Talk:Controversies surrounding Richard Wagner

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

Translation of "Judentum"[edit]

I strongly feel that the German word "Judentum" should generally be translated in to "Judaism," as is traditional, and not into "Jewry." The truth is that the word generally refers in German to Judaism as a whole, not just to the "Jewry" with its much more restricted sense in English, which I believe is quite misleading. The proposition that "Judaismus" is the German word for "Judaism" not "Judentum" must be some error or a ludicrous attempt at being PC - the word is in comparison almost never used and may not have even existed during Wagner's lifetime for all I know - and you can take as proof of this the fact that the wikipedia article on Judaism in German is titled "Judentum" not "Judaismus." Furthermore, if the word "Judaismus" is used at all it refers very specifically to the religious practices of the Jewish people, which is certainly NOT what Wagner was concerned with. All the translators of Das Judentum in der Musik into English have used the word "Judaism" not "Jewry," and while some PC-ifying maniac has desperately re-tranlated even the link to that translation according to his own whims, I propose that this was both unnecessary and misleading and that all such translations should be reverted. (Eeesh 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My copy of the Collins English Dictionary has; Judaism "1. the religion of the Jews, 2. the religious and cultural traditions, customs, attitudes and way of life of the Jews." Jewry; "1a. Jews collectively, 1b the Jewish religion or culture... 3. the Jews conceived of as an organised force seeking world domination." I'm sure that most would agree that Wagner was definitely using the meaning of Judaism (2) and very possibly Jewry (3). So either word seems to me to be correct in English.--Dogbertd 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I speak German, and I can tell you that just about any normal person (and I've checked in dictionaries too just to make sure) would translate the English word "Judaism" into German as "Judentum" rather than "Judaismus," and this was absolutely the case in the 19th century when Wagner was writing. In other words, the word has a very broad meaning in German as it can refer to the religion of the Jewish people, the Jewish people collectively, their real or imagined traits, etc; the English word "Jewry" is far less common in English (not to mention, far less commonly used to translate the title of Wagner's essay), and has a much more restrictive sense than the German in that it really only refers to the Jewish people collectively, merely one of the several senses suggested by the German word, and not really the sense of Wagner's meaning (he would have said "Die Juden in der Musik"). Perhaps a better alternative translation would actually be, ludicrous though it may sound, "Jewishness in Music," but I strongly feel that the more common translation of "Judaism in Music" remains the best one for the purposes of this site, since it is far more common, broader, and doesn't in any way distort the broad sense of Wagner's meaning, and is thus less likely to lead readers astray.

I'll have to apologize if this post was repetitive but I honestly found much of yours to be slightly incoherent. You claim that translating "Judentum" as "Judaism" is a point-blank a mistake; I assure you that it is not, and is in fact, in the great majority of cases, the preferable translation of the word into English. I can't really cite a better source on this issue than the German wikipedia article "Judentum," which begins by stating clearly, "Unter Judentum versteht man die Gesamtheit aus Kultur, Geschichte, Religion und Tradition des sich selbst als Volk Israel (he. am jisrael, bnei jisrael) bezeichnenden jüdischen Volkes. Mit dem Begriff können auch gezielt die jüdische Religion oder, als Gruppe, die sowohl ein Volk als auch eine Glaubensgemeinschaft darstellenden Juden (he. jehudim) angesprochen werden," and goes on to once again call "Das Judentum" a major world religion, etc. etc.. One would never claim that the word "jewry" refers to the culture, history, and religious beliefs of the Jewish people, or to claim that "Jewry" is a world religion. (Eeesh 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Excuse me, but I speak english, and am interested in the best english synonym,since this version of Wikipedia is in English. Your options in english appear to be Judaism or Jewry or Jewishness, and - as I've already pointed out - it seems to me that at least two of these words would be appropriate. Aren't we splitting the finest of hairs here? Under the Wikipedia rules, you are completely at liberty to amend the article yourself: if you feel that it must say "Judaism", then make it so. --Dogbertd 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner as National emblem[edit]

I need to insert something on the adoption of Wagner as a nationalistic composer by the newly-unified Germany. Reading about the success of Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg has made me realise that the Nazis didn't pick Wagner up out of nowhere: he was already extolled as an example of the supriority of German Art - particularly so after the unification of Germany, the success of Die Meistersinger, and of course, after the first Bayreuth Festival. This, I think, should help to put his misuse by the Nazis into some perspective. He wasn't just used because he was one of Hitler's favourite composers - he was already strongly identified with the German State.--Dogbertd 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Under the paternity section, material indicating Wagner's suspicion of possible Jewish ancestry is sourced to the website http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vulture_.htm, which is operated by the Wikipedian User: Smerus. On his user page, Smerus indicates that he is working on his Ph.D. in musicology, but the content referenced in the article is to unpublished material. I would suggest that this constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's original research prohibition since the website offers no distinction between that which may simply be Smerus' thoughts on Wagner and what he may have actually published in pursuit of his Ph.D. W.M. O'Quinlan 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point. At the top of Smerus' page (http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vulture_.htm) it says that this is an extract from a seminar, which is sometimes considered a form of publication. In addition, he provides a list of references (http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bibliography.htm) for all the articles on his web-page, although it's not clear which relate to this specific article. If this material has been used in Smerus' thesis (and he passed!) then it will have been peer-reviewed, which would certianly make it an acceptable publication from Wikipedia POV, and not merely the opinions of Smerus. Nevertheless it might be better for us to add some further verification on the issue of Wagner's fears of his possible Jewishness. I simply thought that Smerus' page was a good summary of most of the information available to date.--Dogbertd 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced Gutman and Magee, who I think give a fairly good overview of this issue.--Dogbertd 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do indeed Dogbertd and there are many more references that could have been used also. This is - as you note - hardly an original line of investigation :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Misunderstanding of the Plot of Der Ring[edit]

It is worth noting that, although the Nazis promoted Wagner partly because they liked the ideologies (e.g. "Holy German Art" in Meistersinger; "Will to Power" in Der Ring etc), the Nazi backing for Der Ring indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the plot. Alberich seeks ultimate power by renouncing Love; Wotan seeks power by Will, Force, and Military strength/treaties. Both seekers after power ultimately lose it; it is Brunnhilde's redemption by love which is ultimately victorious. Had the Nazis truly understood the plot of Der Ring, they would have probably banned it.

I think the article as it stands is probably correct in its POV. The Nazis didn't actually like Wagner all that much. Hitler liked Wagner, but his thugs didn't. As Frederick Spotts has shown in his history of the Bayreuth festival The Ring was performed less and less during the war years, and only Meistersinger was presented at the festival in 1943 & 1944.--Dogbertd 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias/Neutral POV/Original Research[edit]

This page is not neutral. It takes a position on Wagner and then proceeds to defend it. Take for example the explanation and description of "Know Thyself". First, it is a terrible misreading of the text bordering on distortion: "Wagner rejects the notion that the Germans are a race at all, and further proposes that we should look past the notion of race to focus on the human qualities ("das Reinmenschliche") common to all of us." is not an unbiased or neutral assessment of the essay. Second, it is original research in that that interpretation is not cited from a secondary source. But there are many other examples in the page of the same kind of one-sided viewpoint. It's almost as if the whole page is written as a defense of Wagner.

I would like to bring some balance to the page. I'm not out to trash Wagner, I'm an enthusiast in fact. But I would like the page to accurately reflect the controversies surrounding this complicated and often times contradictory man. However, I have heard about 'edit wars' and people getting angry and vengeful about wiki editing, and because I'm new I just wanted to see if the people watching this page would be amenable to some potential revisions. Cheers.--Fritz Spitznogle 02:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could well be right about original research. A lot of the argument is unreferenced. E.g when Gutman's voew is dismissed. I'm also surprised to see references to it being the Mastersingers overture that was played before Nuremberg rallies. I thought it was the whole opera - it would certainly explain performances being in a theatre not a concert hall and give them more time to fall asleep. However I've always taken his anti-Semitism to be motivaterd by who were prominent German composers early in his career and by who he owed money to rather than by prior philosophical thought.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was only late in his life that he began writing tracts for public consumption with his name attached. Prior to that, he was very careful to hide his anti-Semitism, we only know about it because of private letters he wrote. So it's been impossible to figure out when it began. As to why: my guess (and its only a guess) is that he had some personality disorder(s) that resulted in aberrant behviour and thought patterns, of which racism was one. There is a lot of evidence that not all was right in RW's head, chronic nightmares, megalomania, etc. I think his time with Meyerbeer sparked his anit-Semitism and that it was pretty much irrational, so there really is no 'why'. I don't think Meyerbeer (or Jews) did anything to Wagner.Fritz Spitznogle (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Whitewashing is the issue, the specific kind of insidious whitewashing that generally accompanies (covertly) racist defenses of (overt) racism when out in public and trying to minimize controversy, trying to pass off racist positions as legitimate and mainstream. I chanced upon some of David Irving's holocaust denial stuff earlier tonight, and it's interesting to see how he and his gang change the style and content of their assertions, depending on the environment. They pose as erudite neutral truth-seekers and logicians when it suits their purposes, then become a mob baying for blood, hurling obscene insults and threats at their targets when the coast is clear. I noticed several instances of gross logical flaws, and glaring omissions, in the writers' efforts to minimize—or justify!?— Wagner's antisemitism. For example... ... claiming, absurdly, that W's notorious essay on jews and music concludes with a call for Jews to assimilate, to abandon their separate jewish identity,. A more obvious translation would have him calling for Jews to "go under" in sense of sink, drown, disappear. Why on earth would Wagner have cited Felix Mendelssohn as the archetype of what he hates and and hopes will "go under" when Mendelssohn was already just about 100% assimilate? ...in discussing the contents of that same essay, there is no quotation nor even mention of the zaniest and most outrageous bits. Instead, it notes—without demur—that Wager was just explaining why Germans (are right to) want to defend their country from Jewish influences. The list could go on and on. Chelydra (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner controversies[edit]

I am not sure how to do this, so please help if I am blowing it. (I did try once before or a different topic and got a best lost.) There is a sentence on the Racism section in Wagner Controversies that I deleted as there was no cite that supported the statement. That statement was: "Wagner's son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain expanded on Wagner and Gobineau's ideas in his 1899 book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,[1] a racist work extolling the Aryan ideal that later strongly influenced Adolf Hitler's ideas on race.[2]"

I deleted it, originally based on the Kershaw cite. But it was reinstated with a new cite to Evans on that particular potion that I objected to— that Chamberlain "expanded on Wagner and Gobineau's ideas...". Now there was a cite to Evans, but that doesn't support the sentence any more than Kershaw did. So, I once again, deleted it. So, my question is, how does that cite in any way say that Chamberlain's ideas were an "expansion of Wagner"s"? I didn't see any such thing. The sentence cited said that Wagner was anti-Semitic, not racist, as the chapter in question is about. It DID say that the "Bayreuth Circle" did that, but that is, obviously, not Wagner as he was dead by that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramcduff (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly clear what you are objecting to. Is it ether or both of the following?

  • 1) The statement that Wagner had racist opinions.
  • 2) The statement that Chamberlain's racist or anti-semitic opinions followed, or were influenced, by those of Wagner.

If you will clarify this, then text can be provided with citations which will satisfy you.

In any case, wholesale deletion of passages with which you don't agree is not acceptable WP practice - see WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NPV. If you don't agree with citations, or any other parts of text, the proper process is to tag them - see Template:Inline_tags for a choice. I have therefore restored the text for the time being. --Smerus (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ Evans (2004), 33–4.
  2. ^ Kershaw (1998), 151 – "Hitler drew heavily for his ideas from well-known antisemitic tracts such as those of Houston Stewart Chamberlain".

Herzl and Wagner[edit]

I have reinstated, with less but (I hope) more relevant wording, the point about Herzl and Wagner queried by another editor. I suggest that it is relevant to emphasize that there was no anti-Wagner feeling amongst Zionists and in Palestine prior to the outbreak of WW II, and that the anti-Wagner opinions expressed in the State of Israel were a late development. Herzl in fact wrote extensively about Wagner in his diaries; while he was writing Der Judenstaat he used to give him self a regular fix of Tannhäuser at the opera to keep himself going - I'm away from my books at the moment but can find the citstion for this is a few days if anyone is interested.--Smerus (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. The previous version seemed to have little to do with any "controversy", and placed too much emphasis on Herzl. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some additional (summarizing) sources[edit]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Controversies surrounding Richard Wagner/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
B class. Full, well-written article. This is not the place to comment on the content - that can be done through a peer review. I note that it is well-referenced, but there is no bibliography. A full bibliography would be helpful. -- Kleinzach 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Update: a bibliography has now appeared. -- Kleinzach 09:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B class. Some extra comments:

  • Despite the laudable number of inline references, there are quite a few unreferenced statements, many of them controversial. More reliance should be placed on printed sources and less on websites. If there is also to be a bibliography (and I wouldn't regard it as necessary if statements are properly sourced), then it needs to be divided up among the sections.
  • Statements in the article need to be aligned with other Wagner-related ones, for example in respect of Ludwig Geyer and Das Judenthum in der Musik.
  • Consideration needs to be given to reducing the overlap between this article and the relevant part of the Richard Wagner article (especially as it's quite likely that most visitors to this article will have come from that one).
  • The article needs a certain amount of copy-editing (for example, I'd have expected the lead to deal with the subjects in the order in which they appear below).
Nevertheless, not too far off GA. --GuillaumeTell 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Israeli anti-Wagner sentiment[edit]

It doesn't seem to be explained very well, but at least some of the anti-Wagner feeling in Israel wasn't so much because of Wagner himself, or the fact that Hitler liked Wagner's music, as that members of Wagner's family were fans of Naziism and/or Hitler, and unrepentant ofter the war (Winifred Wagner extremely so, some other members of the family to a lesser degree). As I understand it, from the Israeli point of view, the Bayreuth management didn't seem particularly apologetic or willing to take public steps to build new relationships until long after the war... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have a source for this opinion you are welcome to edit accordingly.Smerus (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read it in paper form many years ago (in the 1980s or early 1990s). I was hoping that other people might have more direct knowledge. Bayreuth Festival#Bayreuth Memorial implies that it was impossible to honor victims of Nazism who had performed at Bayreuth until after Winifred Wagner's death... AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is described in two places, here and in Daniel Barenboim. The link hides the problem, it's why I have added the template.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racism[edit]

The article states "The essays he wrote in his final years were also controversial, with many readers perceiving them to employ an endorsement of racist beliefs." An editor has proposed instead "The essays he wrote in his final years were also controversial and have been criticized for racism." I have reverted this edit, because the sentence refers to specifically to "the essays he wrote in his final years" which are not explicitly anti-Semitic as was "Das Judentum in der Musik", and do not deal specifically with Jews or racialism. The sections on 'antiSemitism' and 'Racism' in the article expand on this.--Smerus (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now rewritten the sentence in the interests of clarity and conformity with article contents.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_surrounding_Richard_Wagner&oldid=1201120743"