text:
Universal Studios Florida

Universal Studios Florida is a theme park located in Orlando, Florida, that opened on June 7, 1990. Owned and operated by NBCUniversal, it features numerous rides, attractions, and live shows that are primarily themed to movies, television, and other aspects of the entertainment industry. Universal Studios Florida was the first of three theme parks to open at Universal Orlando Resort, joined later by Universal Islands of Adventure in 1999, and Universal Volcano Bay in 2017. In 2019, it ranked eleventh in the world – sixth in North America – for overall attendance among amusement parks with approximately 10.9 million visitors. A fourth park, Universal Epic Universe, is expected in 2025.

The success of its sister location, Universal Studios Hollywood, in the 1980s fueled the desire to build a similar park in the Orlando area to compete with Walt Disney World. Two of its early projects were partially developed by famed Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, and many themed attractions over the years were developed in close collaboration with the directors, producers, and actors of the films they are based on. An early layout and design of the park also incorporated active production studios, similar to the Hollywood location, which provided guests a behind-the-scenes look at film and television. As the interest to produce films in the Orlando area quickly faded, the design of the park transitioned to a more immersive, first-person perspective.

Universal Studios Florida operates a well-known annual event during the fall season called Halloween Horror Nights, where the park transitions to a Halloween theme featuring haunted houses and scare zones on select nights. One of the park's biggest draws is Diagon Alley, a Harry Potter-themed portion of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter that opened in 2014. E.T. Adventure, another notable attraction, is the only remaining ride in the park which debuted with the park's grand opening in 1990.

History
In 1982, Universal contemplated the idea of opening an amusement park in Florida to compete with Disney. They considered building a similar version of their Studio Tour tram ride located at Universal Studios Hollywood, retaining the studio backlot tour theme to set it apart from what Disney was offering at Disney World. However, Universal abandoned the idea after attempts to partner with a skeptical Paramount Pictures failed to materialize. The Studio Tour in Los Angeles continued to thrive, especially with the addition of a new, massive scene based on the 1976 film King Kong. It opened in 1986 as King Kong Encounter and became an instant hit with guests, boosting attendance and prompting Universal to revisit the idea of building a theme park in Orlando.

That same year, former Disney Imagineer Peter Alexander, who worked on the life-size King Kong animatronic and later became an executive at Universal Creative, met with his friend and renowned director Steven Spielberg to discuss the creation of a Back to the Future simulator ride. Star Wars creator George Lucas, who recently helped Disney design the well-received Star Tours attraction at Disneyland, had previously boasted to Spielberg that Universal was incapable of building such a ride. Spielberg and Alexander gladly accepted the challenge and began working on the ride's concept. Universal was already working on the design for its backlot tram tour attraction in Florida, which would include multiple scenes depicted at the Hollywood location.

In 1987, Disney CEO Michael Eisner – previously the CEO at Paramount when Universal pitched their Florida park idea several years earlier – announced intentions to create their own studio backlot tour at Walt Disney World. The new area, to be called Disney-MGM Studios, was a preemptive move to counter Universal's planned introduction into the Orlando market. Universal claimed that Eisner took advantage of his prior access to their plans for Orlando, borrowing some of the concepts, but Disney denied Eisner ever saw them. They also noted that planning for Disney-MGM Studios began in 1981, long before Eisner was hired. The corporate war between the two had spilled over into the public relations sector, described as a "nasty feud" by the New York Times in 1989.

Universal had publicly revealed their plans for Orlando ahead of Eisner's announcement, but Disney was in a better position to fast-track construction and open sooner. This forced Universal to rethink their approach and abandon the tram tour concept design for the park. Instead, they opted to build standalone attractions while retaining the overall studio backlot theme. Their projected opening day lineup would include Kongfrontation, Jaws, and the Spielberg-Alexander collaborative project, Back to the Future: The Ride.

A large theme park with separate attractions was a new concept for Universal, and their creative team ran into multiple obstacles during development and testing. Among the casualties from the early troubles was the Back to the Future ride, which had its opening delayed by nearly a year.

Development
Many of the attractions over the years were developed in close collaboration with directors, producers, and actors from the films on which they were based. In many cases, actors reprised their roles, contributing new dialogue and footage to fill pre-show queues and action sequences within the attractions. Rip Torn and Will Smith contributed to Men in Black: Alien Attack, Revenge of the Mummy featured footage of Brendan Fraser and Arnold Vosloo, and multiple members of The Simpsons cast collaborated on The Simpsons Ride. Other examples involved directors, such as Steven Spielberg's assistance on the development of several rides including E.T. Adventure, Back to the Future: The Ride, and Jaws.

Production facilities
Universal Studios Florida was originally designed to function as both a theme park and working production studio. Several movies, television series, commercials, music videos, and other forms of media have been produced onsite throughout its history. Nickelodeon Studios was one of the early pillars behind the working studio concept, and it was featured in various locations throughout the park in the form of soundstages. Popular kids' shows such as Double Dare were produced on location, and guests could tour the facilities for a behind-the-scenes experience.

Film production also occurred onsite. Psycho IV: The Beginning was the first film to be produced at the Florida park location while it was open to the public, and visitors during the park's first month of operation were able to get a glimpse of live production. In 1991, John Landis was forced to move from Universal Studios Hollywood to Universal Studios Florida to finish filming the comedy film Oscar, after a disgruntled employee set a fire that destroyed most of the set at the Hollywood location.

For a brief time, Universal Studios Florida featured a backlot tour tram ride attraction, called the Production Studio Tour, with elements that were similar to the version at Universal Studios Hollywood. Guests toured active production set facilities in use for film and television. Disney heavily invested in the same working studio concept, but shortly after Universal Studios Florida opened, filming at the parks and even in the state was becoming less attractive. Producers complained of the logistics, expenses, and limited available resources. Consequently, Universal ended the Production Studio Tour only five years into the park's history in 1995, and Nickelodeon's TV production moved to California in 2005. Smaller shows and commercials continued to be produced, but the backlot studio concept was becoming less of a draw for visitors.

With each new attraction, Universal gradually moved away from the incorporation of the fourth wall convention, where cast and crew directly addressed guests. Instead of a behind-the-scenes filmmaking experience, the perspective shifted in the direction of putting guests in the middle of the action. The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – with the completion of Hogsmeade in 2010 and Diagon Alley in 2014 – accelerated this transition and reflects the park's modern strategy and approach to the guest experience.

Despite the evolution and growing emphasis being placed on the theme park aspect, some soundstages at Universal Studios Florida remained active. Wheel of Fortune was relocated to the park in 1999 to help promote the upcoming debut of Islands of Adventure. Nickelodeon returned temporarily in 2008 for the shooting of My Family's Got Guts. The 2010–11 season of RTL Group's Family Feud was filmed on site, coinciding with the show's debut of new host Steve Harvey, but the show was relocated in 2011 to Atlanta, Georgia. The revival of Howie Mandel's Deal or No Deal in 2018 was filmed in Soundstage 21 for CNBC. Local and national commercials were also shot at various soundstages.

Financing and ownership
Universal Studios Florida was built for an estimated $630 million, with 50% ownership in the hands of MCA Universal and 50% belonging to The Rank Organisation leisure company. While owned by Seagram, MCA Universal would again partner with The Rank Group (corporate successor to The Rank Organisation) a decade later in a major $2.5 billion expansion that would transform the park into a resort. The expansion led to the creation of Universal Orlando Resort with the addition of Islands of Adventure, Universal CityWalk, and several hotels. In 2000, The Rank Group sold its 50% stake to Blackstone Capital Partners for $275 million, who in turn sold it to NBCUniversal in 2011 for $3.165 billion, giving the company 100% ownership of the resort.

Branding
Slogans marketed by Universal Studios Florida over the years included: ''See the Stars. Ride the Movies. (1990–1998); No one makes believe like we do! (1990–1998); Ride the Movies (1998–2008); Jump into the Action (2008–2012); Experience The Movies (2012–2015) and Vacation Like You Mean It'' (2013–2019). The slogan was last changed in 2020 to "Let Yourself Woah" for the Universal Orlando Resort. It was eventually applied to all global tourist locations, including Universal Studios Hollywood.

Areas and attractions
Universal Studios Florida features eight themed areas all situated around a large lagoon.

The eight surrounding themed areas, clockwise from the entrance, are Minion Land on Illumination Ave, New York, San Francisco, London/Diagon Alley, World Expo, Springfield, DreamWorks Land, and Hollywood. Each area features a combination of rides, shows, attractions, character appearances, dining outlets and merchandise stores. The newest area, based on DreamWorks Animation, was added to the park on June 14, 2024.

Minion Land on Illumination Ave
Opened on August 11, 2023, this new area encompasses the existing Despicable Me Minion Mayhem attraction and Super Silly Stuff store, as well as the new Illumination's Villain-Con Minion Blast attraction, Minions' Cafe, Pop-a-Nana popcorn stand, Freeze Ray popsicle stand, Bake My Day sweets shop, and an Illumination Theater facade for character meet-and-greets.

New York
The New York section of the park features several dining outlets: Finnegan's Bar and Grill and Louie's Italian Restaurant which were designed for the park as well as Starbucks Coffee and Häagen-Dazs which are commercial franchises. There are also two merchandise shops: Sahara Traders and Rosie's Irish Shop. The first two feature merchandise related to attractions within this area. Also located here is a statue of longtime MCA/Universal executive Lew Wasserman, honoring his achievements and history while head of Universal.

As Nickelodeon was headquartered in the park at the time, the opening credits for Roundhouse and All That (two of its shows) were filmed around this area of the park.

San Francisco
In August 2015, Universal announced that it would replace Disaster! with a new attraction based on the film franchise The Fast and the Furious. The company later revealed that this attraction would use Universal's new "Virtual Line" system, allowing guests to select a time frame in which they want to ride. Fast & Furious: Supercharged opened on April 23, 2018.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – Diagon Alley/London
Diagon Alley is the second half of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Opened on July 8, 2014, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – Diagon Alley/London features two attractions, Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts and the Hogwarts Express, which connects the area to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter – Hogsmeade at Islands of Adventure. Diagon Alley also features a restaurant The Leaky Cauldron and several "signature shops". These include, Ollivanders Wand Shop, Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, Borgin and Burkes, Madam Malkin's Robes for All Occasions, Wiseacre's Wizarding Equipment, and Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlour.

World Expo
Sometime after June 2005 the optical illusion of the Space Shuttle was removed from this part of the park. As you headed towards World Expo from San Francisco it was one of the many designated photo spots throughout the park. There was a hanging platform that you would place your camera on and take the picture. The Shuttle would look as though it was sitting on the top of Back to the Future: The Ride.

Springfield
Springfield used to be classed as a part of the World Expo until 2016.

Hollywood
Hollywood's two dining outlets are recreations of actual Hollywood outlets. Schwab's Pharmacy and Mel's Drive-In offer guests a variety of food and beverage options. A third outlet, named Cafe La Bamba, operates seasonally. Guests can purchase magic-related items from Theatre Magic. NBC Media Center, a seasonal survey attraction that allows guests to preview upcoming NBCUniversal films and shows, is located within the Hollywood section in a "Garden of Allah Villas"-themed area.

DreamWorks Land
A DreamWorks Animation-themed area named DreamWorks Land includes characters from Shrek, Trolls and Kung Fu Panda. It opened on June 14, 2024, replacing Woody Woodpecker’s KidZone.

Retired attractions
Notable retired attractions include Kongfrontation, Back to the Future: The Ride, The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera, its replacement Jimmy Neutron's Nicktoon Blast, Jaws, Twister...Ride it Out, T2-3D: Battle Across Time, Shrek 4-D, and Fievel's Waterslide. Universal Studios also housed other unique attractions that are now retired, like Nickelodeon Studios and the interactive film and live-action show Alfred Hitchcock: The Art of Making Movies. The current location of Diagon Alley was once a section of the park named Amity Island, based on the fictional seaside town from Jaws, which contained the park's Jaws attraction. The area was completely demolished to make way for the Diagon Alley portion of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter attraction. As a homage to the Jaws attraction and Amity section that was available to so many visitors over the years, references to both are sprinkled throughout Diagon Alley, one being a set of shark jawbones appearing behind the herbs and potions of Mr. Mulpepper's Apothecary. The restrooms for Amity Island are also still open outside Diagon Alley. Nickelodeon Studios became a Blue Man Group attraction and live show in 2007. In 2021, the Blue Man Group show would also be retired, leaving the original Nickelodeon Studios building empty for the first time since opening until 2022, when the Grinchmas show was moved into that theater.

Character appearances
Universal Studios Florida has featured a number of well-known costumed characters throughout the park over the years, including:

 * Back to the Future: Doc Brown and Marty McFly
 * Curious George: Curious George and the Man with the Yellow Hat
 * Despicable Me: Gru, Lucy Wilde, Margo, Edith, Agnes, Vector and the Minions
 * Dora the Explorer: Dora Marquez, Boots and Diego
 * Gabby's Dollhouse: Gabby
 * Hello Kitty
 * Kung Fu Panda: Po the Panda and Tigress
 * Madagascar: Alex, Gloria, King Julien XIII, Skipper, Kowalski, Rico and Private
 * Men in Black: Agent K and Agent J
 * Scooby-Doo: Scooby, Shaggy, Velma, Daphne and Fred
 * Shrek: Shrek, Princess Fiona, Donkey, Puss in Boots and Kitty Softpaws
 * The Simpsons: Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Krusty the Clown and Sideshow Bob
 * Sing: Johnny, Rosita and Gunter
 * SpongeBob SquarePants: SpongeBob SquarePants, Patrick Star and Squidward Tentacles
 * Transformers: Optimus Prime, Bumblebee and Megatron
 * Trolls: Poppy, Branch and Guy Diamond

Annual events
Universal Studios Florida features several seasonal events throughout its operating calendar. Some are included in the daily park admission, while others are separately-ticketed events.

Grad Bash and Gradventure
Grad Bash and Gradventure are two separate events held in April and May at the park. Grad Bash is an event for graduating high school senior classes who can gather for an exclusive, all-night party at both theme parks of Universal Orlando Resort, live performances, dance parties, and live pre-parties at the Universal Music Plaza Stage. After Disney's retirement of Grad Nite, Grad Bash was held for five nights in 2012. Gradventure is aimed to junior high/middle school graduating students. Gradventure was originally held with graduating high schoolers go to islands of adventure and graduating middle school students go to universal studios Florida, For 2024 this was changed to both middle and high schoolers can visit both parks. The event has all attractions open and regular guests cleared out

Halloween Horror Nights
Universal's Halloween Horror Nights is a hard-ticketed event where the park transforms into a haunted playground. Featuring costumed actors, scare zones, haunted houses, special effects, and themed shows—all inspired by popular horror films, TV shows, and original concepts. The event takes place annually in late September, October, and early November.

Universal's Holiday Parade featuring Macy's
Universal's Holiday Parade featuring Macy's, formerly known as Macy's Holiday Parade, is a month-long event in December featuring authentic balloons from the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in celebration of Christmas at the park. The parade was rebranded in 2017, adding holiday floats, balloons, and choreographed characters based on Illumination's Despicable Me franchise, as well as the Madagascar and Shrek franchises from DreamWorks Animation.

Mardi Gras
Generally in February through to April, a parade and concert series inspired by New Orleans' Fat Tuesday party is held at the park. The parade takes place in the evening and consists of park employees and other appointed park guests throwing beads to other park guests.

Rock the Universe
Rock the Universe is the park's Christian music festival, featuring two days in January or February (as of 2019, prior years held this event in September. This was likely done in response to the cancellation of the event in 2017 due to Hurricane Irma.) of concerts with leading contemporary Christian, Christian rock, and Christian rap artists live at the Universal Music Plaza Stage.

Summer Concert Series
The Summer Concert Series occurred occasionally from 2013–2018 and featured a variety of popular musical acts performing live at the Universal Music Plaza Stage.

Music
Various Universal Pictures film scores are played in the main front entrance of the park. These include John Williams’ scores for Jaws (1975), Always and Born on the Fourth of July (both 1989). Alan Silvestri’s score for the Back to the Future film series (1985-1990), James Horner’s scores for An American Tail (1986), Casper and Apollo 13 (both 1995), respectively. Additionally, James Newton Howard’s score for Waterworld (1995), Burkhard Dallwitz’s score for The Truman Show (1998), Trevor Jones’ score for Notting Hill, Christopher Young’s score for The Hurricane (both 1999), Danny Elfman’s score for The Family Man  and Randy Newman’s score for Meet the Parents (both 2000), Conrad Pope’s score for Pavilion of Women and Patrick Doyle’s score for Bridget Jones's Diary (both 2001) are also featured.

While Jerry Goldsmith's score for The Mummy (1999) is played near the Revenge of the Mummy attraction.

Exclusive licensed music
Throughout the park film scores from different film studios are played, due to exclusive licenses. This includes Williams’ score for the Harry Potter film series (2001-2011) at the park's main entrance and in Diagon Alley. Additionally, Elfman’s scores for Beetlejuice (1988), the Men in Black film series (1997-present) and the theme for The Simpsons (1989-present). Steve Jablonsky's score for the Transformers film series (2007-2014) and Hans Zimmer's score for The Simpsons Movie (2007). Additionally, the SpongeBob StorePants gift shop plays compositions from the APM Music library. Most of said tracks have frequently been heard in the SpongeBob SquarePants television series. For Woody Woodpecker’s KidZone, It mainly uses a medley of already existing music, some songs that are Universal Production Music, this is not the case for Fievel’s Playland, which uses a custom made soundtrack, with voice cues from Fievel and the gang, and with borrowing melodies from the An American Tail movies.

Universal Express
Universal offers an optional, pay-per-person pass known as Universal Express, which gives guests access to shorter lines at many attractions throughout its theme parks. The cost for Universal Express is in addition to the cost of park admission, and there are limited quantities available each day. Guests with Universal Express are given priority boarding status and enter a separate line queue at attractions that support it. The standard Universal Express pass allows guests to access the Universal Express line once per attraction, while the more expensive Universal Express Unlimited has no such restriction.

Closures
The park has had some unscheduled closures. These included:
 * September 15, 1999, due to Hurricane Floyd
 * September 11, 2001, due to the September 11 attacks
 * August 2004, due to Hurricane Charley
 * October 7, 2016, due to Hurricane Matthew
 * September 10–12, 2017, due to Hurricane Irma
 * March 16 – June 4, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic
 * September 28–29, 2022, due to Hurricane Ian
 * November 9–10, 2022, due to Tropical Storm Nicole
 * August 29, 2023, due to Hurricane Idalia

Awards
In 2023, Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios Florida won the 'Best Halloween Event of 2022' at the Golden Ticket Awards.

title: Universal Studios Florida


text:
Forum Piscarium

The Forum Piscarium (Foro Piscario) was the fish market of ancient Rome (a forum venalium), north of the Roman Forum, between the Sacra Via and the Argiletum. It was burned in 210 BC and rebuilt the next year. In 179 BC it was incorporated in the general Macellum, built by Marcus Fulvius Nobilior in the same region.

This forum is called piscatorium in Livy, and piscarium in Varro and Plautus (Curc. 474).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Forum Piscarium


text:
Dummer's War

Dummer's War (1722–1725) (also known as Father Rale's War, Lovewell's War, Greylock's War, the Three Years War, the Wabanaki-New England War, or the Fourth Anglo-Abenaki War) was a series of battles between the New England Colonies and the Wabanaki Confederacy (specifically the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Penobscot, and Abenaki), who were allied with New France. The eastern theater of the war was located primarily along the border between New England and Acadia in Maine, as well as in Nova Scotia; the western theater was located in northern Massachusetts and Vermont at the border between Canada (New France) and New England. During this time, Maine and Vermont were part of Massachusetts.

The root cause of the conflict on the Maine frontier concerned the border between Acadia and New England, which New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine. Mainland Nova Scotia came under British control after the Siege of Port Royal in 1710 and the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (not including Cape Breton Island), but present-day New Brunswick and Maine remained contested between New England and New France. New France established Catholic missions among the four largest Native villages in the region: one on the Kennebec River (Norridgewock), one farther north on the Penobscot River (Penobscot Indian Island Reservation), one on the Saint John River (Meductic Indian Village / Fort Meductic),  and one at Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia (Saint Anne's Mission). Similarly, New France established three forts along the border of New Brunswick during Father Le Loutre's War to protect it from a British attack from Nova Scotia.

The Treaty of Utrecht ended Queen Anne's War, but it had been signed in Europe and had not involved any member of the Wabanaki Confederacy. The Abenaki signed the 1713 Treaty of Portsmouth, but none had been consulted about British ownership of Nova Scotia, and the Miꞌkmaq began to make raids against New England fishermen and settlements. The war began on two fronts as a result of the expansion of New England settlements along the coast of Maine and at Canso, Nova Scotia. The New Englanders were led primarily by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor William Dummer, Nova Scotia Lieutenant Governor John Doucett, and Captain John Lovewell. The Wabanaki Confederacy and other Native tribes were led primarily by Father Sébastien Rale, Chief Gray Lock, and Chief Paugus.

During the war, Father Rale was killed by a force of New England militia at Norridgewock. The Native population retreated from the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers to St. Francis and Becancour, Quebec, and New England took over much of the Maine territory.

Background
Dummer's War is also known as the Fourth Anglo-Abenaki War. The three previous Indian Wars were King Philip's War (or the First Indian War) in 1675, King William's War (or the Second Indian War), and Queen Anne's War (or the Third Indian War) from 1703 to 1711.

Queen Anne's War ended with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The colonial borders of northeastern America were reshaped as a result, but the treaty did not account for Indian claims to the same area. French Acadia was ceded to Great Britain which established the province of Nova Scotia, although its borders were disputed. The area disputed by the European powers consisted of land between the Kennebec River (the eastern portion of Maine) and the Isthmus of Chignecto (all of the Canadian province of New Brunswick). This land was occupied by a number of Algonquian-speaking Indian tribes loosely allied in the Wabanaki Confederacy, which also claimed sovereignty over most of this territory and had occupied portions of the land before the Colonists.

Massachusetts Governor Joseph Dudley organized a major peace conference at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In negotiations there and at Casco Bay, the Wabanaki objected to British assertions that the French had ceded their territory to Britain in eastern Maine and New Brunswick, but they agreed to confirm the boundaries at the Kennebec River and to establish government-run trading posts in their territory. The Treaty of Portsmouth was ratified on July 13, 1713 by eight representatives of the Wabanaki Confederacy, however, which asserted British sovereignty over their territory. Over the next year, other Abenaki tribal leaders also signed the treaty, but no Miꞌkmaq ever signed it or any other treaty until 1726.

Encroachment of settlements and fortifications
Following the peace, New England settlements expanded east of the Kennebec River, and significant numbers of New Englanders began fishing in Nova Scotia waters. They established a permanent fishing settlement at Canso which upset the local Miꞌkmaq, who then began raiding the settlement and attacking the fishermen. In response to Wabanaki hostilities, Nova Scotia Governor Richard Philipps built a fort at Canso in 1720. Massachusetts governors Joseph Dudley and Samuel Shute built forts around the mouth of the Kennebec River: Fort George at Brunswick (1715), Fort Menaskoux at Arrowsic (1717), St. George's Fort at Thomaston (1720), and Fort Richmond (1721) at Richmond. The French built a church in the Abenaki village of Norridgewock in Madison, Maine on the Kennebec River, maintained a mission at Penobscot on the Penobscot River, and built a church in the Maliseet village of Meductic on the Saint John River.

In a meeting at Arrowsic, Maine in 1717, Governor Shute and representatives of the Wabanakis attempted to reach some agreement concerning encroachment on Wabanaki lands and the establishment of provincially operated trading posts. Kennebec sachem Wiwurna objected to Colonists establishing settlements and constructing forts; he claimed sovereign control of the land, while Shute reasserted Colonial rights to expand into the territory. The Wabanakis were willing to accede to existing settlements if a proper boundary was delineated, beyond which settlement would not be allowed. Shute responded, "We desire only what is our own, and that we will have."

Over the next several years, New England Colonists continued to settle in Wabanaki lands east of the Kennebec River, and the Wabanakis responded by stealing livestock. Canso, Nova Scotia was established as a fishing settlement disputed by all three parties but fortified by Nova Scotia and primarily occupied by Massachusetts fishermen. Miꞌkmaq and French forces attacked it in 1720, further raising tensions. Shute protested the presence of the French Jesuit priest Sébastien Rale, who lived among the Kennebec tribe at Norridgewock in central Maine, and he demanded that Rale be removed. The Wabanakis refused in July 1721 and demanded that hostages be released (who had been given in surety during earlier negotiations) in exchange for a delivery of furs made in restitution for their raiding. Massachusetts made no official response.

The Wabanakis then went to extraordinary lengths to produce a written document reasserting their sovereign claims to disputed areas, delineating the areas that they claimed, and threatening violence if their territory was violated. Shute dismissed the letter as "insolent and menacing" and sent militia forces to Arrowsic. He also asserted that the Wabanaki claims were part of a French intrigue, based on Rale's influence, to further French claims to the disputed areas.

Undeclared war

Governor Shute was convinced that the French were behind Wabanaki claims, so he sent a military expedition under the command of Colonel Thomas Westbrook of Thomaston to capture Father Rale in January 1722. Most of the tribe was away hunting, and Westbrook's 300 soldiers surrounded Norridgewock to capture Rale, but he was forewarned and escaped into the forest. They found his strongbox among his possessions, however, which contained a secret compartment. Inside that compartment they found letters implicating Rale as an agent of the government of Canada, promising Indians enough ammunition to drive the Colonists from their settlements.

Shute reiterated English claims of sovereignty over the disputed areas in letters to the Lords of Trade and to Governor General Philippe de Rigaud Vaudreuil of New France. Vaudreuil pointed out in response that France claimed sovereignty over the area, while the Wabanakis maintained possession, and he suggested that Shute misunderstood the way in which European ideas of ownership differed from those of the Indians.

In response to the raid on Norridgewock, the Abenakis raided Fort George on June 13  which was under the command of Captain John Gyles. They burned the homes of the village and took 60 prisoners, most of whom were later released. On July 15, Father Lauverjat from Penobscot led 500 to 600 Indians from Penobscot and Medunic (Maliseet) and laid siege to Fort St. George for 12 days. They burned a sawmill, a large sloop, and sundry houses, and killed many of their cattle. Five New Englanders were killed and seven were taken prisoner, while the New Englanders killed 20 Maliseet and Penobscot warriors. After the raid, Westbrook was given command of the fort. Following this raid, Brunswick was raided again and burned before the warriors returned to Norridgewock.

In response to the New England attack on Father Rale at Norridgewock in March 1722, 165 Miꞌkmaq and Maliseet fighters gathered at Minas (Grand Pre, Nova Scotia) to lay siege to Annapolis Royal. Lieutenant Governor John Doucett took 22 Miꞌkmaqs hostage in May to prevent the provincial capital from being attacked. In July, the Abenakis and Miꞌkmaqs blockaded Annapolis Royal with the intent of starving the capital. The Indians captured 18 fishing vessels and prisoners in raids from Cape Sable Island to Canso. They also seized prisoners and vessels working in the Bay of Fundy.

On July 25, Governor Shute formally declared war on the Wabanakis. Lieutenant Governor William Dummer conducted the Massachusetts involvement in the war,  since Shute sailed for England at the end of 1722 to deal with ongoing disputes that he had with the Massachusetts colonial assembly.

1722 campaign

Between 400 and 500 St. Francis (Odanak, Quebec) and Miꞌkmaq Indians attacked Arrowsic, Maine on September 10, in conjunction with Father Rale at Norridgewock. Captain Penhallow discharged musketry from a small guard, wounding three of the Indians and killing another. This defense gave the inhabitants of the village time to retreat into the fort, leaving the Indians in full possession of the village. They slaughtered 50 head of cattle and set fire to 26 houses outside the fort, then assaulted the fort, killing one New Englander but otherwise making little impression.

That night, Col. Walton and Capt. Harman arrived with 30 men, to which were added approximately 40 men from the fort under Captains Penhallow and Temple. The combined force of 70 men attacked the Indians, but they were overwhelmed by their numbers. The New Englanders then retreated back into the fort. The Indians eventually retired up the river, viewing further attacks on the fort as useless. During their return to Norridgewock, the Indians attacked Fort Richmond with a three-hour siege. They burned homes and killed cattle, but the fort held. They destroyed Brunswick and other settlements near the mouth of the Kennebec.

On March 9, 1723, Colonel Thomas Westbrook led 230 men to the Penobscot River and traveled approximately 32 mi upstream to the Penobscot Village. They found a large Penobscot fort some 70 by, with 14 ft walls surrounding 23 wigwams. There was also a large chapel (60 by). The village was vacant, and the soldiers burned it to the ground.

1723 campaign
The Wabanaki Confederacy of Acadia orchestrated a total of 14 raids against towns along the border of New England throughout 1723, primarily in Maine. The raids started in April and lasted until December, during which 30 people were killed or taken captive. The Indian attacks were so fierce along the Maine frontier that Dummer ordered residents to evacuate to the blockhouses in the spring of 1724.

1724 campaign
During the spring of 1724, the Wabanaki Confederacy conducted ten raids on the Maine frontier which killed, wounded, or imprisoned more than 30 New Englanders. They took a sloop in Kennebunk harbor and slaughtered the entire crew.

In the spring of 1724, Captain Josiah Winslow took command of St. George's Fort at Thomaston; he was the older brother of John Winslow. On 30 April 1724, Winslow and Sergeant Harvey left George's Fort with 17 men in two whale boats, and they went downriver several miles to Green Island. The following day, the two whale boats became separated and approximately 200 to 300 Abenakis descended on Harvey's boat, killing Harvey and all of his men except three Indian guides who escaped to the Georges fort. Captain Winslow was then surrounded by 30 to 40 canoes which came off from both sides of the river and attacked him. After hours of fighting, Winslow and his men were killed except for three friendly Indians who escaped back to the fort. The Tarrantine Indians were reported to have lost more than 25 men.

Indians killed one man and wounded another at Purpooduck on May 27. In June, Indians raided Dover, New Hampshire and took Elizabeth Hanson into captivity. They also engaged in a canoe campaign, assisted by the Miꞌkmaqs from Cape Sable Island. In just a few weeks, they had captured 22 vessels, killing 22 New Englanders and taking more prisoner. They also made an unsuccessful siege of St. George's Fort.

Battle of Norridgewock
In the second half of 1724, the New Englanders launched an aggressive campaign up the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers. On August 22, captains Jeremiah Moulton and Johnson Harmon led 200 rangers to Norridgewock to kill Father Rale and destroy the settlement. There were 160 Abenakis, many of whom chose to flee rather than fight. At least 31 chose to fight, and most of them were killed. Rale was killed in the opening moments of the battle, a leading chief was killed, and nearly two dozen women and children.

The Colonists had casualties of two militiamen and one Mohawk. Harmon destroyed the Abenaki farms, and those who had escaped were forced to abandon their village and move northward to the Abenaki village of St. Francis and Bécancour, Quebec.

Lovewell's raids
Captain John Lovewell made three expeditions against the Indians. On the first expedition in December 1724, he and his militia company of 30 men (often called "snowshoe men") left Dunstable, New Hampshire, trekking to the north of Lake Winnipesaukee ("Winnipiscogee Lake") into the White Mountains of New Hampshire. On December 10, 1724, they and a company of rangers killed two Abenakis. In February 1725, Lovewell made a second expedition to the Lake Winnipesaukee area. On February 20, his force came across wigwams at the head of the Salmon Falls River in Wakefield, New Hampshire, where ten Indians were killed.

Battle of Pequawket
Lovewell's third expedition consisted of 46 men and left from Dunstable on April 16, 1725. They built a fort at Ossipee, New Hampshire and garrisoned it with 10 men, including a doctor and John Goffe, while the rest left to raid the Pequawket tribe at Fryeburg, Maine. On May 9, chaplain Jonathan Frye was leading the militiamen in prayer when they spotted a lone Abenaki warrior. Lovewell and his men closed in on the warrior, leaving their packs behind in a clearing. Shortly after they left, a Pequawket war party led by Chief Paugus discovered the packs, and they set up an ambush in anticipation of their eventual return.

Lovewell and his men caught up with the warrior and exchanged gunfire. Lovewell and one of his men were wounded in the encounter, and the Indian was killed by Ensign Seth Wyman, Lovewell's second in command. Lovewell's force then returned to their packs and the ambush was sprung. Lovewell and eight of his men were killed and two were wounded when the Pequawkets opened fire. The survivors managed to retreat to a strong position, and fended off repeated attacks until the Pequawkets withdrew around sunset. Only 20 of the militiamen survived the battle; three died on the return journey. The Pequawket losses included Chief Paugus.

Western theater: Vermont and western Massachusetts
The western theater of the war has also been referred to as "Grey Lock's War". On August 13, 1723, Gray Lock entered the war by raiding Northfield, Massachusetts, where four warriors killed two citizens. The next day, they attacked Joseph Stevens and his four sons in Rutland, Massachusetts. Stevens escaped, two of the boys were killed, and the other two sons were captured. On October 9, 1723, Gray Lock struck two small forts near Northfield, inflicting casualties and carrying off one captive.

In response, Governor Dummer ordered the construction of Fort Dummer in Brattleboro, Vermont. The fort became a major base of operations for scouting and punitive expeditions into Abenaki country. Fort Dummer was Vermont's first permanent settlement, made under the command of Lieutenant Timothy Dwight. On June 18, 1724, Grey Lock attacked a group of men working in a meadow near Hatfield, Massachusetts. He then moved on and killed men at Deerfield, Northfield, and Westfield over the summer. In response to the raids, Dummer ordered more soldiers for Northfield, Brookfield, Deerfield, and Sunderland, Massachusetts. On October 11, 1724, 70 Abenakis attacked Fort Dummer and killed three or four soldiers. In September 1725, a scouting party of six men was sent out from Fort Dummer. Grey Lock and 14 others ambushed them just west of the Connecticut River, killing two and wounding and capturing three others. One man escaped, while two Indians were killed.

Nova Scotia theater
Nova Scotia's governor launched a campaign to end the Miꞌkmaq blockade of Annapolis Royal at the end of July 1722. They retrieved over 86 New England prisoners taken by the Indians. One of these operations resulted in the Battle of Winnepang (Jeddore Harbour), in which 35 Indians and five New Englanders were killed. Only five Indian bodies were recovered from the battle, and the New Englanders decapitated the corpses and set the severed heads on pikes surrounding Canso, Nova Scotia's new fort. During the war, a church was erected at the Catholic mission in the Miꞌkmaq village of Shubenacadie (Saint Anne's Mission). In 1723, Miꞌkmaqs raided the village of Canso, killing five fishermen, so the New Englanders built a 12-gun blockhouse to guard the village and fishery.

The worst moment of the war for Annapolis Royal came on July 4, 1724 when a group of 60 Miꞌkmaqs and Maliseets raided the capital. They killed and scalped a sergeant and a private, wounded four more soldiers, and terrorized the village. They also burned houses and took prisoners. The New Englanders responded by executing one of the Miꞌkmaq hostages on the same spot where the sergeant was killed. They also burned three Acadian houses in retaliation. As a result of the raid, they built three blockhouses to protect the town. They moved the Acadian church closer to the fort so that it could be more easily monitored. In 1725, 60 Abenakis and Miꞌkmaqs launched another attack on Canso, destroying two houses and killing six people.

Peace negotiations
Penobscot tribal chiefs expressed a willingness to enter peace talks with Lieutenant Governor Dummer in December 1724. They were opposed in this by French authorities, who continued to encourage the conflict, but Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Dummer announced a cessation of hostilities on July 31, 1725 following negotiations in March. Dummer and Chiefs Loron and Wenemouet negotiated the terms of this preliminary agreement, which applied only to the Penobscots at first. They were allowed to retain Jesuit priests, but the two parties were in disagreement concerning land titles and British sovereignty over the Wabanakis. French Jesuit Etienne Lauverjat translated the written agreement into Abenaki; Chief Loron immediately repudiated it, specifically rejecting claims of British sovereignty over him.

Despite his disagreement, Loron pursued peace, sending wampum belts to other tribal leaders, although his envoys were unsuccessful in reaching Gray Lock, who continued his raiding expeditions. Peace treaties were signed in Maine on December 15, 1725 and in Nova Scotia on June 15, 1726 involving a large number of tribal chiefs. The peace was reconfirmed by all except Gray Lock at a major gathering at Falmouth in the summer of 1727; other tribal envoys claimed that they were not able to locate him. Gray Lock's activity came to an end in 1727, after which he disappears from historical records.

Consequences
As a result of the war, the Indian population declined on the Kennebec and Penobscot Rivers, and western Maine came more strongly under British control. The terms of Dummer's Treaty were restated at every major new treaty conference for the next 30 years, but there was no major conflict in the area until King George's War in the 1740s.

In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Dummer's Treaty marked a significant shift in British relations with the Miꞌkmaqs and Maliseets, who refused to declare themselves British subjects. The French lost their footholds in Maine, while New Brunswick remained under French control for a number of years. The peace in Nova Scotia lasted for 18 years. The British took control of New Brunswick at the end of Father Le Loutre's War, with the defeat of Le Loutre at Fort Beauséjour. This was the only war fought by the Wabanakis against the British on their own terms and for their own reasons, rather than in support of French interests.

The final major battle of the war was the Battle of Pequawket, or "Lovewell's Fight", which was celebrated in song and story in the 19th century. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote "The Battle of Lovells Pond," and Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote "Roger Malvin's Burial" about the battle, while Henry David Thoreau mentioned it in his A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. The town of Lovell, Maine is named after John Lovewell. Paugus Bay, the town of Paugus Mill (now part of Albany, New Hampshire), and Mount Paugus in New Hampshire are named after Chief Paugus. The site of the Kennebec village of Norridgewock was declared a National Historic Landmark District in 1993, now located at Old Point in Madison, Maine.

title: Dummer's War


text:
Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory

merge
Should this list be merged with List of notable Marxist theorists? -- Hesychast

Who deserves to be on this list?
Inbloom2 recently removed quite a few names that I had added to the list. The justification for this move was that the names Inbloom2 removed were "not prominents, and most of them aren't 'marxists' but only influenced by Marx or marxism." I reverted this removal, for the following reasons:

 * 1) A great many of the people Inbloom2 removed are indeed "prominent," provided that prominence is understood to be relative.  Terry Eagleton, for instance, is very prominent among Marxist literary critics.  Michael Hardt is a major figure in globalization studies; his book Empire is practically required reading for anyone interested in globalization and contemporary theory.

 * 1) Marxism doesn't require membership cards.  Besides, the list is titled "List of contributors to Marxist theory," not "List of died-in-the-wool Marxists."  Every single one of the people whom Inbloom2 deleted has contributed significantly to Marxist theory; many of them, in fact, are listed under the heading "Marxism" in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (ISBN 0-393-97429-4)—and given the Norton anthologies role in canonization, mention in the Norton seems enough to warrant both "prominence" and "legitimacy."

I would also mention in closing that a list like this would provide a better service to its readers by emphasizing breadth rather than exclusivity. Although there was a time when determining who counts as a Marxist was a fairly straightforward matter, that moment has past. Marxism today—like feminism, like postcolonial studies, like cultural studies, like theory in general, like the "new social movements" and other forms of resistance and leftist activity—is far from being some kind of monolithic, uniform entity. Rather, it exists in manifold contexts, each time taking a different form unique to the specific context in which it arises. This list should reflect that reality. Job L 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Job L is correct. Marxism does not have a static or fixed definition: it changes with every specific historical situation.  The names mentioned above are certainly important Marxist scholars in their respective fields.  Houndstooth McGovern 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I mainly agree with you, but "contributors to Marxist theory" isn't "scholars influenced by marxism" (or by Marx) - which is a list that can be created. --Inbloom2 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong to the list of Marxist theorists. Is it really necessary to point out that both made significant contributions to Marxist theory as well as being political leaders? That most of us do not find their theories palatable doesn't alter the fact that they made a contribution and ought to appear in this list. I see that a couple of editors are engaged in a series of push-me pull-me struggles over other names. If you wish to remove Stalin and/or Mao, please discuss your rationale here first. Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Apart from Stalinists, not a single Marxologist, and not one historian of Marxist theory include them as "contributors to Marxist theory". --Inbloom2 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Where is your evidence for such an absurd claim? Their contributions are out there in print. When I studied Marxism at university, they were on the syllabus. Why? Because the lecturer attempted a NPOV. So should we here. Unless you can provide a source that says that their many publications on Marxist theory don't count for some reason, they ought to appear here. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * DionysosProteus, don't bother asking for things like evidence from Inbloom2, or indeed expect reasoning, logic or coherency of any kind. He is simply an axe-grinding holy warrior whose only reason for being on WP is for waging his personal jihad on reality. Appeals to NPOV are sheer futility. The paucity of his contributions can attest to this. Of course, his only recourse is to finally cry "Stalinist" ... ho hum.

 * Aside from the condescending response from the above unsigned and dionysosproteus. There have been notable modern theorists/philosophers that have been influenced by Mao while not necessarily considering themselves Maoists (Zizek and Badiou are probably most notable today).  However, Stalin was a notable Marxist politician but he is NOT a notable theorist. In fact he is rather known for his willingness not to adhere to a single orthodoxy but constantly change and manipulate (Leninist) theory as he saw fit at the moment. Ho hum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Shibdas Ghosh
Currently there is a debate going on in the Talk:Shibdas Ghosh whether one Shibdas Ghosh is a "Marxist Ideologist". In my opinion it doesn't even deserve to be called a Fringe Theory. I have almost lost interest talking to this user and admin has now semi protected the article. Someone please look at it as it might soon spill over here.220.227.207.32 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Debord/ Castoriadis

 * "Anselm Jappe rejects recent attempts to set Debord up as a 'postmodern' icon, arguing that he was a social theorist in the Hegelian-Marxist tradition—not a precursor of Jean Baudrillard but an heir of the young Georg Lukács of History and Class Consciousness (1923)."

Cover of: Anselm Jappe: Guy Debord 1999.

 * "Cornelius Castoriadis schreibt im Paradigma des Marxismus, welches er zwar radikal destruiert, jedoch in einigen Aspekten, z.B. der Rätedemokratie zu retten versucht."

"Cornelius Castoriadis writes within the Marxist paradigm, which he, while distructing it radically, tries to save in some aspects, e.g. the counsel democracy."

Sven Papke, Georg W. Oesterdiekhoff, Schlüsselwerke der Soziologie, VS 2001, page 79

--Schwalker (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) edited, --Schwalker (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung
Kim belongs here. In order for a theorist to be included here, I think there needs to be three criteria satisfied:

 * Is the theorist a Marxist?
 * Is the theorist notable?
 * Did the theorist contribute something novel to the corpus of Marxism as a whole?

Lets take these one at a time.

Kim is a Marxist
Kim propounded what he called the Juche idea, which is the official ideology of the Workers Party of Korea. Some of the textual evidence for the claim that it is a development and/or re-conceiving of Marxist theory is as follows.

"The new outlook on the world established by the Juche philosophy does not deny the world outlook of dialectical materialism."

"The Juche view of the world that the world is dominated and transformed by man is inconceivable separately from the materialistic dialectical understanding of the essence of the objective material world and the general law of its motion."

"the world outlook of the materialistic dialectics is the premise for the Juche philosophy"

"Our scientists and people must study and follow the Juche philosophy, but they must also know the philosophical ideas of Marxism-Leninism."

Source: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf

Obviously, this condition has been satisfied.

Notability of Kim's Theories
The second thing we should determine, 'is Kim notable, according to the standards of Wikipedia?' There are more than adequate facts for resolving this question in the affirmative.

1. Juche is the official ideology of the government of the DPRK, a country of 23 million people. This is a feat that very few of the other thinkers here can boast of. Hence, on the strength of this fact alone Kim ought to be included here.

2. Juche is internationally significant. During the Cold War, the DPRK occupied an ideological middle ground between the USSR and the PRC, while claiming to uphold "anti-revisionism" through the Juche concept. In the modern day, the Nepal Workers Peasants Party, which has representation in Nepal's Parliament, is ideologically close to the DPRK. At the website of the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK, you can see reporting on many "Juche Seminars" held around the globe (example). Finally, a quick review of the Korean Friendship Association website shows the international character of that organization.

3. As far as Juche being a "philosophy" in its own right, there are seminars, journals, institutes and all the other trappings that accompany various "respectable" schools of thought propagated by thinkers featured on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Novelty of Juche
Now, I have already shown above that Marxism is an intrinsic feature of Juche above. So we can't debate that aspect. As far as Kim inventing something new and novel, there are a variety of pages on the web that attempt to explicate Juche. For example:

 * 1.The Origin of the Juche Idea
 * 2.The Philosophical Principle of the Juche Idea
 * 3.The Socio-Historical Principles of the Juche Ides (sic)
 * 4.The Guiding Principles of the Juche Idea
 * 5.The Historic Significance of the Juche Idea

This is just one website. There are plenty of others which can be uncovered with a simple Google search.

Taking all of these things together, we can see that Kim Il Sung is clearly the author of a notable body of work within the Marxist milieu, albeit overlaid with influences from Hegel and Confucius and seemingly informed by Hobbes and Machiavelli.

As a final note, Kim's status as a Marxist is independent from his status as a politician, a dictator, his left-handedness, etc. etc., which are strictly speaking irrelevant to the matter at hand.

--Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * My objection has principally been in terms of Kim being Marxist, modified dialectical materialism will eventually cease to be related to the Marxist tradition, see the degradation of right trotskyism in the US as an example. I feel the Notability of Kim's ideology is suspect, it should be notable of itself as theory instead of reliant upon state force.  (For example, Stalin's Short Course History is notable in terms of its normative description of party life, not due to Stalin's political role.)  However this is raised in point three, the novelty of Juche.  The works cited, being an unattributed series of treatises not of scholarly length with no attributed academic publisher are clearly unacceptable.  The entire proposition that he is a theorist hangs on him producing theory.  Citations needed meeting the disciplinary standards of academic publication, or of a suitable review publication meeting academic standards.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Grace Lee "The Political Philosophy of Juche" Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs Volume 3 (1) Spring 2003 105-112 May be useful as a citation in particular 108-110, 111-112; but fails to adequately address a sufficiently deep connection of Juche to Marxism. I'm happy for Juche to be non-determinist Marxism, but then to claim an inflated role for individual consciousness in history, it stretches the bow to breaking.  More, better, sources required. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Responses inline.
 * ...modified dialectical materialism will eventually cease to be related to the Marxist tradition
 * There are plenty of avowed Marxists who disclaim dialectics altogether. See Analytical Marxism for example. So that seems entirely insufficient grounds for objection. But never mind about that. On what basis are you claiming that Kim "modified" dialectical materialism?  And how does that square with the quotes I sourced above, which clearly state that Juche "does not deny" and is "inconcievable" without dialectical materialism?
 * I feel the Notability of Kim's ideology is suspect, it should be notable of itself as theory instead of reliant upon state force.
 * This sentiment seems totally unreasonable to me, and unenforceable on Wikipedia in practice. Virtually all notable political theories have become notable in light of them being sponsored by some "state power" at some point in time. To take your advice, we'd have to remove Federalism, Monarchism, Leninism, Fascism, and every other theory that has come on the scene until the present time, save Anarchism perhaps.  Sorry, thats too bizarre.  But even if I agreed with you here, we don't have that problem. Those websites that I provided you above are based in Japan and India.  Moreover, the Korean Friendship Association is run from Spain.  And last I checked, neither Japan, India, or Spain was run by Jucheists!
 * Citations needed meeting the disciplinary standards of academic publication, or of a suitable review publication meeting academic standards.
 * Really! Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines that state this to be the case. And while you are at it, you might want to let the maintainers of various wikipedia entries that their pages are not up to standards!
 * --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Last to first. The issue here is Marxist theory, not popular culinary practice, US popular culture (which *is* attestable through peer reviewed articles in Literature and Sociology), or Final Fantasy.  Marxist theory speaks into two discourses of verification: 1) Polemic.  2) Academia.  Google Scholar and Google do not show that a polemic exists within Marxism around Juche.  The least ideological claim gets kicked to the teeth in the Trotskyist, Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, Councilist, Anarchist.  Juche does not speak into this polemic.  Okay, fine, so we've got non-polemical marxists, say, Marcuse.  So where's the Review Articles, the assessments, etc.  They don't appear.  Institutionalist / Liberal criqitues from the US, less finessed than in the 1960s; and a bunch of Foreign Language Press articles.  A reading of the Foreign Press articles demonstrate much use of the word Marxist, but nothing approaching a marxist analysis in *any* mode I know.
 * Are you trying to say that Lenin's works are not self-sufficient separate to his later conquest of power? Really?  Next you'll tell me Kautsky's irrelevant.  The possession of state power does not define a theory's relevance to social critique.  Its an argumentum ad bacculum of the worst kind.  If Juche is Marxist Theory, then it will be theory, and will stand on its own legs.  Grace Lee, who I cited, in his review article notes that the major strains of criticism of Juche see it in relation to instrumentalist statism, classical Korean responses in the feudal era to dominant neighbouring powers, and an attempt to claim marxist heritage as an appeal to authority.  Merely possessing state power does not make it theory.  And from what I can see of theory:
 * The theoretical content is so unrelated to Marxism as to not bear the name. Its main claim is an appeal to authority to dialectical materialism, while claiming the potential for a single individual (a powerful leader) to transform history.  This is entirely non-cogent with any Marxism I have encountered.
 * Finally, the Foreign Press articles may be reproduced or hosted in Spain, India or Japan, but their origin is North Korean. They are suspect not because of their content (though their content is trivial and fails to meet the theoretical contribution of say Stalin or Mao, and the pieces you have posted fit into an academic genre which in all countries is of the lowest grade of scholarship, the "collection in honour of")--they are suspect because it is a single sourced account.  As the "democratic" countries hosting these sites claim a formal democratic process, there's no wonder that Juche supporters can run a website out of those countries... and geographic diversity is not of importance here.  We don't need to take Stalin's self-perception as a Marxist, we can read the many review articles slating his "Linguistics" for being poor Marxism.  We don't need to take Mao's words, there are many celebrations from many traditions of his contributions, hostile and positive.  Even if Paul Mattick didn't have review collections, we could identify him as Marxist through his participation in the left-communist polemics of the 1930s.
 * Show me review articles or polemics not originating within the Jucheist tradition which claim Juche to be Marxist and a Theory. This is the key.  I've searched, I found a few haunting citations through Scholar, which are entirely unreliable as they do not connect to any real document.  There is a critique of the First Juche-ist speech in a Korean review, which is unavailable online and in no library I can access.  Grace Lee's review article is entirely non-conclusive (and I'd suggest of such a poor scholarly quality that I wouldn't esteem it if it described Juche as Marxist Theory or as not Marxist Theory). Provide real cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I figured as much. You can't point me to this "academic citation" requirement for WP, because there is no such thing. Therefore, while it certainly would be nice to accommodate your demand, I'm under no such obligation, insofar as "academic", "scholarly" journals have no monopoly on WP:NN nor WP:V.  To say nothing of the facts. The sources I've already provided are satisfactory.  Kim stays. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I've been thinking about this idea of yours that Kim is a not a Marxist. Usually, when people say things like "p is not really a q", it is not because p is outside the scope of what they think q entails, but because they feel that their own idea of what q entails is different from what p says a q entails. In your case, it is expressed here as "p is a q if and only if r says p has the characteristic of being a q." But as WP:V notes, the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As it is, this list is already a hopeless mishmash of contradictory and discordant "Marxisms" -- not only what r thinks q is, but also what s, t, u and v says q is. Hence, it is not possible to sort out a "true" q from a "fake" q, where q is verifiable, without discarding NPOV. But luckily, that is fine as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Rather, q is taken to be whatever the set of {r,s,t,u,v...} says q is, where the set {r,s,t,u,v...} is the sum of all verifiable sources.  Thus, when measured on the scale of verifiability alone, the statement "Juche is a Marxist theory" is trivially provable, alongside "Permanent Revolution is a Marxist theory", "Autonomism is a Marxist theory", and so on and so forth, because all of those statements have sufficiently verifiable sources. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For permanent revolution, the people who incorporate permanent revolution into Marxism are demonstrably not only those who hold the theory of permanent revolution. For Juche, you have only supplied sources that are generated by those who support Juche itself.  Single sourced and self-declared.  Radically insufficient.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Your reasoning is incoherent. You have just written the equivalent of "For Spanish, those people whose mother-tongue is Spanish are not only those people whose mother-tongue is Spanish. For French, only for those people whose mother-tongue is French is their mother-tongue French."  Which is just a long winded way to say nothing in particular -- let alone apropos to the matter at hand.
 * What is clear is that you really, really do not want Kim Il Sung on this list. You simply haven't given a legitimate reason according to the criteria of WP, as yet.  --02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrutidarruti (talk • contribs)
 * Single source verification is correct. Self-catagorisation is insufficient for truth, and insufficient for verifiability, and the sources you have listed cursorially deal with "Marxism-Leninism" as an empty and dead phrase.  WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."  "Reliable sources Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  I've cited policy, on the basis of WP:V I will be removing it.  The sources you have indicated are not third-party, until you supply third party sources, I will be reverting you under WP:V on this, and continued inclusion of the material without third party sources will result in me pursuing you through appropriate Wikipedia measures.
 * I greatly anticipate your discovery of third party sources; and will welcome your contribution when it meets WP:V. I really do not want Kim Il Sung on this list without adequate referencing.  With adequate referencing, I ardently desire this list to be complete, which would be an inclusion.  After we resolve this we should go through other contestable Marxist theorists here with a similar fine tooth comb.04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found a potentially appropriate citation external to Juche theory, at http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf which was published as an element of The Second Biennial Conference of Korean Studies Association of Australasia, 2001, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. The subject of the paper is dead on, its "Third-party" and much superior to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/166_9008.html as a work due to its explanation in depth. Haven't determined what it says yet. Will report back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is vague on actually making an academic judgement or analysis. Its bibliography leads to Dae-Sook Suh Kim Il Sung: the North Korean leader Columbia University Press 1988 ISBN 0231065736, 9780231065733 as the review on GoogleBooks claims, "The author spends considerable time outlining Kim's political thought (known as chuch'e, which is roughly translated as ""basis for action""), which aided in establishing his ascendancy. Suh analyzes Kim's thought and finds it to be both an inadequate exposition of nationlism and having little relevance to Marxism-Leninism; at best, it is a platform of Korean self-reliance."  If someone can find a copy of ISBN 0231065736 to produce a citation, we can resolve this.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is really taking on a sideshow quality in my opinion. The problem is that you are committing a fallacy of composition error here.  That Marxism is used as an analytic framework by certain (western) academics does not mean that only (western) academics have something useful to say about Marxism per se.  Marxism is not a product of the academy in the way that say, Logical Positivism or Postmodernism is, and as such, academic citations have correspondingly less weight in "proving" something about Marxism over some other kind of source than the latter frameworks.  Are they useful? Yes. Are they the "be all end all"? No.
 * The irony, of course is a cursory examination of the citations I provided show the presence of plenty of "academic" types, such as Bruno Amoroso, who is Professor Emeritus at Roskilde University in Denmark as well as the VP of the European Regional Society for the Study of the Juche Idea; and Dr. Harish Gupta, who is the Secretary General, Asian Regional Institute of the Juche Idea, etc. etc. Not that they or their citations resolves anything one way or the other. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Amoroso who has nothing published indexed in Google Scholar, who you haven't cited. ERSSJI is single sourcing, and breaks WP policy.  Harish Gupta shows nothing through Scholar, and ARISJI is single sourcing.  Additionally

not strictly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles as North Korea purports."
 * 1) ^ http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf
 * Single sourced, unacceptable
 * 1) ^ http://www3.cnet-ta.ne.jp/j/juche/pdf/e-works2.pdf
 * Single sourced, unacceptable
 * 1) ^ http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf
 * Fails to substantiate, unacceptable
 * 1) ^ http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal3/korea1.pdf
 * "Conclusion: Despite the repeated and strong emphasis on juche’s loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, juche as philosophical thought does
 * Additionally miscited, as lacks any bibliographic materials
 * As this disproves your repeated and misfaithful inclusion, I am deleting Sung, and putting you up on 3RR.
 * 1) ^ http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/039th_issue/98042208.htm
 * Single sourced, fails to include the term "marx"
 * 1) ^ http://juche.v.wol.ne.jp/studyofe.htm
 * "Publishing Office: International Institute of the Juche Idea" single sourced, table of contents for 2000-2009 fails to include term "marx"
 * 1) ^ http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com/
 * Single sourced, fails to include term Marx on head page--failed citation for verification.

This debate is over. The only source you listed citing Marx that wasn't single (ie: self) sourced argued that Juche is not Marxist, and was accepted in publication of an academic journal not associated with supporting or opposing the Juche idea: ie, credible.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I would appreciate it if you actually READ what I have to say. If you did, you would understand it doesn't matter a whit that Bruno Amoroso is listed in Google Scholar or not. As I said earlier, it doesn't settle the thing either way.

 * You can make up as many arbitrary rules as you want, they will not substantively alter the facts of the matter. I'll just say that the idea that something is not Marxist theory because it does not incant "Marx" or any other magic formula a sufficient number of times is totally absurd. I am sure that Zizek, Badiou, Terry Eagleton and the rest of your precious academics who attended the recent "Idea of Communism" conference hosted at the Birkbeck Institute will be shocked and frightened to find out that they are not Marxists! After all, there is no mention of the term Marx on the conference web page.

 * But whether it is having only the "right kind" of citations, or saying some magical key word the requisite number of times, I suspect that your quest for some kind of master key that doesn't really exist in real life flows from your misunderstanding of what this page should be about. In qualifying the respective entries you seem to be searching for the true signposts of Marxist Theory in virtue of it being Marxist Theory.  But even if this was not a completely futile endeavor, the real purpose of this page is much more mundane - that is, to be a list of marxist theorists.  And by these criteria -- "marxist", "theorist" -- the answer to whether Kim belongs here is pretty obvious. As GlobalSecurity.org states,

 * President Kim Il Sung adopted a policy of ostensible diplomatic and economic "self-reliance" as a check against excessive Soviet or Communist Chinese influence and molded political, economic, and military policies around the core ideological objective of eventual unification of Korea under Pyongyang's control. … the invocation of chuch'e was a psychological tool with which to stigmatize the foreign-oriented dissenters and remove them from the center of power. Targeted for elimination were groups of pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese anti-Kim dissenters. … chuch'e was presented as a "creative" application of Marxism-Leninism. In his attempt to establish an interrelationship between Marxism-Leninism and chuch'e, Kim contended that although Marxism-Leninism was valid as the fundamental law of revolution, it needed an authoritative interpreter to define a new set of practical ideological guidelines appropriate to the revolutionary environment in North Korea.
 * …and so on and so forth.

 * Now, after setting aside all your made up rules ("needs to say Marx on the head page"), the entire crux of your argument is nothing more than a run of the mill ad hominem fallacy, and a rather puerile one at that. Saying that x is not reliable because it is in reality a "single source" actually being churned out by North Korean propaganda mills is meaningless red-baiting so long as you have no evidence for it.

 * Last thing, it takes two to tango. Be careful when you start throwing around 3RR's.

 * Have a nice day!

 * --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is Kim Il Sung a Marxist who (notably) theorized?
see discussion above. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to say Kim does not merit inclusion on the basis of the discussion above. Per WP:PRIMARY, it would be inappropriate to include someone on this list referencing on their own works (and, implicitly, a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of them). For inclusion, they should be mentioned in a secondary source (i.e. another source writing about them), that says that the person in question as notable as a contributor to Marxist theory. If you believe one of the sources listed above meets the criteria I have just outlined, please restate it briefly below, preferably with the relevant quote that you consider to support this. Savidan 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, your conclusion seems difficult to arrive at in light of the actual evidence. All of the following data points are basically available on the first page/home page of the respective sources:

 * · http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf

 * Kwang-Shick Kang
 * The Academy of Korean Studies

 * From Wikipedia:

 * "Academy of Korean Studies is a South Korean research and educational institute with the purpose of establishing profound research on Korean culture. It was established in June 22, 1978 by Ministry of Education & Science Technology of South Korea (교육과학기술부).[1] "

 * · http://juche.v.wol.ne.jp/studyofe.htm

 * "Study of the Juche Idea", journal
 * Published: April 15, 1978
 * Publishing Office: International Institute of the Juche Idea
 * Address: 2-47-7-903, Minami-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN
 * Tel./Fax.: +81-3-3981-3192

 * · http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/juche.htm

 * From Wikipedia:

 * "GlobalSecurity.org, launched in 2000, is a public policy organization whose mission is to be a reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security. Offering its information products through its website, the organization's editorial office is located in Alexandria, Virginia, USA. The  current Senior Fellow on Homeland Security is Andrew Fois."

 * · http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com/

 * Asian Regional Institute of the Juche Idea
 * 12th Floor, Akash Deep,
 * 26-A, Barakhamba Road,
 * New Delhi-110 001.

 * Dr. Vishwanath, Director General
 * Dr. Harish Gupta, Secretary General

 * Telephone :+91-11- 23272324, 23272325,
 * Fax          : +91-11-23279429,
 * E-mail      : arijidelhi@gmail.com,
 * Website   : http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com

 * et cetera.

 * Thanks for responding! Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have no idea why the above information is relevant. Can you just provide one quote from a secondary source that names him as a notable contributor? Savidan 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you said, "Per WP:PRIMARY, it would be inappropriate to include someone on this list referencing on their own works". Obviously, GlobalSecurity.org, The Asian Regional Juche Institute, and the Academy of Korean Studies are not Kim Il Sung. All of the sources I mention state the equivalent of Juche being a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism" (GlobalSecurity.org's words).  --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, the above isn't relevant as its Juche defining Juche. Additionally, doing searches for "Marx" produces nothing except blanket statements which are unexplored.  Ie: The subject of the articles is not Juche's status as Marxist Theory or not; an unsubstantiated line in a secondary source is not verifiability; nor is an unsubstantiated line in a secondary source from within the system-of-ideas under dispute.  None of this overcomes the issue presented in Grace Lee, "The Political Philosophy of Juche" Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 3:1 (2003): 111 "Despite the repeated and strong emphasis on juche’s loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, juche as philosophical thought does not strictly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles as North Korea purports."  Find better sources from outside of Juche.  Dae-Sook Suh Kim Il Sung: the North Korean leader Columbia University Press 1988 ISBN 0231065736's findings as quoted in a review above are a difficult hurdle to overcome.  Globalsecurity's capacity to speak to Marxism would be highly in doubt.
 * Kim must be a theorist of Marxism who is notable in his theorisation of Marxism. That he was, at some stage, a Marxist is beyond doubt.  That he was a theorist is beyond doubt (Juche is a theory).  That he presented a theorisation of Marxism is debatable, if this theorisation is Juche, then it must be demonstrated that Juche is Marxist theory in reputable sources which lie outside of Juche, or which through a process of accepted peer review (Journal, Academic publisher) where the Journal or Publisher is not a mouthpiece for Juche, demonstrates that the academic reviewing community believes the statement to be adequately academic and not polemic.  The notability of Juche as a theory is beyond reproach, its inherently notable due to its effects over a state (and even without state power, would probably be notable for its interesting take on the role of the leading individual in history).  Cite Gupta if you can find him in a non Juche-idea journal.  Cite Kwang-Shick Kang if you can find a source which speaks to the issue. —This is part of a comment by  Fifelfoo   which was interrupted by the following:
 * "Cite Gupta if you can find him in a non Juche-idea journal." <-- this is the distilled essence of your fallacious reasoning on this matter, and why you remain incorrect.  I'm not going to go over it yet again with you: if you want to do that, just scroll up.  While I see your "argument" as a confused mass of ad hominem and composition fallacies, you obviously continue to see some merit in your objection. Fine. Either way, repetitively going over the same old ground over and over again is not proving productive. I'd rather hear some other perspectives on this discussion. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Eun Hee SHIN, "Life and Communitarianism: A North Korean Juche Perspective," International Conference on Peace for Life in North East Asia, Korea Christian Faculty Fellowship 15. – 19. May 2005 at Roman Catholic Retreat Center, Uiwang, Korea, p2 "Juche thought has been traditionally interpreted as a “Marxist-Leninist political ideology,” but such notion, in my view, falls widely short of reality today. Although Juche thought captures some essential elements of Marxist-Leninist concepts of the Party and the masses, Juche deviates from Marxist-Leninist philosophy through its alternative interpretation of history in which people’s subjectivity is a higher category than class-struggle." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is questioning that Juche has some novel aspects. In fact it is its very novelty that is the reason why it is included here.  Otherwise, what is the point?  If every slight deviance from Marx/Lenin/Whomever was grounds for disqualification from this list, nobody but Marx/Lenin/Whomever would be on this list. But what nobody can deny is the unparalleled influence of Marxist-Leninist philosophical concepts, terminology, historical development, normative standards of party life, etc. have on Juche. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

June 09 Dubious project
Debate over a particular individual's verifiability has lead me to consider the looseness of this list in terms of its header.

Dubious
These require linking the theoretical contribution, debatability of the marxism of the contribution, and the contribution's notability or presence within Marxist Theory
 * Walter Benjamin: Corresponding with Marxists is insufficient, question of the contribution of his body of work to Marxist Theory as such
 * Sigh, someone who knows anything about Marxist Theory knows that Walter Benjamin is considered as a Marxist Theorist, e.g. look at the program of a conference in 2008 about Benjamin --Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Double sigh. Your cited Conference program has a one line statement that's not authorative. I'm still working on it but "apparent to all" isn't good enough.  Susan Buck-Morss The dialectics of seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades project MIT 1991 is extremely hedgey about his Marxism.
 * 12: He was bound to find intellectually barren and uninteresting [positivist Marxism.] And yet despite this, his persistent criticism [...]touched close to the Marxist perception. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History are quite central to the conception of history of current Marxists such as, to name an example, Slavoj Zizek (The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, 2008, pg. 151 and following.) I think this citation is good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.208.78 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Alexandra Kollontai: Politician, non-notability of Red Love &tc.
 * Partially resolved with: Ebert, Teresa L. "Left of Desire" in Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice, 3:1-2 (1999): at §5¶52-53, Online: http://clogic.eserver.org/3-1&2/ebert.html last accessed: 20090704. would prefer a better citation (Introduction to collected / selected works by non Soviet publisher; article explicitly "Kollontai's contribution to Marxist Theory" etc.). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Sylvia Pankhurst: Politician, non-notability of theoretical contribution
 * Jan Wacław Machajski: Need an appreciation of him as a marxist theorist, or that his theory was critically essensial to marxist theory, due to anarchism

 * George Derwent Thomson: Notability of theoretical contribution

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 04:44, 17 June 2009
 * Sam Marcy: Notability of theoretical contribution; presence of theoretical contribution (as opposed to polemical)
 * Che: Notability of contribution to marxist theory as opposed to military science. Difficulty in finding citations due to his status as a saint. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 * Joseph Stalin: Need a third party reliable for Linguistics
 * Please look at my answers in Template talk:Marxist theory. --Schwalker (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read, responded at location, intending to cite:
 * Ben Agger "Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance" Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 17: 105-131 (doi:10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541) for Stalin as a Theorist and
 * M.B. Mitin, M.D. Kammari, G.F. Aleksandrovis "The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism" trans 'Inter'[pseud.] in 'The Seventieth Anniversary of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin', published in Izvestia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seria Istorii i Filosofii, Tom VII, Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1950, pp. 3-30. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/stalin70.htm for Stalin as notable for Nationalities.
 * The Agger article mentions Stalin, but doesn't speak to who theoretical contributions. Where in the article does it actually talk about Stalin's theoretical contributions? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Bertolt Brecht: Marxist and Theorist of the theatre, question of the contribution of his theory to Marxist Theory
 * For instance see Louis Althusser: The ‘Piccolo Teatro’: Bertolazzi and Brecht Notes on a Materialist Theatre, it shows that Brecht's theory is considered as Marxist by Althusser. But there is much more evidence for Brecht being an important contributor to marxist theory.--Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Althusser's sufficient, it overcomes my fear that Brecht's contributions could be limited to contributions to the theatre, but Althusser clearly argues that Brecht's contribution is Marxist and philosophical. Added citation.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Cornelius Castoriadas: Notability of his Marxist contributions, extensive non-marxist theorist
 * See, --Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Added as citation.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * José Carlos Mariátegui: notability of theoretical contribution
 * Towards resolution when I get a chance to read in full:
 * The Contributions of Jose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary Theory, T Angotti - Latin American Perspectives, 1986 : 34-36; 38-42.
 * Introduction to Mariátegui, John Kraniauskas, Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies: Travesia, 1469-9575, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 303 – 304: all.
 * resolved by citations Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Ernst Bloch: Non obvious / notable contribution to Marxist theory, citation required.
 * RESOLVED Douglas Kellner and Harry O'Hara, "Utopia and Marxism in Ernst Bloch" New German Critique 9 (Autumn, 1976) 11-34: 11-13.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of Dubious tag
Listing folks such as Pankhurst, Thomson, Kollontai, Mariátegui and so on here is not dubious in the sense that WP cares about. That they are commonly known as "Marxists" and/or somehow associated with the "Marxist Tradition" as it is broadly construed is beyond doubt. As the relevant content guideline states, the dubious tag is for marking of statements where:

* It contains unlikely information, without providing references. * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic

None of these conditions apply to any of the individuals that I mentioned.

Note that this is a separate question from whether or not they deserve to be called bona-fide "Marxist theorists." My understanding is that the tag is intended for things like perpetual motion machine claims, or perhaps a creationist claim in an article on morphology, and things of that nature. To be more specific to the subject matter, perhaps it would be dubious to claim that Obama belongs here, for instance. I think what you are really after is is the tag, for buttressing claims that they are indeed "Marxist theorists", and the page needs to be changed to reflect that. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation
Look at the Russian and German pages, their articles on all things related to Marxism are better than ours. It's odd to have some great socialist philosopher-king brought in by a neocon between a theatre theoritician and a western postmarxist humanist. We need categories like in the Russian, Turkish, Portuguese and German versions of the article.79.216.171.64 (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Eccentric and uneven inclusion of names
In my view, there are people in this list who shouldn't be here, and people who are not here who should be --where's Pol Pot, for example? -- but that's just my view. We ought to err on the side of inclusiveness: or, as Job L said, "a list like this would provide a better service to its readers by emphasizing breadth rather than exclusivity." The real problem is the vagueness of the concept "made a contribution to Marxist theory",'contribution' not being a neutral word, and 'theory' also lacking a sharp definition.

Perhaps a re-definition of the list as holding the names of "people whose self-description of their political worldview was 'Marxism', and who wrote something about it that others might want to read."Doug1943 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

 * I don't think Pol Pot is notable for his contribution to Marxist thought. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing some names
While it is difficult to determine who deserves to be on lists like this and who does not, certainly if the name on the list links to an article that is a stub or barely above a stub status, then that name probably does not warrant inclusion to this list. I am removing some names where this is the case. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A suggestion regarding on what names should be included. This should be one of the requirements, however, not the only requirement, but the article that is linked to should be a Class B or up article and must be a high or top importance. This will help us weed out some of the fluff. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

good start...
But where's Terrell Carver? Jarius Banaji? Kevin B Anderson, Geert Reuten, Fred Mosley, Cyril Smith, Harry Cleaver, Simon Clarke, John Holloway, Michael Heinrich, Robert Brenner, Elmar Altvater, Werner Bonefeld, Enrique Dussel, Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.32.189 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Also where is Lucio Colletti? A brilliant but little known Italian Marxist. Could someone add him the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.216.112 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Added links to those names for ease of checking and adding. Also should be here: Thomas Sankara; Claudia Jones; Combahee River Collective BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Added Abimael Guzmán (Gonzalo)
I've added Abimael Guzmán (Gonzalo) to the list. I'm open to discussing whether or not he should be included, but in line with WP:BOLD and the unsourced inclusion of Jose Maria Sison, it should hardly be inconceivable that this inclusion is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersLeo (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am adding a cn tag to his name. He's clearly notable and identified as a Marxist but I doubt there are independent sources showing he contributed significantly to Marxist theory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Have also added cn tags for: İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Jim Kemmy, Yalçın Küçük, Edvard Kardelj, Kojin Karatani, Bijan Jazani, Jose Maria Sison, Mahdi Amel. I am in favour of including more names from outside Europe, but need to follow criteria as discussed earlier in this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the additional names added by, but I don't think the sources added for Guzman and Sison are strong enough to warrant their inclusion in this list. We need independent, reliable sources. I also agree with Comradeka that the inclusion of Ocalan is dubious. Ocalan is influential, but is he influential on Marxist theory? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Hall? Huey Newton?
surely they deserve a place on this list? Thatjakelad (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


text:
Benihana (disambiguation)

Benihana is a chain of Japanese-American restaurants.

Benihana may also refer to:
 * Benihana (skateboarding trick)

title: Benihana (disambiguation)