Talk:The Communist Manifesto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stronger edit protections?[edit]

It sure seems to be getting vandalized a lot — I reverted it to a non-vandalized version, and less than three minutes later, it was vandalized again.

Seane2017 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please answer[edit]

Can I do this as a book report in 7th grade — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Yes, you can do a book report on the Communist Manifesto. Be sure to use the sources as citations, and double check what is mentioned in the article with those sources. Do not cite the actual wiki article, but those sources (references and footnotes) for best results. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki title to original title[edit]

Because the original title is "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" the correct translation is "Manifesto of the Communist Party". So the wiki article should be moved to [1], and refer to the book as Manifesto of the Communist Party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory1323 (talkcontribs)

We go by the WP:COMMONAME, not literal translations. In English, The Communist Manifesto is the most familiar version of the title and that's what we go with. Any more precise translations can be included in the article body. Also, please sign your posts with for tildes (~). freshacconci (✉) 14:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article should include this quote in the introduction[edit]

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."


This is the easiest, simplest explanation of the Communist Manifesto, and the quote comes from the Communist Manifesto itself. This quote should be cited in the introduction to the article.

Baxter329 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia prefers neutral, third-party scholarly sources to primary sources. In other words, we shouldn't be quoting the Communist Manifesto to explain what the Communist Manifesto is about; that would be a bit circular.—indopug (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think the Legacy section would be better split into a separate criticism section for the second paragraph. I was going to just do this, but I figured this page is watched like hawks, so I felt it prudent to solicit additional opinions. Of course, this will probably draw in scores of hostile edits, but I think its important to separate the general legacy from contemporary and modern criticism. Metallurgist (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]