quite justified mean to change these laws. XIX century workers uprisings and contemporary events, including present days terrorist acts, are quite different things, and the facts about Marx must be presented in such a way that would rule out any ahistorical parallelisms.

BTW, the anecdotic details about concrete sums of money are hardly relevant to this article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wise words, Paul. As Martin says, we've actually learned a lot more about the incident, though I'd think it would be hard to give a definitive version. But that is the nature of historiography. One cannot ever expect to give a final account, and no sensible historian ever claims to. We've probably delved further into primary sources than is wise from Wikipedia standards, and in the process perhaps demonstrated why this isn't the supposed panacea that advocates of 'original research' seem sometimes to think.

Regarding legality, and the 'right to rebellion', I'm sure Marx would have his own opinions on the question. He, along with many others, believed that existing regimes were autocratic and exploitative and had no 'right' to rule, and acted accordingly. One cannot reasonably judge his actions from an early 21st century perspective and label them 'criminal' by the standards of our time. The relevant standards are theirs, not ours, and it seems to me the 'crime' he is most guilty of in this context is that of living in the 19th century, believing in a cause, and behaving in a 19th century manner to further that cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)