Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Comment

First, there is nothing in "What is German?" that explains or rationalizes his anti-Semitism, it is merely a further example of it. What has the German reunification to do with Wagner's view that Jews were freaks of nature and could only speak in unintelligible voices? There is no cause/effect here, thus no rationalization.

Second, I see no reason to remove specific quotes from Judaism in Music from the article, this will only lead to claims that we are quoting Wagner out of context. It is certainly proper for us to provide quotes from any source document we refer to; if the article gets too long in the process, we need to split it up. --Eloquence 19:28 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Your material in Judaism in Music is already stretching the bounds of quotation out of context. It is sufficient to say that Wagner offered a series of inflammatory insults against Jews in that essay - "freak of nature", "unintelligible voices", and so forth - but those are merely incidental details. They are not central to the thesis of the essay, and not central to understanding Wagner's anti-semitism. To provide an analogy, a description of the Ku Klux Klan could certainly mention the various insults which Klan members directed toward blacks - calling them "animals", and so forth - but the insults should not be mistaken for the Klan's racist goals, which was directed at reversing desegregation.

Wagner, like most other anti-Semites and bigots of other sorts, did not think of themselves as prejudiced people; they generally rationalized their hostility. For Wagner, the "problem" with Jews was that they were a foreign element standing in the way of German culture. Wagner provided this rationalization most clearly in What is German?, but also in his letters and private conversations. Your version paints a cartoon picture of Wagner - Look, here's an anti-Semite! Here are all the ugly things he said! - without providing any deep understanding of the man.

If you wish to go into a long and detailed analysis of Judaism in Music, might I suggest you do it in Das Judenthum in der Musik, which certainly needs work. -- CYD

Your "deep understanding" is, frankly, ridiculous. The fact that Wagner held the Jews responsible for stopping the German reunification does not provide any explanation for his anti-Semitic views, it is your interpretation, not Wagner's claims, that one (Wagner's fear of Germany being dominated by this foreign element) led to the other (Wagner's view that Jews are, apparently, somewhere between men and monkeys). Your statement that this is a "cartoon picture" reveals that you are unable to realize the deeply emotional, irrational nature of anti-Semitism, which Wagner himself did realize (read the first paragraphs of Judenthum), instead you presume some sort of hidden rational motives. If you knew a bit more about anti-Semitism, you would know that it is quite cartoonish and idiotic, and the statements by Wagner demonstrate this well, which is why you want them deleted.

I can agree to making the presentation of Judenthum somewhat shorter and provide the sordid details in a separate article, but only if his anti-Semitism is not "explained" with your personal interpretation. --Eloquence 20:20 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Please be civil, thanks. I'm well aware that Wagner's prejudices were ultimately irrational (some have argued, for example, that they are due to Wagner's own insecurity over his parentage.) However, the fact remains that he constructed an elaborate argument about this prejudices in the framework of German culture and German reunification. I'm flattered by your description of this as my "interpretation", but it isn't really. From what I've read, the link between his anti-semitism and German reunification is widely acknowledged amongst Wagner scholars.

If I dig up references for the link between Wagner's anti-semitism and his thing with German culture and reunification, will that make you happy? -- CYD

What is the claim being made here? That Wagner disliked Jews because they stood in the way of unification? This claim is referenced in the article in my last revision. That Wagner's views of Jews as primitive, ugly etc. were caused by this other, somehow more dominant view? Then this is hardly a claim Wagner made himself, but a later interpretation (unless he explicitly said something to the effect of: "Look, yeah, maybe that stuff about the Jews was a bit exaggerated, but I did it to save German culture!") If you want this interpretation in the article, you indeed need to provide a reference, so that other, alternative interpretations can be referenced as well. And if it's an interpretation without a reference or attribution, it is, by definition, your interpretation. --Eloquence 20:52 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

I hope we are not talking past one another, so let me try to be precise. The claim is this: the rationalization which Wagner generally offered for his hostility to Jews was that they are standing in his "project" of "rediscovering" German culture. Do you disagree with this? -- CYD

I disagree, because in Judtenthum, he made many other "factual" claims about Jews which were used to justify his hostility towards them. The claim that Jews were somehow subverting the unification is, in that respect, no different from the claim that Jews are ugly and have shrill voices: Both are "factual" claims, both wrong, both supported (at the time) with pseudoscience. --Eloquence 21:10 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Judenthum is a single essay, probably Wagner's shrillest, but he wrote many other essays, plus correspondence. My impression is that his attacks against the Jews were most often couched in cultural terms. But I may be wrong, so I'll concede the point to you for now, while I go check my references. Fair enough? -- CYD

Obviously Judenthum is more shrill than his other publications. That's why he originally published it pseudonymously. That does not say anything about a cause/effect relationship, or a rationalization process. Sure, please provide references wherever possible. --Eloquence 21:38 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Well, we're obviously still miscommunicating. I am not arguing that Wagner's anti-semitism was caused by his preoccupation with German culture; in fact, I wouldn't agree with that statement. What I'm saying is that he turned his anti-semitism into a component of his stated project of reinventing German culture. That's what I meant by "rationalization". -- CYD

I'm not sure what you mean with "turned into a component of". Where's the relationship between the reunification and the claims that Jews are annoying freaks? I'm all for a more detailed discussion of Wagner's views, what I am afraid of is an euphemistic intrerpretation, which is what I have edited out. --Eloquence 01:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

Clutch, do you mind my asking why you keep removing the alternative URL for dJiM? It is starting to look like you don't want people to read the other one. Is there something wrong with the one that you want to remove, and if so what? And is it the case that the one that you approve of is on your own site or a site with which you are closely linked? or did I get mixed up, in which case I apologise. 138.37.188.109 08:22 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question: how does the alternative link benefit the article? And why did you originally keep removing my link altogether? --Clutch 18:09 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Erm, no thanks, I don't need to ask myself those questions, I asked you to answer a couple of things, which you have failed to do. There's something quite odd about people who answer questions with more questions: the casual observer might wonder what it is that they are trying to evade. Let me try to be more polite than you and answer your points: maybe it will stimulate you into trying to answer mine. Here goes. (1) I don't know how the alternative link benefits the article. I haven't read the contents of both links. That's why I asked you the question - I genuinely wanted to know why your pet link was better than the one you kept deleting. Do you not understand this? It's quite simple - if you know yours is better and can explain why, please do so. (2) Did I originally keep removing your link altogother? I am surprised to hear this but I suppose it is possible. When? I honestly don't think I did, but if you can tell me when that happened I will look at it and see if I can explain it and if not I will apologise. OK? There now, I've answered your questions, you have a little try at mine, it won't hurt. OneEauNine 23:55 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch, weblinks are notoriously unstable. They become useless when websites are reorganized or removed. Therefore it is always useful to have multiple URLs for a given reference. One serves as a backup. I have followed this practice myself in other Wikipedia articles. RK

Unrelated: If the German titles are italicized, why aren't the English? Aren't operas and symphonies and such normally italicized even after being translated? Tuf-Kat

Yes, I think so. OneEauNine 23:55 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

So do I. I'll go through the article and fix that now (also, essays should be in quotes, I think, per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style). --Camembert

Done. I think I've caught them all, anyway. --Camembert

---

Clutch, RK responded to your question and you haven't countered. The alternative link is there in case one of the sites goes down. Tuf-Kat

I don't think it even needs to be that - after all we don't normally worry about spare sites for that reason. It would be nice if Clutch were to read and repond to my long paragraph above - ignoring it, and just going ahead and removing the alternate link without addressing the issues in it, was not good manners. I hate edt wars but if the worst comes to the worst I suppose I will just have to keep replacing it until Clutch replies properly to my points. OneEauNine 07:42 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

RK raised irrelevant issues. The real issue is, why did so many people keep replacing my link with another link? It is only recently that some people started putting in an "alternative" link instead of removing mine altogether. Why is that one link so important that it must be put in as an "alternative", even as none of the other links get similar treatment? Inquiring minds want to know. What is so important about putting that particular link in the article? Unlike the one I linked to, it lacks full HTML compliance and spell checking. --Clutch 16:06 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea why others kept deleting your original link. No matter the answer, the question at hand is whether or not the alternative link should be kept. The reason other links don't get duplicates is because either only one copy of them exists, or nobody's found a second copy. If you can find alternatives for the texts in the Wagner library, feel free to add an alternative link.

I can hazard a guess as to why your original link was being removed. Probably, it was because the site is outright racist and people have difficulties linking to it. None of this has any bearing on the issue at hand, of course. So to answer your questions: 1) dunno, irrelevant to this issue; 2)nobody's found other links to the same essays; 3)it may be lower quality, but some bizarre people don't want to surf around on racist sites, and in any case, an alternative is useful in case the first site gets shut down. Tuf-Kat

The reason for the alternative link is relevant. Noone even bothered to look for alternative links to the other articles. Labelling my website, Reactor-Core.org as racist is a slander, a smear, and unjustified. I see this as a personal attack on myself, part of the Judeocentric factions continuing campaign of harassment against non-bias and neutrality. --Clutch 16:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia contributors should discount the above claims. Clutch is a paranoid individual who has been using Wikipedia as a forum to promote anti-Semtism; he repeatedly claims that Wikipedia contributors are part of a Zionist-Jewish conspiracy. (In the past, he has referred to Wikipedia as Zionpedia) This disturbed individual needs to be banned. RK

I think that we should link to http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagjuda.htm rather than http://reactor-core.org/judaism/judaism-in-music.html, because the former link is part of a more comprehensive website which contains Wagner's other essays as well. -- CYD

I really don't know what all the fuss is about, as http://reactor-core.org/judaism/judaism-in-music.html appears to be a dead link anyway (I get Connection refused attempting to contact host reactor-core.org). Mkweise 18:07 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

It is not a dead link, and works fine for everyone else. I suspect your firewall may be a problem. What IP are you trying to connect from? --Clutch 18:17 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

1. I reorganized the first paragraph or two and a heading.
2. I think Anti-Semitism and Nazi Appropriation heading would read better as Social and political views

Moreover, I think a lot of the heat on this website about Wagner would simmer down if we used phrases like "widely considered anti-Semitic" rather than matter-of-fact expressions like "his anti-Semitic writings". We might even mention, if applicable, that some of his defenders (and I'm definitely NOT one of them) dispute the label anti-Semitic and don't want it applied to him or his views.

Only Jew-haters deny that Wagner was an anti-Semite. Let us not allow neo-Nazis to control Wikipedia, Ok? Wagner was an anti-Semite, and that is a historical fact that all non-rabid-Jew-haters agree on. Even German historians admit this. Let us stop trying to rewrite facts to appease Neo-nazis. RK

In short, don't let the article take sides. Let the article DESCRIBE what those sides are -- without evaluating who's right or wrong. I mean, for crying out loud, the reader can judge Wagner themselves based on passages such as, "all Jews are vermin who should be crushed underfoot" or whatever. Just say that Hyman Kaplonsky "regards this statement alone as definitive evidence of Wagner's lifelong virulent anti-Semitism" or something like that.

Don't give in to Clutch's attacks. He is the vandal. Just ban him. RK

We don't need to keep fussing over this point, people. He was a brilliant composer whose views on Jews offended a lot of people. Leave it at that, eh? (Note: I am not going to touch ANYTHING AT ALL regarding the controversial anti-Semitism controversy, because I don't want to get involved in the controversy -- in case I have to do something controversial like 'protecting' the page when the controversy heats up again. --Uncle Ed 17:22 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC))

Ed, what are you talking about? The only fuss today has been about a link to one of Wagners essay. I haven't gone near the anti-Semitism controversy for weeks. Please read the actual edit history. I haven't been altering things. --Clutch 17:27 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch, Reactor-Core is your site. Given the fact that you have made repeated attempts to cover up Wagner's anti-Semitism with ridiculous arguments such as:

The question was not if Wagner was anti-Semitic; it's of whether that is appropriate for the Wikipedia article on Wagner. I don't feel it was. Wagner wrote some great music, and that is what he is famous for. Dragging the mans youthful mistakes and dirty laundry out of the closet after he is dead and gone is bad form.

I find it hardly appropriate to link to a copy of this text on your site (in addition, a copy with worse HTML formatting). But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept as a compromise to provide an alternative copy, just in case something "funny" happens to the copy hosted by you. Your complete failure to accept this compromise is evidence once again that you are absolutely incapable of working with others. --Eloquence 17:56 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Finally. An admission that you were changing the link because you had a personal beef with me personally. Such partisanship is not neutral, nor is it appropriate for the Wiki. Slipping in ad-hominems like "your HTML is worse than some other HTML" highlights your personal bias, and willingness to ignore the truth in your personal vendetta. --Clutch 18:05 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I did not change the link, I (and others) added a link to an alternative copy. I did it not because of a "personal beef with you personally", but because of your past behavior with regard to this specific article. "Your HTML is worse than this HTML" is not an ad hominem. Read up on logical fallacies again, Clutch. And then please go away, as you suggested on your user page. --Eloquence 18:14 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Clutch, why not put the others to shame by turning the other cheek? (See: I learned my lesson.) --Uncle Ed

You didn't read my response to you on my talk page. I cordially invite you not to bother responding to my comments unless you are willing to change your behavior and come to my defense once in a while. Since you invariably come down on the side of your fellow Jews, it's obvious how sincere your conversion to Christianity was. As a US Senator once said: if it these things were just happening by accident, then at least some of the time, things should go in our favor. --Clutch 19:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I really don't think this sort of personal attack is warranted or useful. --Camembert

---