Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 6 May 2008

This is a Misplaced Pages user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user "Ludvikus" has no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus.

Ludvikus is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archive: 1 2 3

Velikoe v malom

I'm not sure what you are asking. The page Velikoe v malom has been a redirect to Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions) since October and before that it was a redirect to Velikoe v malom i antikhrist. The article Velikoe v malom i antikhrist is itself a redirect to Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions), per the AfD here, also from October. What is it that you want restored, and why? Thanks, Gwernol 14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Correct. I want the article that was deleted, while I was away, restored. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want the text of the article Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, right? Please be specific - I have mentioned three articles above, so you need to say which one you want restored. If you mean Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, it was never deleted and the original article text is still in the history, which you can access here. Please, though, do not restore the article over the redirect. Gwernol 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Please explain clearly what you want this page deleted for? Thanks. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It's obvious, if you only look. I want room for the Disambiguation page: Revisionism (disambiguation). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Notice that, in fact, & incorrectly, this is the disambiguation page (click on it) Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I didn't understand your point earlier, as I don't see a reason why you want the "(disambiguation)" part to be included in the name of the disambiguation page. Please see Misplaced Pages:DAB#Page_naming_conventions for a guideline on this matter. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I want Revisionism to be a {{Main}} (general article). That, for example, we do at Philosophy. That way we can have French philosophy, Chinese Philosophy, etc. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But do you have a main article to put in the place of Revisionism? Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you're copy-editing, above, by the way (will remeber you style). I'm ready to write it in a flash! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Historical revisionism. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Please be specific! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you confusing me with someone else? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Please be specific! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, removing all mention of the negative connotation for the term "historical revisionism" from the lede of that article is inappropriate. It appears you are trying to impose your belief about what that term should mean, which clearly breaks our WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. And no, I am not confusing you with someone else. Thanks, Gwernol 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-checked. You are. I mere re-juggle the literature of others - as I put up the POV tags. You're preaching to the converted. Please take the time to study what I've done very carefully.--Ludvikus (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Revisionism. Is it not a Disambiguation page? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Now check this out: Revisionism (disambiguation). Isn't that more appropriate for it? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And where, pray tell, does this Historical revisionism (negationism) fit in?

Do you get my drift, or where I'm really coming from? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit concered where you comment out both the proposed merge (why?) and remove the first paragraph from the lede which mentions the negative connotation of the term "Historical revisionism". That's a perfectly legitimate thing to have in that article. It should not be commented out, nor should it be moved to a Revisionism disambiguation page. Gwernol 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Look. You are confused about what I'm doing. Taking something out of context for one thing. The mainstream view is that Historical Revisionism is a description of a collection of brilliant crackpots operation out of the Institute of Historical Research, through their journal, the Journal of Historical Review, and their main "contribution" to the world is holocaust denial. Are we agreed on that. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We are certainly not agreed about that. That is not the common use of the term historical revisionism. The common use is the pejorative sense that you seem insistent on excising from the record. Please don't, that is an unacceptable piece of point of view-pushing. Gwernol 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening. I agree with you 100%. It's perjorative. Cool down please, and pay attention to what I'm saying.--Ludvikus (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you agree the term has a pejorative meaning, why did you take the pejorative meaning out of Historical revisionism? Gwernol 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The majority of the editors (WP consesus) maintain that the pejorative term is Historical revisionism (negationism). --Ludvikus (talk)
2. The majority of the editors (WP consesus) maintain that the "nice" term is Historical revisionism.--Ludvikus (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you been reading the discussions on the various Talk pages? I've been repeatedly told that there's a "nice" kind of revisionism. And so, even if I don't believe, WP requires me to abide by consesus. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

18th Brumaire DAB

Hello Ludvikus. I noticed this DAB article. While it is harmless to have a DAB, since there are only two items that might be confused, what would you think of just putting a hatnote on each of the two articles pointing over to the other? This saves having to send people through the DAB, which is one extra step. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'm certainly open to that. But I tell you the truth, I actually put up a Merge notice precise because I thought these were the same artticles (although I hadn't really read the "18"). But that's because I have Never seen that horrible, illiterate looking locution: "18 Brumaire"? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC) I cannot believe you will find it in print anywhere. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my suggestion (it just occurred to me):

1. Eighteenth Brumaire, the historical event
2. Eighteenth Brumaire of Loius Bonarte, the writing by Marx

• But we should still DAB. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• FYI. I just did a search key word with the Library of Congress: for Eighteenth Brumaire, and got 16 hits, all to Marx's work. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• The French hate our "Bastille Day" for their Independence Day. What, exactly do the French call their 1851? coup de ta(sic)? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'18 Brumaire' is favored by Google over 'Eighteenth Brumaire' by a factor of three. This is not a shock; compare 'December 25' versus 'December twenty-fifth;' the difference is enormous. Writing out the numbers that appear in dates is not so common. I would *not* advise changing the name of our 18 Brumaire article. '18 Brumaire' even beats out '18th Brumaire.' When English-speaking historians write about this event, they probably think of themselves as quoting the French '18 Brumaire', which is simply the normal way of writing the date in that language.

To confuse the issue further, the image of the frontispiece of Marx's book spells the title as 'Der 18te Brumaire des Lous Napoleon.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You have the original (or so it looks) pamphlet. But look what the subsequent publishers and/or scholars have done with it . --Ludvikus (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's exactly how they put it:

Works of Marx & Engels 1852

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

by Karl Marx

• --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote

And heres the quote of their Public Domain text (Footnete 64):

64. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Der achzehnte Brumaire des Louts Bonaparte) was written by Marx from December 1851 to March 1852, immediately following the coup d’état in France engineered by the French President, who called himself “Louis Napoleon.” In the course of his work on the book Marx constantly exchanged views with Engels concerning these events. Thus, in this book Marx developed some of the ideas contained in Engels’ letter of December 3, 1851, in particular the ironical comparison of the Bonapartist coup d’état of December 2, 1851 with the coup of November 9, 1799 (the 18th Brumaire according to the republican calendar), as a result of which the Directory was overthrown and a dictatorship set up under General Napoleon Bonaparte, who was proclaimed First Consul and later, in 1804, Emperor of the French. Besides periodicals and official documents, Marx also used private letters from Paris as his sources.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was originally intended as a series of articles in the weekly Die Revolution, which was being prepared for publication by Joseph Weydemeyer, a friend of Marx and Engels and a member of the Communist League in the United States. But Weydemeyer managed to put out only two issues (January 1852), following which publication ceased for lack of funds. Marx’s articles arrived too late for inclusion. On Marx’s advice, Weydemeyer published this work in May 1852 as the first issue of the “non-periodic journal- Die Revolution, and provided it with a short preface. In giving it the title The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Weydemeyer failed to take into account that throughout the book Marx referred to the chief initiator of the coup d’état as Louis Bonaparte, which he did deliberately (see his letter to jenny Marx of June 11, 1852). Being in financial straits, Weydemeyer could not buy up the bulk of the impression from the print-shop, and only a small number of copies reached Europe. All attempts to publish the book in Germany or England (in an English translation) were unsuccessful.

The second edition of the book, this time under the title The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, appeared only in 1869. For this edition Marx revised the text, corrected a large number of misprints, mainly in accordance with the list appended to the 1852 edition, eliminated repetitions, abridged certain passages, and wrote a preface dated June 23, 1869, in which lit, described the editorial work he had done as follows: “A revision of the present work would have robbed it of its peculiar colouring. Accordingly 1 have confined myself to mere correction of printer’s errors and to striking out allusions now no longer intelligible.” This 1869 edition is the one translated here, but since the passages omitted by Marx are of great interest because the, show how he revised the book and, in a number of cases (especially the abridgments in Chapter VII) because of their theoretical content, they are reproduced in this volume as footnotes.

The third edition came out in 1885 under the editorship of Engels and with his preface. The text in the main coincided with that of the 1869 edition. Passages from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte were published in Der Sozialdemokrat, an illegal organ of the German Social-Democratic Party, on March 18, 1887 (No. 12) and on March 16, 1889 (No. 11). During Engels lifetime two translations were made from the 1885 edition: a French translation (published in Le Socialiste, organ of the Workers’ Party of France. from January to November 1891, and in a separate pamphlet that appeared in Lille the same year) and a Russian translation (appeared as a pamphlet in Geneva in 1894).

In English, excerpts from this work were first published in “A Review of the Literature on the Coup d’état by Georg Eccarius, a Communist League member, which was printed in the Chartist People’s Paper from September to December 1852. In the last section of this review, printed on December 18 1852, Eccarius quoted long passages from Chapter 1 of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (see this volume, pp. 617-20). In English this work was first published in full in The People, the weekly of the Socialist Labour Party of the United States, in September-November 1897. It was published in book form in New York in 1898.

Quoted by --Ludvikus (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured the problem out. It's not the evet, it's the date of the Republican callendar: 18 Brumaire. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

Header inserted. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Section headers

Please do not put links into section headers and do not include inline citations in section headers. It makes linking to those sections difficult. Further please go easy on section headers as not every statement you make needs a new section. It is better IMHO to use general headers and develop the conversation than segment it so much. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Wikipedian, hope you are well. Could you please specify the article(s) you're talking about? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation)

I have nominated Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I can see you) 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

I have responded to your puzzling question on my talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

Hi Ludvikus,

Revisionist Zionism is the name of a Zionist movement. Please don't rename the article for the purpose of making it fit more neatly into your classification scheme.

Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my scheme. Zionists, in the literature, call each other "revistists," not "rrevisionist Zionists." Anyway, lets discuss it. I want to go by consesus. What the majority agrees to, I will abide by. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

An article is named X (Y) when many things are called X and there is some confusion about what might be meant by X. The name David Mills, for example, could refer to any one of 11 people. But nobody uses the word Revisionism by itself when they refer to Revisionist Zionism. There is no chance that somebody who comes to Misplaced Pages looking for information about Revisionist Zionism will type Revisionism and expect to find an article about Revisionist Zionism.

But if you'd like, we can have this discussion at Talk:Revisionist Zionism. — ] (] · ]) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik Shabazz. I appreciate very much your level-head, rational discussion. And at least you've certainly got the issue that I'm concerned about exactly right. Howevern my view is the exact opposite of yours. So please let's talk where you suggest. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism & Revisionist Zionism

Please stop adding nonsense to the article. The consensus, formed over many years, is represented by what is there. As I wrote at Talk:Revisionist Zionism, you're mixing up a philosophy/movement, people, an organization, and a political party.

If you persist, I will report you for violating WP:3RR. — ] (] · ]) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be belligerant, or threatening. Not only is it against WP policy, but provocative. WP says be WP:Bold. As I said before/above, you are responsible for the current mess because you failed to Disambiguate. Please calm down and try to follow my train of thought. Also, as I've told you, I've just done your work for you - I've inserted, exactly, word-for-word, the "four distinctions" you have made into Revisionism (check it out). I accept that. But what you fail to address is my questions about the need to disambiguate. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being belligerent or threatening. I'm simply stating a fact. Your persistent reversions against consensus is becoming disruptive.

I'm trying to follow your "train" of thought, although I've repeatedly explained that it's gone off the track. You can't confuse an ideology, a person, and a political party. Imagine writing "the Protocols, also Hitler, later the Nazi Party". It would be laughable, right? But that's analogous to what you're doing at Revisionist Zionism.

I explained at Talk:Revisionist Zionism#I do not wish to participate in an Edit War why there is no need for a disambiguation page. If you feel the need to discuss the issue of a disambiguation page further, please respond there. — ] (] · ]) 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're being very slow. Your talking about "yesterday." The fact is we are on Revisionism now - a DAB page. Stick to the issue at hand. You were there, and I'm compromising with you. What you say above is a gross distortion of what we are doing NOW. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You changed the title of this section, which was Revisionist Zionism. That's what my comments were about. I've asked you not to change other editors' comments, and that includes the headers that they use. Changing the header changes the meaning of my first message.

I made a small change to Revisionism 75 minutes ago. Since then, I see that you've mucked it up by linking to articles that aren't likely to be confused with "revisionism" and therefore don't belong at the disambiguation page. Please see WP:DAB for an explanation about the purpose of disambiguation pages, because it seems that you don't understand which links are appropriate and which aren't. — ] (] · ]) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

Please keep up with me. You're confusing me with other editors who visited the page. I simply re-juggled what they did. I suspect you're making an honest mistake about what I did. Look very carefully at the history. There are other editors there now besides you and me - or do you believe I'm mistaken about that? Please assume Good Faith. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you didn't make this edit or this one? I know exactly what I'm talking about — I'm talking about your edits. — ] (] · ]) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to you before (now that I know what you're asking now) these two entities - explained to me by YOU - are related to Revisionism in the way YOU explained. So why not include your own views on that into the Wiktionary page/ Why is that a problem? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)