Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 8

Here is a small sampling of the many sources documenting Richard Wagner's anti-Semitism.

Hmm, it seems that User:RK just added some stuff about an apparently anti-semitic essay that Wagner wrote, and then User:Clutch deleted it without comment. I'm far from a Wagner expert myself (his music bores me stiff, and I try to steer clear of the fellow), but I am interested in this, because I know he is often accused of anti-semitism, and we have no mention of this in the article at present. I have two questions therefore:

To Clutch: Why did you remove RK's addition?

To RK: Can you say for sure that this essay is really anti-semitic, and that it criticises Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn simply because they were jewish, rather than because he simply didn't like their music? These aren't trick questions, I'm just trying to work out what's going on here, and whether this essay is worthy of mention for the light it casts on Wagner's musical thought, on his anti-semitism, or not worthy of mention at all. --Camembert

Despite the fact that Wagner did have a few Jewish friends, most historians of the subject agree that Wagner was an anti-Semite. I understand that you want to find a way to put a friendlier face on his works, but we cannot turn anti-Semitism into a mere disagreement about musical styles. Sure, Wagner never was a Nazi, and never wanted to exterminate the Jews. But we can't define anti-Semitism so narrowly, just as we can't define homophobia or racism against blacks or Asians no narrowly. RK

"I understand that you want to find a way to put a friendlier face on his works" - not too sure what brings you to that conclusion, but let me just state that I have no desire to put a friendly face on his works, musical or literary. I studied his opera Parsifal for a while, and am now of the opinion that all his music should have a strongly worded health warning on it: "Do not operate heavy machinery shortly after listening to Wagner, drowsiness may result". That sort of thing. --Camembert

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. He didn't inspire any anti-Semitic movements; he didn't base his music on his anti-Semitism; the anti-Semitism doesn't deserve more than a brief mention, if that. Also, his anti-Semitism wasn't out of keeping with the times he lived in; everyone around was like that. I don't think it's appropriate to judge him by modern standards. The fact that despite his public views he got along and worked well with so many Jews in the music industry tends to make you wonder how "anti-Semitic" he actually was. He could repeat the rhetoric of the anti-Semitic majority, but when it came right down to it, he was more interested in musical excellence than in issues of race. --Clutch 13:20 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Clutch - in many ways I agree with you - well, I don't think he wrote "great music", but otherwise... ;) However, it's a fact that people do talk about his anti-semitism a lot, rightly or wrongly. And its also a fact that one doesn't hear of, for example, Brahms being anti-semitic. So I think there's a bit more to it that you're making out, but yes, maybe a bit of context would not go amiss. However, I think as the article grows (as it surely will), this bit about his anti-semitism won't seem so significant. --Camembert

Well, I've put RK's edits back - I think the title of Wagner's essay makes it clear that he was indeed criticising Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn simply for being Jewish, so that clears up my question to RK (if I'd been paying attention I wouldn't have had to ask it - apologies). I'm still not sure why Clutch removed the edits. Anyway, they're back now. Anybody who wants to read the essay in full can find it at http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagjuda.htm --Camembert

Can someone translate the German quotes? -- Merphant

I'll look into it when I have more time if nobody gets there before me. --Camembert

The question was not if Wagner was anti-Semitic; it's of whether that is appropriate for the Wikipedia article on Wagner.

Absolutely. This was a big part of his philosophy. RK

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.

No, it is called history and biography. You are incorrect that Wagner is only famous for his music. Wagner is infamous for his writings against the Jews. You may be unfamiliar with this aspect of Wagner, but it is well-studied and much written about. I don't have any objections to putting his writings in context, but this important part of his beliefs deserves mention. You might argue that we should spend more time writing about other facets of his work, his musical influence, and I would totally agree with you. The addition of one paragraph about his view on Jews should not, and does not, prevent us from writing pages more about other aspects of the man and his work. RK

I agree, that 95 % of the article should be about Wagner's music. But his anti-semitic beliefs can't be dismissed as "youthful mistakes". He never took these statements back, and he was infamous for hating jews. What is wrong about writing on the fact, that he wrote some really great music, but had a nasty character? A composition is always more than a projection of the author's character, and condemning Wagner's ideology says nothing about the value of his music. Cordyph

11:01 Nov 21, 2002 . . Ed Poor (page is blocked, reverting to RK's version -- meet me in talk)
10:49 Nov 21, 2002 . . Clutch (you are the one doing the censoring RK; you try to paint everyone as an anti-Semite. we aren't standing for it anymore! just because people don't like YOU, doesn't mean they don't like Jews!)
10:36 Nov 21, 2002 . . RK (Adding back the censored, NPOV discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitic articles. Please stop making apologetics for Jew-hatred, guys. This puts you in a VERY poor light.)
10:33 Nov 21, 2002 . . RK (removing a dishonest and misleading apologetic for Wagner's anti- Semitism. Come on guys, this is immoral. No one on Wikipedia does this for ANY other ethnic group.)
08:41 Nov 21, 2002 . . Clutch (nationalist movement in classical music)
08:32 Nov 21, 2002 . . Clutch (more appropriate paragraph on Wagner and anti-Semitism)
08:25 Nov 20, 2002 . . Camembert (restoring deleted passages (see talk))
20:42 Nov 17, 2002 . . Clutch
20:33 Nov 17, 2002 . . RK (Adding details from the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia)

If a great person commits an indiscretion, should it be in an encyclopedia article?

Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" -- although what he meant (or should have said) was that he pushed some key funding bills through Congress -- and the flap is thoroughly examined in Al Gore
Bush said "They misunderestimated me", etc. -- but Bushisms redirects to a non-partisan article --Ed Poor

Although these things may be in the wikipedia, generally they would NOT go in any other encyclopedia that I am aware of. --Clutch 16:10 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

Mencken, the prolific columnist and journalist made many anti-semitic remarks, although he was a life-long friend of publisher Knopf.

Some Jews think that Rev. Moon is anti-semitic. I disagree, but who am I to judge? There's an article at Unification Church and anti-Semitism discussing the "is he, or isn't he?" controversy.Ed Poor

I don't know who Mencken and Knopf are, Ed, but I'll tell you what disturbs me. The article talks about Wagner in very broad and general terms; when he was born, in what country, some operas he wrote... Then all of a sudden appears this big paragraph with lots of specific details driving home the thesis that Wagner was Jew hater. It doesn't fit in. One sentence saying "Some people today consider Wagner an anti-Semite." would be in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article. Also, the paragraph originally came from the Jewish Encyclopedia. An obviously biased source when it comes to the topic of anti-Semitism. This isn't the Jewpedia, it's the Wikipedia, and as such I expect some balance here, not copious Stasi style notes on everyone that the ADL doesn't like. --Clutch

Well, it's easier to put something in than to take something out, so why not add a phrase like According to the Jewish Encyclopedia or move the whole anti-semitism thing down to the bottom of the article, with a heading like Claims of anti-semitism or Criticism of Wagner's non-musical views, etc.? --Ed Poor

It can go in an entirely separate article, linked from here, and that will be fine. As I said, it comes from a biased source, and RK seems determined not to let any relevant facts in that will show Wagner to be less of an anti-Semite than he wants him to be. The fact about Wagner having many Jewish friends and workmates came from the Jewish Encyclopedia itself, but that fact was buried and never taken into account in condemning him as a Jew hater. The surest way to turn someone into a hater is to condemn them as a hater first. --Clutch

Let's not condemn our fellow Wikipedians, then.
Let's see those relevant facts.

--Ed Poor

The fact that some of Wagners most respected colleagues and many of his friends were Jews are "facts" that came from the article. RK seemed outraged though when I pointed out that nationalism was a trend that was sweeping the classical music world at the time. A person who understands the history of classical music can thus understand Wagners comments about "Jewish music" in a rather different context than a person who does not. In each nation, composers were trying to get right down to their musical roots in folk-music, and cast out all foreign music. At the time, the only "foreign" influence in Germany were the Jews. In other countries it was German influence that was foreign and that they were trying to remove. Wagner wasn't doing anything special; he was just going along with the crowd. To pick on him for this, and make him out to be a sort of 19th century David Duke is a gross injustice. The reason everyone makes a big deal about Wagner being anti-Semitic is because Hitler liked listening to his music. It's not fair to judge a man badly just because a monster who lived half a century after you died happened to like your music. --Clutch

I hope you don't mind, if I state my opinion here. I agree with you in many details, Clutch. Hitler liked Wagner's music, and that is reason enough for many people to disapprove of his music. Fortunately there is no indication of anti-semitic ideology in his music. But there is the fact, that he had written this book and did some nasty statements. For all these reasons it is nearly unpossible to hear and play Wagner in Israel. In the moment there is a public discussion in Israel, largely thanks to the great conductor Daniel Barenboim, who ventured to play Wagner's music in Israel again. I think, if there is such a public discussion in a country, then the reasons should be stated in an article. I agree, that it should be in a distinct paragraph or even in an own article. But it should be there. As I said above, criticizing Wagner says nothing about the value of his music, that I like myself. -- Cordyph

Clutch, stop making Wagner's extreme anti-Semitism out to be no big deal. Anyone who thinks that hatred of Jews is no big deal, is suspect of anti-Semitism themselves.

Wagner was an anti-Semite from, at the latest, 1850, when he wrote 'Judaism in Music' (Das Judenthum in der Musik). This essay was first published anonymously in the 'Neue Zeitschrift für Musik' in two instalments in September that year. RW took as his starting point earlier articles in which Theodor Uhlig had attacked Meyerbeer's 'Les Huguenots'. RW reprinted his article practically unchanged in 1869, thereby provoking demonstrations at the first performances of 'Die Meistersinger'. It includes the following assertions (page references are to Wm Ashton Ellis' English translation of the Prose Works, which follows the 1869 revision):

 1. Jews are hateful (passim)
 2. Judaism is rotten at the core; a religion of hatred (PW3 p90-1)
 3. Jewish composers are comparable to worms feeding on the body of art 
    (PW3 p99)
 4. Jews are hostile to European civilisation (PW3 p84-5)
 5. The Jew rules the world through money (PW3 p81)
 6. The cultured Jew is "the most heartless of all human beings" (PW3 p87) 
 7. The Jews should, like Ahasuerus, "go under" (PW3 p100)

RW, however, did not explicitly advocate anything like extermination; and in his private life had close Jewish friends who appear to have regarded him with considerable affection. Nonetheless, his second wife Cosima held strongly anti-Semitic views.

After RW's death, Bayreuth became a focal point for anti-Semitic and right-wing individuals, encouraged by Cosima. This culminated in the marriage of her daughter Eva to the right-wing ideologue, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who saw world history in terms of conflict between races. The son of Richard and Cosima, Siegfried, was more balanced, ruling out racial exclusivity at Bayreuth, but he died in 1930. His English-born widow Winifred developed a close friendship with Hitler when he was still a young unknown, and was largely responsible for Bayreuth's Nazi links.

A good starting point for reading about RW's anti-Semitism is the book by Jacob Katz, 'The Darker Side of Genius'. A number of recent books have taken a fresh look at this subject, including:

'Wagner: Race and Revolution' by Paul Lawrence Rose, who presented a

 view in which racial and anti-Semitic ideas were the driving force behind
 Wagner's creativity, even in 'Der fliegende Holländer'. Many Wagner
 scholars vehemently oppose this view, in particular harshly criticising
 Rose's scholarship; see for example Stewart Spencer's review ('Wagner',
 January 1995, pages 46-48).

'Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination' by Marc Weiner, is a study of

 Wagner's anti-Semitism that has been met with hostility by many
 Wagnerians, although other Wagnerians, including the author of this FAQ
 and also Anthony Arblaster in his review ('Wagner', January 1996, pages
 44-47), think that Weiner sheds light on some dark corners of Wagner's
 character.

These two books refer to earlier articles by Hartmut Zelinsky which ignited a heated controversy in Germany. Zelinsky interpreted RW as a proto-Nazi, and attempted to demonstrate that racial and anti-Semitic schemes lay beneath the surface of RW's music-dramas. Hartmut Zelinsky's published writings include:

In 'Musik-Konzepte 5: Richard Wagner: wie antisemitisch darf ein

 Künstler sein?', ed. H-K. Metger and R. Riehn. Article entitled: 'Die
 Feuerkur des Richard Wagner oder die neue Religion der Erlösung durch
 Vernichtung', Munich 1978.

'Richard Wagner: ein deutsches Thema: Eine Dokumentation zur

 Wirkungsgeschichte Richard Wagners 1876-1976', Frankfurt am Main 1976,
 Vienna 1983.

In 'Parsifal: Texte, Materialen, Kommentare', ed. A. Csampai and D.

 Holland. Articles entitled: 'Richard Wagners letzte Karte', 'Der
 verschwiegene Gehalt des Parsifal'. Hamburg 1984.

Although himself a critic of Zelinsky, Barry Millington has presented arguments for an anti-Semitic theme in 'Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg'. The relevant articles are:

'Nuremberg Trial: Is There Anti-Semitism in Die Meistersinger?', in

 'Cambridge Opera Journal', volume iii, 1991. Reprinted in 'The Wagner
 Compendium', London 1992 and in 'Wagner in Performance', New Haven 1992.

'Richard Wagner's Anti-Semitism', in the 'Musical Times', December 1996.

 Reprinted in 'Wagner', May 1997, vol. 18 no.2.

Other sources that discuss Wagner's anti-Semitism include 'Aspects of Wagner' by Bryan Magee (who has also written an interesting article on the subject, included as an appendix to his 'Wagner and Philosophy'), 'Richard Wagner: the Terrible Man and his Truthful Art' by M. Owen Lee, and Dieter Borchmeyer in chapter 5 of the 'Wagner Handbook', in an appendix to his 'Richard Wagner: Theory and Theatre' and, at greater length, in his recent book on this subject (proceedings of a seminar held in Bayreuth).

Hmcw participant Simon Weil has written a study, 'Wagner and the Jews'. It can be found online at < <http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm> >.

I'm still waiting for someone to propose a change to the article which will:

describe Wagner's sentiments about Jewish people
neither endorse or condemn the view that Wagner is anti-Semitic

When someone has a neutral change ready to add to the article, I will either add it, or unlock the article. Not before. --Ed Poor

Ed, locking articles is extremely damaging. While this article has all this attention going through recent changes, nobody else can write anything about the subject. Nor can anybody suggest by example a good statement about Wagner. Administrators are not parents or teachers looking down on the little people who can't lock and unlock pages. They are there only as trusted users who can prevent vandalism. DanKeshet 19:06 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

I propose to move any material on Wagner and anti-Semitism to a separate article, and to link it in something like the following sentence:

In modern times the topic of Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism has been controversial.

--Clutch

This is what we did for many months with Noam Chomsky, because the information on allegations of anti-semitism overwhelmed the other information. Eventually, when we had enough information on other aspects of Chomsky that it could fit in fairly smoothly, we merged it back in. Not advocating one thing or another, but just giving history. DanKeshet

Page is unlocked. Have it at, lads. --Ed Poor

Well, Clutch created the Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism article. Is everyone happy with it? --Ed Poor

Suits me - it's better than endless changes here anyway. Now then, I hear that Wagner wrote some music once as well - anybody know anything about that? ;) --Camembert

Yeah, something about a Ring -- or was that Tolkien? ;-) --Ed Poor

I moved the Richard Wagner and Anti-semitism article here; in my opinion, there is no point having a separate page on Wagner's anti-Semitism. Some of the material in that page was copied verbatim from a newsgroup post [1], and has been reworded. -- CYD

I will be working on the Wagner page over the next few days. The anti-semitism part may seem disproportionate now, but it won't be soon. Please don't delete relavant content, Clutch. -- CYD

Wagner is known primarily for his music. His music is not detectably influenced by his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism isn't what defines Wagner. Given these facts, what makes it so important that his anti-Semitism get more than a small reference? --Clutch 08:37 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Clutch, this is an article about Wagner the man, and not just his music. Do not delete the work of others in an attempt to restore balance. If you think the article is unbalanced, add more about Wagner's music. -- Stephen Gilbert 14:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Stephen, I didn't delete any information. It is still in the original sub-article where CYD took it from. When he is ready to work on the article again, he can reincorporate it. In the meantime, that information just severely imbalances the article. --Clutch 14:35 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

It will be very difficult for CYD to work on the article if his work is reverted. He made changes to the article, including the re-wording of some plagerized material; Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism does not contain these changes. Again, I encourage you to balance the article by adding to it, not taking away. -- Stephen Gilbert 14:50 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

That other people of Wagner's time were anti-Semites, too, doesn't make this information insignificant. Mass murders of Jews as a result of anti-Semitism have occurred long before Hitler, he merely took a deeply seated anti-Semitism that was already present in culture to the extreme. Had influential people like Wagner not perpetuated anti-Semitic propaganda, the disasters that followed might have been prevented. The statement "Richard Wagner was a staunch anti-Semite" should therefore be in the article itself, not just on a linked to page.--Eloquence

I put the following into the article, as a compromise between the Clutch and Eloquence versions. It's silly to have an edit war over this.

Israeli performances of works by the German composer are often accompanied by protest from Holocaust survivors and others who say he promoted anti-Semitism. [2] Some have described the situation as amounting to an "informal ban", but a public performance in 2001 of a work by Wagner resulted in no charges or arrests of conductor Daniel Barenboim.

Like many people of his time, Richard Wagner was a staunch anti-Semite. Because Adolf Hitler (long after Richard Wagner's death) was so approving of Wagner's music and of his anti-Semitic writings, Wagner's anti-Jewish statements have assumed an importance they would not otherwise have had (see Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism). The Nazis heavily promoted Wagner, while banning the music of Jewish composers like Felix Mendelssohn (and sending the composers themselves to death camps, if they were within their grasp). Although few people consider the music itself anti-Semitic, public performance of Wagner's music is currently forbidden in the state of Israel.
Public performance of Wagners music is currently forbidden in the state of Israel. One often given reason is that Wagner was an anti-Semite, although his music itself was not anti-Semitic. The fact that Wagners music was promoted heavily by the Nazis while they banned the music of such Jewish composers as Felix Mendelssohn, is commonly cited as the most significant factor in Israel's ban.

Please explain why the bullet item is better worse than either numbered item, and then I will un-protect the article. This back and forth he who laughs last laughs best approach is not worthy of either of you guys, so I'm giving you both a time out. --Uncle Ed

Ed, you are falling for Clutch's subtle strategy of creating non-NPOV articles again:

do something outrageous
persist in doing it
when others react, do something slightly less outrageous
persist in doing it
try to make sure that the less outrageous version stays in.

First, Clutch has removed the anti-Semitism claims unilaterally, which were then moved to a separate article, quite unjustly so. Then he has even removed the link to this separate article, which is still gone in the revision you protected, and toned the brief NPOV discussion of Wagner's anti-semitism down further. This is NOT acceptable. You should unprotect the page and protect my previous revision, which was perfectly NPOV. The information about Hitler's Wagner glorification surely belongs in an article about Wagner. I have explained all this in my change summary, and I have also explained the previous change above after I made it. You can only argue so much with a persistent troll.

In summary:

the Wagner-Hitler connection belongs into the article
the link to Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism belongs into the article

--Eloquence

I hope I'm not falling for anyone's anti-neutrality strategy. Larry, Jimbo and I have chastised Jonathan in the mailing list, and I've protected the article. I am listening to all comments on this talk page (please note that I restored the Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism link). --Ed

Ed, I would be happy to see that paragraph reduced to the following:

Many Holocaust survivors prefer not to listen to Wagner's music because it was heavily promoted by the Nazis, and because Wagner himself held some anti-Semitic views. See Wagner and anti-Semitism.

However, I believe even the link to Wagner and anti-Semitism is unneeded; in the context of his times Wagner was neither good nor bad; he was just ordinary. To put too much emphasis on this one aspect of his personality does a grave disservice to the legacy of great music he left posterity.

--Clutch 17:13 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aim to be complete. No biography should be whitewashed, whatever the person may have achieved. We are not here to do service or disservice to the legacy of Wagner; we're here to write an encyclopedia article about him. -- Stephen Gilbert 17:23 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Also, it's churlish to cast rocks at a man who has been dead for more than a century, and who cannot defend himself.

--Clutch 17:16 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

The page currently reflects Clutch's stated desire to sanitize the article. Clutch has now toned down his arguments and is appealing to "balance". Until we have a massive and complete article on Wagner, I suspect Clutch will contibue to use this tactic to remove as much anti-semetism material as possible, ignoring the fact that the constructive way to balance an article is to add to it in other areas. -- Stephen Gilbert 17:23 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Jonathan, at your request I am keeping up the flow of puns: you're clutching at straws if you think a personal opinion like the following is suitable for a Wikipedia article:

"In the context of his times Wagner was neither good nor bad; he was just ordinary."

We might say rather that some critics maintain that, etc. but the link to Wagner and anti-Semitism is never coming out. Not as long as there are significant numbers of people out there who want to label Wagner an anti-Semite. You'll note that despite Rev. Moon's clear statement of support for Jews, Judaism and Israel there is nonetheless a Unification Church and anti-Semitism article.

You need to understand the NPOV policy better, Clutch. --Uncle Ed

Oh, I understand the NPOV policy quite well. I just happen to be very sensitive to the Zionist bias of some prolific contributors. This isn't the Zionpedia.

Wow, Its rare to see such a nakedly anti-Semitic rant. Props to Clutch for his "bravery" in combating the evil Zionists. Off his meds again....

As far as the Unification Church and anti-Semitism article, I feel it is shameful that some people felt it necessary to add it in. Some controversies are actually better not put into articles, when neither side can produce verifiable facts to support their case, or when the case of one side consists mainly of taking things out of context and misinterpreting them. If the Wikipedia is too wishy-washy about asserting facts, people won't respect it as much. --Clutch 17:37 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

No it is not better to not mention some controversies. Especially ones that several people have seen important enough to write entire books about Rmhermen 17:41 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, hopefully you can substitute in the following paragraph. You will notice it preserves the Wagner and anti-Semitism link.

Many Holocaust survivors prefer not to listen to Wagner's music because it was heavily promoted by the Nazis, and because Wagner himself held some anti-Semitic views. See Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism.

--Clutch 17:46 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Makes it look like only Holocaust survivors would hold such views, whereas in reality, pretty much the entire political left in Germany rejects Wagner for that reason. Also, the article needs a detailed discussion, not your brief "oh, by the way, he hated Jews" variant. --Eloquence

Can someone (besides Clutch, thank you) explain to me why we discuss in detail the nonsensical anti-Semitism claims against Noam Chomsky (a Jew) in the article about him, whereas we have quickly bowed to Clutch's pressure by moving the fact that Wagner was a rabid Jew-hater into a separate article? Does that mean that we split "offensive" information away from a main article as soon as someone complains? I hope not. --Eloquence

I think the Chomsky and anti-semitism bit was originally added to the main Chomsky article, was then split off into a separate Noam Chomsky and anti-Semitism article, and then reintegrated again when ... and anti-Semitism articles started popping up all over the place. Anyway, I certainly haven't bowed in on this article, and I'm prepared to revert it unless someone can provide a good argument really quick. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:56 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Poor clutchie-poo. He thinks he understands the NPOV policy quite well, yet he asserts that some controversies are actually better not put into articles. It is actually the essence of neutrality to include both sides when neither side can produce verifiable facts to support their case. As for taking things out of context and misinterpreting them, well, it's unfortunate that advocates do that but all we can do is, once again, include both sides.

I still think a geek like you is smart enough to grasp this concept, Jon. If I unprotect the article now, will you promise to play nicely? ^_^ --Uncle Ed

Ed. It clearly isn't appropriate to put into the article on Catholicism that "Protestants believe Catholics worship Satan the Devil". I don't see that being NPOV, no matter how much you say "some people say that" or "although some people say XXX, Catholics deny..." When it comes to religions, articles should provide just the facts; the partisan accusations of outsiders have very little room in such articles. This is where I think the NPOV, as currently stated, is harmful. It doesn't allow bad information to be weeded out altogether. --Clutch 18:16 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Clutch, I think you mean well but are misguided. First of all, it is a sad fact, but nevertheless a fact, that Wagner has become associated with Nazi in the public mind. We may lament it, because it's rather unfair - Wagner's anti-Semitism was a far cry from Nazi extremism, and many of the Nazis' values were diametrically opposed to Wagner's own - but the association nevertheless exists, and an article on Wagner (if it is a comprehensive and well-balanced article) must deal with it.

There has been quite a lot of dishonesty surrounding Wagner, especially in the movement of recent years to aggressively "interpret" Wagner's operas to extract supposedly racist messages. The interpretations are rather far-fetched, and if this is what you're reacting to, then I sympathize. However, the way to fight dishonesty is with honesty, not with lies or misdirection of your own. The fact is that

Wagner made public and private statements against the Jews, some of which were vicious even for its time, and
The content of his operas are not tainted by anti-Semitism. In fact, they contain deeply humanist messages. Herzl, the founder of Zionism, drew a great deal of inspiration from the messages in Wagner's operas, and he was certainly aware of the composer's anti-Semitic public statements.

A NPOV article has to discuss both of these points, which may seem mutually irreconcilable but are nevertheless true; Wagner was simply that complex a character. (A good model for such a discussion is the book Wagner by Michael Tanner, a prominent Wagnerian.) I wrote some material which discussed the reasons for Wagner's anti-Semitism, which is largely missing from the Wagner and anti-Semitism - and which, incidentally, still contains the plagiarized material which I removed.

I really would like to have a few days to work on this article without this silly reverting business. -- CYD

On a very minor point, I have put in a redirect from Wagner and anti-Semitism to Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism which is the article's correct name. I hope this helps. 138.37.188.109 18:55 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, your current attempts at NPOV are misguided. Show me a single page from an attributable source that says that Richard Wagner was not an anti-semite. Everyone agrees about this, including even many people on the political right (who would hate to lose one of their champions). What people disagree about are mainly the following things:

Was his anti-Semitism exterminatory? I.e. would he have approved the "final solution?
Did his operas contain anti-Semitic motives?
Do Wagner and his circle have any responsibility for the events that followed?

The attribution "modern sources" is also incorrect. Even at the time, contemporaries regarded Wagner as anti-Semitic. By any reasonable definition, he was. See the linked to page.

It's bad enough that we have moved important information into a separate article. The main article needs a reasonable summary of the issues, with the separate article clarifying the details (i.e. listing the facts about Wagner's anti-Semitism). Facts that are not controversial do not need to be "NPOVified". --Eloquence

For the record, I still think the two articles should be merged, and will probably do that eventually if nobody except Clutch objects. --Eloquence

Eloquence, I'm not sure you and I are using the same definition of neutrality. What is wrong with saying that some modern writers regard Wagner as anti-semitic? Is there a factual error in that sentence? I would think that you would agree that, in fact, some modern writers do regard him that way.

In case you missed my comment at talk:Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism, let me hasten to point out that I am not denying Wagner's anti-Semitism.

If you like, change the article to say that modern writers universally regard Wagner as anti-semitic. I won't revert that, and neither should anyone else unless they supply what you specified above: an attributable source that denies the anti-semitic thing.

--Uncle Ed

I'll tell you why, Ed. Let's take a random statement from the article:

"Wagner commenced the study of music at the University of Leipzig"

Should we rewrite this statement to say "Modern writers universally agree that Wagner commenced the study of music at the University of Leipzig"? That would either be redundant, or it would imply past disagreement. If there is past disagreement, we should describe it. The same goes for the anti-Semitism statement.

So if you have any past historians you would like to quote who deny that Wagner was an anti-Semite, feel free to do so. But we shouldn't add redundancy to articles just for kicks (or, as I suspect, for revisionist reasons, subconscious or not, as it weakens the statement). --Eloquence

This sentence is broken:

His of the "leitmotiv" - musical themes which stand for characters and events - would be present throughout a work, reappearing interwoven with other melodies whenever the story makes reference to them

His idea? His what? Whoever wrote it, please fix. --Eloquence

I didn't write it, but I just rewrote it to read as follows:

His use of the leitmotiv- a musical themes which stands for characters and events - was both a literary technique and a musical device, with the leitmotiv reappearing interwoven with other melodies whenever the story makes reference to the character or event.

However, my rewrite got caught by an edit conflict with another blast of the the never-ending shifting of the anti-semitic stuff. Look, either it goes in the main article (because it is a constant theme in his life and the continuing life of his music) or it goes in a separate article (because it is disruptive to the discussion of his works), but it doesn't go both places. That is just amateurish.

I'm a bit cranky because the main victim of the edit conflict was a painstaking attempt by me to regularize the use of italics and quotes in the article. I'll list the changes here, so someone else can take it on because I don't want to hang around until the latest anti-semite/anti-anti-semite thing gets settled.

Titles of major works should be in italics
Titles of his operas are so much better known in German than in English that they should be given in German and in italics with translations provided. Too bad the main articles about the operas use the English titles.
Carl Maria von Weber should get a link.

And, another couple of things:

It is bizarre that this article identifies Wagner first as a "German essayist" before mentioning his music. I had rewritten the first paragraph to say something like: "His early ambition to be a writer heavily influenced his approach to music."
I doubt very seriously the statement:

It has been said that more has been written about Wagner than perhaps any other historical figure with the exception of Christ and Muhammad the Prophet.

Who said this? And I believe Napoleon and Lincoln should also be on the list of most-written about, probably ahead of both Wagner and Muhammad.

I'm leaving now, I hope someone will take care of this, but between the edit wars over anti-semitism, dubious assertions, and the markup, this article remains weak, for all the attention it has gotten. If nothing happens with this I may come back in a few months, but not now, thanks. Ortolan88 15:31 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Well, you could have resolved the conflict yourself by copying your edits into the edit conflict window. Too late now .. I agree that the whole article needs work, it's lacking in clarity and style. --Eloquence

Coulda woulda shoulda, but I didn't. See you in the spring. Ortolan88

Eloquence, I've asked Jimbo in the Wikipedia-l mailing list to answer the question you raised, comparing "studied at university" vs. "is anti-Semitic". Pending an answer from him, I'm going to keep the page locked. --Uncle Ed

I personally think you should only use your sysop privileges to mediate conflicts you yourself are not involved in. I consider everything else an abuse of said privileges. --Eloquence

I'm not "involved" in this conflict. I have no opinion on Wagner. However, I said I would only lock the page until I got an answer from Jimbo. He answered promptly, and I unlocked the page a moment ago. --Uncle Ed

Ortolan wrote "Too bad the main articles about the operas use the English titles." -- I'd be in favour of renaming the operas to their German titles. I agree that they are much better known in German than in English. - Tarquin 16:26 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)