Wikipedia

Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 14

< Talk:Richard Wagner
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Michael Bednarek in topic External link to MuseScore
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Nazi appropriation

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Wagner died in 1883.

The section states: He met Hitler on a number of occasions between 1923 and 1927 in Bayreuth, but cannot credibly be regarded as a conduit of Wagner's own views.

--TudorTulok (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You can change "He" to "Chamberlain" if you want. "He" refers not to Wagner but Chamberlain, the subject of the preceding sentence. Doesn't strike me as unclear. Antandrus (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
--which is indeed quite obvious to those of us who are native and educated English speakers.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.22 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Antandrus, many thanks for the feedback. I made as less edits as possible. I feel it's more clearer, at least to people like me that scrap the page and don't read the entire content, but pick certain sentence from a fast read. TudorTulok (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but with your poor English, perhaps the English Wiki articles are not to be picked apart grammatically by yourself? HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Wagner's writings

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

The impression given by the article is of a common sort of prejudice, commonly shared among 19th century Germans (presumably excluding those counted among Wagner's many "Jewish friends"). This unacceptably deëmphasizes the significance (and vitriol) of Wagner's writing. Two (admittedly, bluntly repetitive) attempts to fix this defect in the Wager article have been reverted, so I am posting this as a defense of my most recent addition. Please consider revising what I have done, and commenting here, rather than simply reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DvUSR (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to chrono order--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Unacceptably deëmphasizes - sez who? The article gives references which suggest otherwise. The vitriol of Wagner's Jew-hatred is not so much in question, but the influence of it is. Only in the past 50 years has there been proposals by some writers that it influenced the opinions of Germans of 100 years ago and more. The antisemitic political movements of 1870s and later in Germany and Austria neither used nor needed Wagner's esoteric contribution to the debate. If you are going to make assertions, you need to cite evidence. Otherwise "Unacceptably deëmphasizes" is very much WP:NNPOV.--Smerus (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
the short answer to sez who? The reference I included to Poliakov.
I reverted two of DvUSR's edits and I have nothing to add to my edit summaries where 1) I pointed out that this article mentions Das Judenthum in der Musik several times and that its details are presented in that article; 2) removed the addition of the Ellis translation which was already listed. Aside: I recommend that DvUSR consult WP:BRD which provides some procedural guidance which would have been appropriate here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
since the reverted edit had no mention of Das Judenthum in der Musik, this comment is a non sequitur
Sequitur: In these two edits you added "Judaism in Music" twice; my edit summary mentions that your addition was unnecessary because "Judaism in Music"/"Das Judenthum in der Musik" was already mentioned several times and that its details are more comprehensively presented at that essay's article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; the revision I had in mind (here) was not performed by you.

Once again I have (tiwce)reverted the edits of DvUSR which he has reinstated despite the above discussion. He is plain wrong about W's influence on 19th century antisemitism which he overassesses. (see e.g. Rose (1992), which is fully cited in the article). I should also be glad to see the citation of any passage where Wagner wrote about 'religious purity'. His concern about W's anti-Semitism is WP:UNDUE in this article, which already refers to W's ideas on Jews in several places. They might, if DvUSR is really concerned, be more appropriate in the articles Wagner controversies or Judaism in Music to which Michael Bednarek refers. I refer DvUSR to WP:POINT and suggest s/he reads it carefully.--Smerus (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this response adds nothing of substance to the debate; I will of course now recommend this for resolution by a third-party. I disagree that the claim that Wagner contributed to the antisemitic ideas of his time is an overstatement. To say that Wagner's views are a mere reflection is too weak for someone of Wagner's social stature (which I take to be uncontroversial); moreover, such a weak statement combines with the following one, about Wagner's "many Jewish friends," to strange effect. I have provided the requested citation to Poliakov, though I now notice that the page number was incorrect: it should have said 435. Here is the quote: "The abstract Highest God of the Germans, Wotan, did not really need to yield place to the God of the Christians; rather could he be completely identified with him: it was sufficient to strip of the physical trapping with which the various stems had clothed him in accordance with their idiosyncrasy, their dwelling place and climate ... . But that one native stem-god, from whom the races all immediately derived their earthly being, was certainly the last to be given up: for in him was found the striking likeness to Christ himself, the Son of God, that he too died, was mourned and avenged -- as we still avenge Christ on the Jews of today." (See Poliakov for the citation). Finally, the attention is not undue: the section is dedicated to the topic of antisemitism, and the edit I advocate are simple, and amply supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DvUSR (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  3O Response: This discussion is unsuitable for Wikipedia:Third opinion as more than two editors have taken part in it. Perhaps you should try the dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. @DvUSR: please remember to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of each one. Thanks. Stfg (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Stfg. I posted to 30 because the specific disagreement in question is between only Smerus and I. The disagreement over "Judaism in Music", which involved a third editor, is resolved. Please reconsider addressing the dispute. -- DvUSR (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. Well, apologies for that. But I think that the discussion that has now started at Wikiproject composers is as good a place as any to progress it. All I would have been able to say is that it depends on the balance of reliable sources, and I'd have asked you both to discuss that balance, enumerating the most significant sources on both sides. 3O volunteers opine on articles they haven't worked on before, which in this case would probably mean someone who hasn't delved in depth into this particular issue. This is an issue for scholars of Wagner, of the social history of music, and of German history, I think. I would expect there to be hundreds of sources discussing the question of Wagner's influence (or otherwise) on future attitudes.
I will venture that the Poliakov quote you give above seems to say more about Poliakov's reading of the relationship between Wotan and the Christian God than it says about Wagner's views, much less about his influence. But I can't take a view on your wider dispute. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion as suggested by Stfg, now opened here. --Smerus (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: "I posted to 30 because the specific disagreement in question is between only Smerus and I [sic]."
I think you mean "between Smerus and me". I is a subject, not an object. To say between Smerus and I is precisely as horrendously ungrammatical and jarring to the ear as it would be to say, for example, Talk to I. TheScotch (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? Grammar nazi for this discussion? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 July 2015‎ (UTC)
I know a little of this debate and having scanned this discussion quickly would have to say that despite both fanciful, and more reasoned discussions about this over the years, you would struggle to find a source that supported the idea that Wagner's rather "peculiar", "esoteric" and far from pleasant antisemitic views or writings ever had any influence on future antisemitism. Perhaps the only person of any note that could be cited would be Joachim Kohler's "Wagner's Hitler" and he retracted this argument last year in "The Wagner Journal" saying he was wrong and the argument simply could not be justified. I am not really a wiki editor, I sadly do not have the time, but if needed can supply references. Although, looking at the article, I think there are many others who understand this argument well enough Dreeddor (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:Monopoly31121993

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I copy here discussion from my talk-page, and invite the comments of other editors:

Hi Smerus, I saw your revert of my edits from today on the page about Wagner. I spent quite a lot of time researching this topic and this information is not simply stated already on other pages related to Wagner. I can understand adding some edits to what I wrote but a mass revert of everything that I added is excessive. Please re-read what I edited and reconsider your changes. I appreciate your help and your interest in the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Monopoly31121993, and thanks for your comments. There were two reasons behind my reverts; one is that the extent of coverage was WP:UNDUE in the context of the article on Wagner (although your edits may have relevance for the article Wagner controversies); the other is your reliance on the book about Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Chamberlain, although married to one of Wagner's daughters, never met Wagner. The author of the book on Chamberlain would not be rated as a Wagner expert. I don't think that Cosima's comments about Gobineau or extended discussion of Gobineau and Wagner is very productive since there are many Wagner writers who have demonstrated that Wagner came to Gobineau very late in life (and moreover, of course, Gobineau although a racist was not anti-Jewish). When the article was up for WP:GA and WP:FA there was a lot of discussion as to presentation (both in terms of quality and quantity) of Wagner's Jew-hatred and the article as it presently stands reflects that consensus. I think if you want to go into more detail, then the article Wagner controversies may be the place for it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Smerus, thanks for your quick reply. I understand your some of your points but I think it's best if we take this one edit at a time and not in an all or nothing kind of way. Despite the fact that the page is a FA there are, like on several other FA pages, major errors that the editor who evaluated it likely overlooked since it is not their job to fact check every citation. In this case there is an error where the article states that "There seems to be no evidence to support claims, sometimes made,[262] that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War.[n 23]". When I went to the Time article referenced there it said the following "Wagner's music sometimes sounded in the death camps". The text in the article is clearly wrong and therefore needs to be edited in order to reflect what was actually said, which in this case was the exact opposite of what you have reverted the text to.

There are several other points that I don't see any good reason for not including: 1) The fact that Gobineau and Wagner met in Rome, 2) Wagner's wife own statement that Wagner was fascinated by the 1400 page text by Gobineau, and 3) The titles of Wagner's written texts on Judaism (Judaism in Music (1850), Religion and Art (October 1880) and Heroism and Christianity (September 1881)) which were all removed after I added them.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Answers as follows. 1) Wagner met thousands of people and the fact he met Gobineau is in no way significant. 2) Wagner's 'Judaism in Music' is mentioned already in the article. The other two late essays have never been held to be influential. 'Religion and Art' concerns itself neither with racism or Judaism. 'Hero-dom and Christianity' does not mention Judaism and deals with Gobineau and race, although (in both German and English) it is virtually unreadable for its gabble. Both appeared in the Bayreuther Blätter, where they had a very small readership. If you have studied Gobineau, by the way, you will know that he was not at all anti-Jewish. 2) The 'Time' magazine article is just wrong - no one has found any evidence that Wagner was played at any of the death camps. The 'Time' article is explicitly included in the article as an example of the unsubstantiated claims 'sometimes made', and the other sources quoted indicate that 'Time' was in error. Please read the article text and the citations carefully and ensure that you clearly understand both them and their context in the article. And I also suggest that before citing writings by Wagner on the basis of third-party constructions, you take the trouble to read them in the original, to save misundertandings or misrepresentations. Best regards, -- Smerus (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC).
Hi Smerus and thanks for your knowledge on this but I still think you're missing some important points. 1- the section is titled "Racism and antisemitism" so it really doesn't matter whether Gobineau was only a racist and not an anti-Semite because both are relevant to this section. 2- The point about Wagner's wife writing to Gobineau should be included because, although you claim that Gobineau was just a passing acquaintance of Wagner's, he clearly thought highly enough of him to spend hours reading his 1400 page book on racism. 3- I do see that 'Judaism in Music' is already mentioned in the article but that text is clearly focused on Wager's anti-Semitic beliefs and therefore is far more appropriate in the section titled "Racism and antisemitism."

I suggest that Racism and antisemitism be divided. Then this sentences on 'Judaism in Music' and antisemitism should be migrated down to the section on anti-semitism. The sentences related to Gobineau (who you mention was not necessarily anti-semitic) can be placed in the Racism section. You are correct about the death camps however but I would like to see additional sources there which can collaboratively debunk that myth. Thanks again for your expertise.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

My supposed 'knowledge' is not relevant here! Our job as editors is to reflect what reliable experts on article topics have written. You think Gobineau is important to Wagner's allover story; I personally don't. But that's irrelevant. The leading published authorities on the topic are split - and that is what the article should reflect. I have reworded it to make this more clear. What Cosima wrote to or about Gobineau is likewise scarcely material unless it tells us something consequential about Wagner and his life and beliefs. Wagner appears to have met Gobineau thrice; on the first occasion he couldn't understand his French, and the other occasions were during Gobineau's visits to Bayreuth when they chatted on a wide variety of issues (according to Cosima's diary). [By the way on 21 May 1882 Cosima records that Wagner tells her that Gobineau 'possesses much acuteness, but no real profundity', which suggests that in fact he did not rate him that highly). As the real experts are divided on this matter, Wikipedia shouldn't come down on one side or the other. I have also added to the text in this section a specific mention of Jewishness in Music. I hope that this may prove satisfactory to you. About the music in the death-camps - as with many myths, you can't in fact fully disprove it, you can only point to the entire absence of any first-hand evidence.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Polemicist", seriously?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What an encyclopaedic way to describe a person, huh? Why can't we talk about him as the poet or the essayist he was? At least in the first two lines... No, I think it's better like this.

That's not an occupation, folks.

-186.113.198.61 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I take it you have not yet read this article. I encourage you to do so—I think you may learn something from it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Essayist and polemicist are largely interchangeable in this context, and he was quite vociferous about his opinions on the chosen ones so polemicist isn't too far off the mark. I'm not sure why polemicist is wikilinked though, since wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zaostao (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

The FAC three years ago called "There seems to be no evidence to support claims, sometimes made,[263] that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War.[n 23]" (and presumably the content of the attached footnote) editorializing, but it seems to have survived completely intact since that date. Can some explanation be provided? The footnote contained (and still contains) a claim that a paper that included a detailed study of Nazi death camp music doesn't mention Wagner, which seems inappropriate (this claim itself does not appear in a reliable source; it is an original interpretation of a source and an argument from silence). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smerus: Re this: The text of the article says there is no evidence. You are right on that point. It is not clear why you mention that in your edit summary, because I never disputed that. However, if the sources are correctly cited, only one of them actually confirms this. I do not disagree with how that source is used, so it is equally confusing why you would mention that. The other source (the one that was tagged!) is cited as not mentioning Wagner at all. I feel that it is inappropriate to cite such a source in this context, since it is not about Wagner. The claim that "John (2004) [is] a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps [and] nowhere mentions Wagner" is not attributed to any reliable source -- it is a Wikipedian's going through and counting the number of times the article's subject is mentioned in a source on another topic.
This sentence was called out as editorializing during the FAC, with apparently no response.
Additionally, I'm seeing some strong evidence of WP:OWN here. I came along to an article and made an edit to what I saw. I did not look at the page history. I did not examine who had made what edits when. I had never heard of you or interacted with you before. Within a few hours you came along and reverted my edits, claiming that I was "rude" toward you personally because I had made two edits to this article that you didn't agree with. Why would you take my edits so personally?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Here, to remind you, are the comments you provided with your original edits: "This definitely looks like OR: "I read a detailed study of the topic and Wagner wasn't mentioned by name once" is, if accurate, not really relevant to the article on Wagner himself." and "I'm always skeptical of claims made on Wikipedia that contain obvious grammar errors -- if someone can write "has been disproved" and thinks it appropriate for an encyclopedia, how do we know they haven't misread their source?". The article however is based on sourced citations, not on seeking to pick fights with other editors.--Smerus (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did indeed write those things. As everyone can see, there is nothing in them about seeking to pick fights with other editors -- maybe you are projecting?
Now could you respond to what I wrote immediately above rather than trying to throw mud in my face for stuff I said yesterday and almost immediately retracted?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smerus: So, are you going to respond to me any time? Or are you just going to remove tags and refuse to provide a rationale other than "your edit summaries were rude? You have apparently logged in at least twice since seeing the above response -- if you don't want to reply to me, that's fine, but you can't continuously revert good edits and then refuse to explain your reversion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smerus: Where in the above did you explain why the tag was inappropriate? Claiming that you have an external source doesn't make this any less OR on the subject of Richard Wagner, because by your own admission the source doesn't mention Wagner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, the article is based on sourced citations. If you disagree with them you should provide sourced citations supporting your view.--Smerus (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It is OR to synthesize sources that discuss our topic with other sources that don't mention him to give an impression to the reader that is not found in any sourcd. How are you not getting this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smerus: So, are you just going to keep reverting while ignoring me on the talk page? That's normally considered to be edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it does appear to be editorializing as it is written ("there seems to be no evidence"), but in point of fact that wording misstates the case. I would re-word it as "There has been no evidence to support claims, sometimes made, that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War, and Pamela Potter has noted that Wagner's music was explicitly off-limits." Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Softlavender for this constructive solution which I am happy to adopt.--Smerus (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Softlavender and her solution. The claim did "appear" as editorialising which is much better expressed by reference to an explicit statement in the reliable source. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Softlavender's solution is good for the wording of the body of the article, but doesn't address the footnote attached to it ("See e.g. John (2004) for a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps, which nowhere mentions Wagner"). It's my opinion that this is redundant with the clear statement that there is no evidence at best, and inappropriate OR (no source actually makes the claim that John doesn't mention Wagner, and John's not mentioning Wagner makes him and inappropriate source for this article) at worst. Can we not just remove it as redundant? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia statement that there has been no evidence needs a citation. That citation works as well as any; if there is a better one, it can be added or substituted. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Unsubstantiated" (a word we quote Potter as using) means the same thing as "no evidence", doesn't it? A source that doesn't mention Wagner at all (John, at least as we cite him) cannot be used as a citation for the specific claim that there is no evidence that Wagner's music was not used. Our characterization of John as "detailed" (obviously implying that it is comprehensive) is apparently wrong, as a comprehensive study would specifically address popular misconceptions about the topic and would be more than ten pages in length. Potter appears to be both more comprehensive and more relevant to our topic (although our citation of Potter is incomplete as it doesn't include page numbers, and I can't access the full essay in the GBooks preview, it seems to be longer than John). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A detailed 9-page essay doesn't imply comprehensive or exhaustive, nor would it address popular misconceptions, nor is the claim that Wagner's music was played in WWII death camps a popular misconception; it's simply a claim that has sometimes been made. The John citation isn't even there anymore (I think Smerus may have inadvertently removed it). I think it should be replaced, since the statement needs a citation. I personally don't have a problem with the statement "There has been no evidence to support claims, sometimes made, ...." If anyone has better wording, please suggest it. If anyone has better citations, let them suggest them. In any case, I think it's important to mention, since there's lots of Wagner myths floating about.. Perhaps the wording could be something like "Claims have sometimes been made that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War, but expert sources on the subject do not mention it, and Pamela Potter has noted that Wagner's music was explicitly off-limits in the camps." Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The only reason a "detailed" study would be cited as John currently is would be if it was comprehensive/exhaustive and therefore one would expect it to mention Wagner if his music was used (and I don't think using a source in such a way is appropriate for a Wikipedia article -- it's a piece of data that someone like Potter might be allowed to cite in an essay). A 9-page study could not necessarily be expected to mention Wagner one way or another unless his music was a central feature of the camps. We seem to have a misunderstanding though: I am fine with the current wording of the sentence in the body (the wording you quote); it's the footnote (which still includes the words "See e.g. John (2004) for a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps, which nowhere mentions Wagner") that I'm talking about. I apologize for not being clearer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I imagine that it's the most detailed or most exhaustive study that the editors of this wiki article have thus far come across (and it says "e.g." -- in other words, it's one of many sources). And it does not mention Wagner; nor apparently do any of the other studies on the subject that Smerus has examined (and he is a published scholar in the area of music and Jews). There's no specific reason for any study to mention various and sundry composers that were not played (Why do that?). There was every reason for Potter to mention it because her essay is entitled ""Wagner and the Third Reich: myths and realities". I think it's important for both John and Potter to be mentioned. If you believe John should be removed, you'd need to gain a consensus for that; so far three editors seem to be in favor of retaining it. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"There's no specific reason for any study to mention various and sundry composers that were not played" But don't you see the problem there? Why don't we add the text "See e.g. John (2004) for a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps, which nowhere mentions X" to our article on every composer whose music was not used in death camps? (Don't answer that; it's a rhetorical question.) I'm not really that interested in making any further edits to this page or in seeking to get consensus for the edit I already tried to make. My rationale was repeatedly ignored by one editor with clear WP:OWN problems who kept insulting me rather than addressing my argument. Of the two other users who showed up several weeks later, one definitely misunderstood my concern until after they had already stated they disagreed with me, and the other probably misunderstood my concern until after they had already stated they disagreed with me. I was already ready to give up before either of you posted here, so why would I go out of my way to continue? I guess western classical music is another area like superhero movies and the MOS that editing just isn't pleasant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There would be no reason to "add the text 'See e.g. John (2004) for a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps, which nowhere mentions X' to our article on every composer whose music was not used in death camps". The reason it's mentioned here is because claims have sometimes been made that Wagner's music was played at WWII death camps, and we're providing checkable reliable sources on the subjects that (1) tend to refute that and (2) refute that outright. In my view both are acceptable and helpful to the reader. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not having seen the word "tend" used in that way before, I looked it up, and the OED says it's a mathematical term. Weird. Anyway, I still don't think Wikipedia should be citing sources that "tend" to say what we are trying to say, especially when other, already-cited, sources say so explicitly. I imagine that if we took this to RSN or NORN the majority of watchers on those pages would agree with me. It also doesn't seem helpful to our readers to tell them to check a scholarly article to make sure it doesn't mention Wagner; I think dropping the imperative "see", i.e. John (2004) is a detailed essay on music in the Nazi death camps, which nowhere mentions Wagner., would be better. That said, I don't really care all that much (I don't actually doubt that John is a detailed study that doesn't mention Wagner) and the way I've been dicked around with makes me reluctant to actually pursue either of these options (noticeboards or tweaking the wording). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Early life

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,

I'm writing to discuss the edits that I proposed in his early life. I wanted to write the following:

According to Wagner's autobiography, in Leipzig in May 1832, Wagner encountered numerous Polish participants in the November Uprising, a cause for which Wagner felt great sympathy, including Count Wincenty Tyszkiewicz, whom he loved with profound adoration. Their singing of Polish folk songs on May_3rd_Constitution_Day inspired Wagner to compose Polonia. Tyszkiewicz accompanied Wagner to Brno, from which Tyszkiewicz returned to his estate in Galicia and Wagner continued on to Vienna (Wagner, My Life 1983, pp. 58-61).

I think it's important for three reasons. First, it comes from Wagner himself, therefore such statements are not a matter of conjecture by musicologists but are a matter of historical fact--facts that reflect the Zeitgeist. Second, Wagner is known for his support of revolutions, which made him run around Europe. This lesser-known fact adds further support to that narrative. Third, the fact actually challenges the narrative, which got shaped after his death, of his association with German nationalism and nationalistic music. That novelty is important to consider given historical and current German-Polish relations.

Smerus wanted to remove the quotes because Smerus thought that there was too much emphasis on Tyszkiewicz. I removed references to him but it was deemed as being too much detail by Gerda Arendt. I don't think it's too much detail to document with 100% the compositional motivations of a composer, which is extremely difficult to do. Such cases are rare. (I'm a doctoral candidate in music theory, so please believe me when I say that).

So in summary, I don't understand why the wikipedia editors don't want to challenge the current narrative and include these facts? Thanks. Submitted humbly and with respect according to the wikipedia guidelines. -Wmh1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmh1978 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Wmh1978, for your interest and reflecting these additions. It's much better to discuss than change edits back and forth, naturally without nuance. (General rule: once reverted, go to the talk page.) Further up on this page, you'll see that Smerus was a principal editor to this article, which is of highest quality. Reading the proposed addition, just one remark from me: "whom he loved with profound adoration" is no encyclopedic language, unless Wagner said so, but then it would require quotation marks, the German original and a source right after the quotation. Let's take some time to discuss here what to include precisely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, Can you give me an example? I obviously included information where I thought it was appropriate and would benefit readers. I thought that the point of wikipedia is to expand knowledge and create connections that did not exist. Apparently, you are the arbiter of what is and is not obscure with regards to Polish history, which you probably learned during the Cold War when Poland was forced to accept communism as a result of crappy deals in Yalta and a rigged election in 1947. The US was on the side of Poland during WWII and Kosiuszko founded West Point. And the restoration of Poland was one of Wilson's 14 points. Are those facts obscure, too? Take care, -Wmh1978
With all due respect, Wikipedia articles should certainly not seek to "expand knowledge and create connections that did not exist", because that would be original research or else synthesis. Softlavender is right; the article can introduce such material only if a preponderance of secondary sources on Wagner deal with it and judge it relevant to the composer and his life. Added to which, as Gerda points out above (in an edit summary?), Wagner's autobiography diary must inevitably contain many, many details. It's not really our task to pick and choose the bits that interest us most and add them to articles. Autobiographies Diaries are primary sources - we use primary sources only with the greatest caution and circumspection, if at all. See WP:PRIMARY. Haploidavey (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect to User:Haploidavey, if synthesis, by which I mean cross-reference, is not allowed on wikipedia, then why does this [[ ]] doulble-bracket hyperlinking cross-reference function exist? As for the comment about "picking and choosing" interesting bits, is it not the case that every addition by every user represents some sort of choice, with the sum of all user-derived choices being the currently accepted narrative about a topic? Humbly submitted, -Wmh1978

A child prodigy or not?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have read that Wagner "had trouble playing the scales" and "preferred playing ... by ear". Also, it took quite a time for me to calculate the age when he received musical training. Does this make sense, though?

--Onetinyludwiggard (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? no one has ever claimed that Wagner was a child prodigy. The article makes it clear he was no such thing.--Smerus (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Influence on cinema

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This section gives for illustration purposes some examples of film music using Wagner, commencing "Amongst...." It is not intended as a full list which would be enormous and WP:UNDUE (as has previously been discussed on this talk page), and which would undo the article's FA status. If anyone wants to prepare such a list as a separate article (or e.g. prepare an article Wagner and the cinema), and give a link at the head of the section, they are of course welcome to do so.Smerus (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See slippery slope. I did not have in mind to create a comprehensive list of every Wagner appearance in the seventh art. I just find it curious that you would have mentions of Excalibur and A Dangerous Method, and not The New World, when the latter's use of Wagner is much more notable and well known.[1][2][3][4] Gertanis (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, "well-known" is a bit (may be a lot) of a WP:WEASEL. Some examples will be well-known to some, some others to others; many, doubtless, to few. The examples you give do indeed cite Wagner in connection with the film, but they don't in themselves claim, or demonstrate, that the film's use of W. is "much more notable and well known" than other uses. Therefore safer to leave as it is. The use of Wagner in the cinema does, I think, actually justify a full article, if anyone gets round to it.--Smerus (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Granted, although some judgment must have been put into the current selection of soundtracks. I still wonder why Boorman and Cronenberg warrant mention here, but not Malick. Compare Google searches: wagner the new world; wagner excalibur; wagner a dangerous method. --Gertanis (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Gertanis, I think in terms of politeness you might have awaited the full discussion here before reinserting your additional film to the list. Your main argument does not seem to extend much further than WP:ILIKEIT. I won't say I don't like this film: in fact I had never heard of it. I do know of, and like, a number of other films that use Wagner's music (e.g. The Great Dictator, Murder!, Romeo + Juliet, and especially What's Opera, Doc?) but I don't intend to add them. The sentence in the article begins "Amongst film scores citing..." and indicates simply that there are a number of such scores, instances of which are given. It doesn't rate them by notability, they are just examples. The existing list was agreed at the the FA review. Adding more is indeed just WP:COATRACKing, unless you can demonstrate that they tell us something specifically about Wagner, the subject of the article. I therefore retain my view that your addition should be removed. Let us see to what consensus, if any, this discussion leads.

By the way, your citation leads to the Norwegian version of Google books and is unreadable to English readers. Please avoid this sort of thing when you are editing English-language Wikipedia, especially FA articles.--Smerus (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: In my opinion, any entries in that section should derive only from notable reliable neutral third-party sources on Wagner's music, or on the use of Wagner's music in cinema. Entries should not derive from reviews of individual films or directors. Otherwise, nearly every film that has excerpted Wagner, of which there are well over a thousand, could be mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that reversion; my impatience got the better of me yesterday. Yes, I do indeed like this film very much, and I cannot see any discussion of its inclusion (or any other film) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Wagner/archive2. I am still curious about what decisions lie behind the current inclusions of films by Messrs. Cronenberg, Boorman & von Trier, and am not a fan of that COATRACK dig, as I think it's similar to the slippery slope logical fallacy I cited above. But I won't argue any longer—my time would be better spent in expanding the article on Malick's chef-d'oeuvre. I'll leave this to you guys. Gertanis (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start here - List of films using the music of Richard Wagner - but please edit and improve, as I am not strong on this sort of thing.Smerus (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good start; thank you very much for that. The list should ideally be prosified and moved to Richard Wagner and Cinema, but that's for a later occasion. Gertanis (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I note that there's an anthology called Wagner and Cinema, edited by Jeongwon Joe and Sander L. Gilman (Indiana UP, 2010) which could be used for expansion. Gertanis (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

views

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I see the number of daily views for this article has shot up over the past two weeks from about 4,000 views per day to 15,000 views or more - any ideas why this is so? - Smerus (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I generally blame Russian bots for everything these days, but I can't see the connection here. Honestly, this is kind of odd; that's a pretty big jump. Do you check the pageviews on this article with some regularity, and if so is the jump unusual? Anyway, using a Google timed search, the only thing I found is that one online radio show is airing the Ring this month: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I check it from time to time out of interest - it has never been at these levels.--Smerus (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thor: Ragnarok? For convenience, I've put up {{Annual readership}}/{{Graph:PageViews}} above. Feel free to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
By George, I think you may have cracked it, Michael Bednarek! We should also check the page views for Götterdämmerung and Der Ring des Nibelungen. Leave it to silly popular culture to spike a great composer through the stratosphere. I studiously boycott all comic-book movies (well, I did see the Michael Keaton Batman back in the day), but I consider Taika Waititi a genius, having watched Hunt for the Wilderpeople, so I may have to check this new thing out at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Could be - views for Valkyrie have doubled over the same period from about 2,500 to about 5,000/day; but Götterdämmerung is more or less static at around 500, and Der Ring des Nibelungen shows no significant medium-term variation. And even if Thor: Ragnarok were the motivation, why would readers look at RW more than those topics? Afa I can see, the T:R article doesn't mention any of the above topics. Whilst Michael Bednarek's proposal seems plausible, it may be an instance of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In the meantime, as I think the main begetter of the article in its present format, I think I may congratulate myself on being the world's greatest authority on RW (in terms of numbers of readers). :-) --Smerus (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I checked Google, and reviews or mentions of Thor: Ragnarok mention Richard Wagner a lot, whereas they don't mention Götterdämmerung or Der Ring des Nibelungen, although many do mention Valkyrie(s). The movie is massively popular and hugely anticipated, especially since Taika Waititi is the movie industry's current Wunderkind. Softlavender (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you only need a few big non-WP sites to link here to give a massive boost. It will slowly fade away (until the next film). This is what has happened at our Ragnarök itself over the last 2 years. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The views still seem to be on the rise. I shall reinvest my bitcoin in Wagner views.... Or maybe the page has indeed fallen under the influence of Russian bots....-- Smerus (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

:-) Care to make it interesting? Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It is strange how the disambiguation sentence at the beginning of the article just references the surname Wagner and doesn't tell people what to do if they're looking for other people named Richard Wagner. I suspect a lot of people are going to be coming here looking for Richard Wagner (judge) who has just been appointed as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and will get confused. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily average Richard Wagner (judge) = 90. Daily average Richard Wagner (composer) = 4796. I guess WP readers are smart enough to know what they are looking for, and, if they don't find it where they expect, to look it up at Wagner (surname) where everyone - including the judge - is set out in straightforward, unconfusing, alphabetical order. Suspecting that readers will be confused is condescending to say the least. --Smerus (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Still bragging about those pageviews, Smerus? :) Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
heh --Smerus (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wagner's Signature

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that Wagner's signature in the header box is only partially displayed. Most of the signature is cut off and only fully visible once you click on the image. I'm not sure how to fix this; perhaps someone could make the necessary changes? Taiga Norge (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I see the full signature both in the infobox and when I click the image. Might have something to do with the kind of device you are using or some other aspect of your computer set-up. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Libretto and music

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Unlike most opera composers, Wagner wrote both the libretto and the music for each of his stage works.

This is an interesting sentence, but i feel like it's incomplete. Did any composers before Wagner write both the libretto/music? how many after? Did Wagner change anything? What percentage of composers write both? hbdragon88 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There are so many things we can NOT say about HIM in this article, that history of libretto writing seems undue weight in the biography. Try in some of the specialized articles, perhaps. Most other opera composers active in librtto writing secured the help from professionals, it seems, such as Peter Eötvös for Tri sestry (opera). Aribert Reimann wrote librettos, such as Das Schloß (opera), and Philip Glass, such as La Belle et la Bête (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I wasn't really looking to put undue weight on libretto writing, but rather what it meant to qualify the word "most". hbdragon88 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd know many composers, but only these few came to my mind, and they didn't do it for all their works, so he may the only who did that for each work. How about asking project opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

pronunciation

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would suggest /vaːknɐ/, perhaps also with a final R-sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.165 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Description and justification for edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Description and explanation of these edits.

  1. Change descriptor from "composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor" to "composer", per WP:BLPLEAD, which states "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable."
  2. Reorganize "biography" section into various sections. This whole article is a biography there shouldn't be a section titled biography.
  3. Moved photos and pictures to a more pleasing arrangement.

Rgds, LK (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

First, you should consider WP:BRD – it's not BRRD. Second, the original sections were more logical and provided the reader with a better structure of this article. Lastly, it is customary to discuss substantial changes to a featured article first on its talk page. Please restore the article to its version from 26 July 2019. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It would I think have been helpful if LK had read the article through before making the changes he proposed. Firstly he would have understood that Wagner is WP:NOTABLE not just as a composer but also in the other roles mentioned. He would also have realized that it is not the case that the "whole article is a biography" but that it also considers W's music and influence, in the manner of the great majority of other FA WP articles on composers. 'Pleasing arrangement' of photos is bound to be a personal thing, but the present arrangement was agreed after FA review and I think can therefore be taken as a consensus, in the absence of detailed reasons for any changes. Best therefore if any proposed rearrangement of the article is discussed on the talk page, as suggested above. In the meantime I have reverted.--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
If you review some highly trafficked FA biographies, you will see that the points I raised above are common practice. Cf Obama. Remember that consensus is not local. Given the opposition to the changes, I think it's best if we start a RFC. LK (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lawrencekhoo, if your BOLD changes are reverted on any article , you need to get WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating them. Please read WP:BRD. Right now there is no consensus at all for any of those changes on this article. Also, if you "start an RfC", it can only be regarding one of those three points, not all three. Since currently you have three highly experienced editors disagreeing with your changes, you'd probably be better off making a courteous and rational case for each of the changes, or dropping the stick. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ethnic German family

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because he was born in a predominantly "jewish" neighborhood of Leipzig, someone has decided it has to be stressed that Wagner came frome an "ethnic german" family. Sounds somewhat awkward, strange. To say the least. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One, or possibly 2, IP editor(s) seem(s) concerned to discredit the assertion that this book by Houston Stewart Chamberlain is racist. I have added a further citation asserting its racism, and restored the text to the wording agreed when the article was given FA status.--Smerus (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Dred05m: User:Jerome Kohl has already explained this to you in his revert of your edits. We must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. The source says "The truth is that many Nazis, in high and low places, were bored to tears by Wagner. ... The point is only worth stressing here because the Nazis are reputed to have had a special affinity to Wagner's music." This supports the version we have been reverting to: "the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence". It certainly does not support your version: "the Nazi hierarchy shared Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and enjoined attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's request." Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Really Double sharp, this is the most stupid lie I have ever heard in my life: Hitler forced the entire Nazi-top to listen to the music of Wagner. I don't care about the source, lie is a lie. Dred05m (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

4 Controversies 4.1 Racism and antisemitism

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I apologise for raising this issue again. But I do find the drafting of this section (1) almost incomprehensible and (2) grotesquely pusillanimous. There should be a clear statement in this article that Wagner held and expressed anti-semitic views. The statement could be short - a sentence would do. The failure to state this is a serious defect in Wikipedia's treatment of this topic. By all means, put Wagner's anti-semitism in its historical context. But grasp the nettle and state the plain truth. Does anyone seriously disagree with Daniel Barenboim - "This historical background does not change the fact that Richard Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite of the worst kind whose statements are unforgiveable." Feel free to argue that Wagner cannot be wholly blamed for the use made of his anti-semitic expressions by the Nazis - but do not use this as a camouflage to avoid stating that Wagner himself held and expressed anti-semitic views. Again, Daniel Barenboim - "as revolting as Wagner’s anti-Semitism may be, one can hardly hold him responsible for Hitler’s use and abuse of his music and his world views." I do not intend to try to edit this article myself. But I do appeal to those who are involved in its editing to take some steps to remedy this.

For Barenboim's essay : https://danielbarenboim.com/wagner-israel-and-the-palestinians/ --Gwedi elwch (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Gwedi elwch, I have added the word 'hostile' at the start of the section in case anyone should be so disingenuous to assume otherwise. But I'm afraid I can't agree with your analysis. Wagner held anti-Jewish views: he however did not join the antisemitic (political) movement in Germany in the 1870s and after, although invited by them to give his imprimatur. He also had Jewish friends throughout his life, some of whom were devoted to him despite his known rhetoric against their race and religion. I am not aware that he ever committed violence or exclusion against Jews, but if you can find such actions please add them (with citations) to the article. I too find his anti-Jewish rhetoric offensive, but it is not for us to find his statements 'unforgiveable' (or indeed 'forgiveable') - it should be sufficient to note them and to assume that people can form their own conclusions. It's not Wikipedia's role to preach. If Barenboim agrees that "one can hardly hold [Wagner] responsible for Hitler’s use and abuse of his music and his world views", then I am at one with him, save for the fact that I am not aware that Hitler ever made any reference to Wagner's 'world views' as regards Jews - again, I am open to correction if you can provide me with any citations to the contrary.

In the essay by Barenboim which you recommend, Barenboim himself writes:

Wagner’s anti-Semitic statements must be seen in [...] context. The anti-Semitism of his era was already a widespread illness since time immemorial, even if Jews were accepted, respected, and even honored in certain circles of German society. A healthy measure of anti-Semitism was an unquestioned component of the nationalistic movements in late 19th century Europe. It was nothing extraordinary to blame the Jews for all current problems, whether political, economical, or cultural. In addition to the age-old hatred of Jews that had previously been directed against the Jewish religion, the anti-Semitism of the late 19th century was also justified by criteria of “ancestry” and “race” and was directed against the now largely emancipated and assimilated European Jewry.

Barenboim then goes on to talk about antisemitism in the 20th century - without however linking Wagner to this growth. That absence is rather fatal to his (and your) argument. Wagner, like many figures in history, made unpleasant comments about Jews; but there is not the slightest evidence that he, or his writings, ever played a major, (or in my opinion, for what it is worth, even minor), role in the growth of Germanic antisemitism. Wagner was, it appears to me, not a very pleasant person, but to rope in Hitler and Nazism in evaluating him seems to me to be a reductio ad Hitlerum. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gwedi elwch, I understand your point while at the same time agree with Smerus. Yes, the section appears to be short but if you can expand it (with citations + reliable references) to elaborate his actions, feel free to do so - Jay (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd also mention that there is a separate article Wagner controversies which could be more sutiable for expanded debate on this issue.--Smerus (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The addition of the following external link Free digital scores by Richard Wagner in the OpenScore Lieder Corpus has now been removed by three editors, including Smerus who brought this article to Featured Article status. I have now removed it again. The onus is on the editor repeatedly restoring this against consensus to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I strongly suggest you start now. The link is labelled as "Free Scores" but the page to which it links contains only the digital scores for the Wesendonck-Lieder, which are also contained at the IMSLP along with virtually all the available Wagner scores. It adds nothing to this biographical article. If, anywhere, it belongs on Wesendonck Lieder, but even there it is superfluous given the link to IMSLP. Wikipedia is not a link farm. The fact that links to MuseScore have been added to multiple articles is not a valid reason to add one here or anywhere else. They were all added by a single editor yesterday [7]. Dan rootham and Jojo-schmitz, if you are affiliated in any way with MuseScore, you especially need to bring any links to that site to the relevant article talk page before addition. Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified to the talk pages of WikiProject Opera, WikiProject Classical music, and WikiProject Composers to ensure as wide a participation as possible. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the leader of the OpenScore project and its subproject OpenScore Lieder Corpus. OpenScore is a crowdsourced digitisation project, like Wikipedia or Project Gutenberg, but for sheet music. Our contributors care deeply about the project, and it seems that some of them have been a bit overzealous in promoting it! They saw that composer pages on Wikipedia have links to IMSLP and other external sites and they assumed it would be OK to add one more. To do this without permission is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's policies, so I will ask them to refrain from doing it again in the future unless they get prior approval via Talk pages. We're very sorry for the trouble caused! By the way, the value of our links (as opposed to those of IMSLP and others) is that our scores are semantic XML files (i.e. editable and machine-parseable, unlike the PDF files on IMSLP) and licensed under Creative Commons Zero (unlike the semantic scores on other websites). In addition, because the files are hosted on MuseScore.com, we are able to offer in-browser playback, enabling you to listen to the scores and follow along with the notation (as demonstrated here), which is something that all of the other websites lack. Finally, our scores undergo a review process to ensure accuracy with the original scores, which again is not something that any other website provides. I agree that there isn't much value in linking to a single score by Richard Wagner, but there may be value in linking to some of the composers that we have more works for, especially some of the lesser-known composers that are not well represented elsewhere. Peter Jonas (shoogle) (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I can now see potential value in those scores, although I agree with previous editors here that putting on Wagner's page a URL that only covers one work is not helpful. Note: It took more than 5 minutes for the score at https://musescore.com/openscore-lieder-corpus/scores/5026068 (Wesendonck No. 1) to start playing, which probably exceeds most visitors' patience – although the resulting sound rendering was quite pleasing, except when it stuttered in the last 2 bars. Also, the blatant commercial advertising for Musescore Pro is a bit off-putting. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding! Scores shouldn't take more than a few seconds to load - I have certainly never experienced one taking 5 minutes to load! It was probably a temporary thing, or a regional issue with the CDN. I think the advertising you refer to is actually a "breaking news" banner to say that some features, which used to be Pro features, are now part of the free account - so almost the opposite to an advert for a Pro account! In any case, it is a temporary banner that will probably be gone in a week or so. At least that's the case on the desktop site anyway; the mobile site might be different. Peter Jonas (shoogle) (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the 5-minute delay seems to have been temporary. It now takes less than 2 seconds. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Wagner/Archive_14&oldid=1227369719"