Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Born in the "Jewish quarter"?

According to both the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Jewish Virtual Library there were only roughly 50 Jews or so living in Leipzig at the time of Wagner's birth and most of them were living there only recently. In fact it was small enough that a cemetery for them would not be established until 1815 and an official community with a synagogue not until 1837. I'm sure there were some Jews living on or in the area of the Bruhl when Wagner was born but saying he was born in the "Jewish quarter" sounds like it's stirring up unneeded controversy.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/leipzig-germany http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9731-leipsic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a7d4:1930:8d23:5414:4780:861c (talk • contribs)

The references show that he was born in the Jewish quarter - that looks to be a fact. If you think the relevance is in question you need to find a reference. The above argument is oiginal research -----Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"The references show that he was born in the Jewish quarter" Which ones? And what are their own sources? I know the Jewish Encyclopedia is considered a well established resource and I don't see why it would be outweighed by other sources. If you don't want it taken out all together then I don't see the harm in at least adding what the Encyclopedia says to make the claim more nuanced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a7d4:1930:8d23:5414:4780:861c (talk • contribs)

Well the house he was born in is in the Jewish Quarter. If you are arguing that is not relevant I think you need something stronger by way of argument than than saying there were not many Jews living there -----Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Well the house he was born in is in the Jewish Quarter" Again, you state this as if this were a 100% verified fact but my own sources and Wikipedia's own article on the history of the Jews in Leipzig illustrate that there was no such thing as a Jewish Quarter at the time Wagner was born nor even an officially established community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a7d4:1930:8d23:5414:4780:861c (talk • contribs)

Some context. The Leipzig page of the Museum of the Jewish People website makes it clear that there were fifty families of merchants living in Leipzig at 1800, (that is, 13 years before Wagner's birth). That is not "50 Jews", it suggests at least 200 Jews. It also says that many thousands visited Leipzig each year for its Fair. The same source also says that "The Bruehl Quarter was opened to the Jews". The Jewish Virtual Library comments "By the end of the [eighteenth] century, 40 to 50 Jewish merchants were living in Leipzig who employed clerks, servants, agents, and shohatim." - i.e. the Jewish population far exceeded 50 (shohatim are kosher butchers - who would also of course have had families and servants). The website "Destroyed German Synagogues" in its page on Lepzig reports that during the 18th century "restrictions were gradually lifted, and Jews were eventually permitted to establish prayer rooms for use during fair periods. Merchants from Eastern Europe, as well as from Hamburg and Berlin, established several such prayer rooms, such as the Orthodox Brody Shul (in Bruehl) in 1763/64. A burial site was consecrated on Stephanstrasse in 1814." So there was a synagogue in the Bruehl from 1764 at least. Here is something about Leipzig from the Leo Baeck Institute ; " One of Leipzig’s oldest streets, the Brühl was flanked by narrow alleys and courtyards with houses that traditionally offered lodging for Jewish fur traders during the Leipzig Messe [Fair]." I think we can prefer these modern and reliable sources to supply what is absent in the "Jewish Encyclopedia", which dates from 1906.

So in sum, by the time Wagner was born in the Bruehl in 1813, there were 200+ Jews at estimate living in Leipzig, and many hundreds if not thousands visiting Leipzig during the annual trade fairs. They lived in and around the Bruehl, where a synagogue was located. So this was the Jewish quarter of Leipzig. So where, and what, exactly is the problem?--Smerus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now added these refs to the page, and I've updated History of the Jews in Leipzig and Brühl (Leipzig) to cite and reflect them.--Smerus (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversion 1/11/20

Re the relations between Wagner and King Ludwig, I fail to see why my suggested version ‘feigning reciprocal feelings’ was not considered an improvement on the virtually meaningless phrase ‘counterfeiting a similar atmosphere’, which reads like an amateur translation by a non-mother-tongue writer. It may have been an automatic reversion because of the FA status of the article. But I suggest that this merits reviewing. Valetude (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• entirely my clumsiness in re-adding the date of Eva's marriage - i will correct immediately With apologies - --Smerus (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Smerus do you know what publication Millington 1992 is referring to? Seems to not be in the bibliography. Best - Aza24 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted! These should be references to Millington 2001a, which is a revised edition of the work originally pubished in 1992. I've checked the page references and they are correct for 2001a.--Smerus (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm still thinking about the best way to do the Newman refs; I could split up the volumes in the biblio or perhaps use "loc=1, p..". Michael Bednarek, knowing your past sfn work, do you perhaps have an opinion about this...? Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in splitting Newman's volumes in the bibliography. I agree that something like |loc=II, pp. 137–138 would be the easiest to implement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Bednarek. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Another minor matter, Smerus, the line "Hitler visited Bayreuth frequently from 1923 onwards and attended the productions at the theatre" is cited to "Spotts 1994, pp. 140–98" (now changed to "140–198"). Are we sure this is the right page number(s)? I'm only asking because the 50 page range seems like a typo. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah - not sure now what I had in mind here. The pages cover the period of Hitler's involvement with Bayreuth. You could in fact change the reference to "pp. 140, 198" and that would be an appropriate citation for the text.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Great!–Now done. I've begun on the Newman refs as well. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the refs are basically all cleaned up. Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Great work. There are 28 works listed in "Sources" that don't seem to be cited. Should they be moved into a new section, "Further reading"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Items in "Sources" do not need to be used as a specific inline citation(s). If a work was utilized to build the wiki article, it should remain in "Sources". If a source was not used in building the wiki article, but is merely something with additional extraneous information, it should be moved to "Further reading", but less than 3% of wiki articles contain "Further reading" sections, and most FAs omit it. See more info at WP:Further reading. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The essay you mention says, "It should not normally duplicate entries that are in any alphabetized list of references in the article, such as is commonly used in conjunction with shortened footnotes." IMO, uncited entries in "Sources" get buried there; listing them separately brings them better to readers' attention. But I'm not going to die on this hill. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My feelings - list them as 'further reading' and if any seem inappropriate they can be removed and/or discussed.--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the vast majority of sentences have inline citations in this article, I find it unlikely that most, if any, of the uncited sources have information being currently used. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the point may have been missed by some. If the source has been used to build the article, then it must be listed as a Reference (either as inline citation, or in "Sources"). That is basic Wikipedia -- all material used to build any article needs to be noted. Not to list a source that was used in some way violates WP:Attribution and all basic universal bibliographic principles. Whether or not some readers see the Sources list upon a cursory glance is irrelevant. Michael, your quoting "'[A Further reading list] should not normally duplicate entries that are in any alphabetized list of references in the article, such as is commonly used in conjunction with shortened footnotes'" is easily solved by duplicating the ones we want people to particularly take note of in a FR section -- there's no absolute stricture against duplication. If we've lost track as to whether a source was or was not used to build the article, we may have a case where we need to search who added the source to the list and when and why. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wagner's drug use

Richard Wagner: The Last of the Titans, by Joachim Köhler (Yale University Press, 2004) that states Wagner was prescribed laudanum in October 1853 and used it for the remainder of his life (p. 303, 304, 305), and it points to laudanum usage as precipitating a creative resurgence in Wagner. (He began composing Das Rheingold in November 1853)

In Der Querschnitt, an interview was printed in October 1926 with his former house maid Emma (here; specific passage here) describing when she was 18 and worked for Wagner ("46 years ago", so circa 1880):

Herr Wagner hat sich schon seit einigen Jahren an Atmungsbeschwerden gelitten. Dann wurde indischer Hanf angezündet, der einen Wohlriechenden süßen Dampf verbreitete. Er hatte sich das so angewöhnt, daß er eigentlich nur noch komponieren konnte, wenn der indische Hanf schöne, dicke Wolken machte. Wenn man dann nach dem Komponieren ins Musikzimmer kam, um die Fenster aufzumachen, wurde einem ganz schwummerig davon zumute. Die Frau Cosima war nicht sehr glücklich über den vielen indischen Hanf; sie meinte, zu viel ist schädlich. Aber der Herr Wagner widersprach, es sei nicht nur wegen dem Asthma, sondern er müsse die Wolken ganz einfach zum komponieren haben.

Mr. Wagner had been suffering from respiratory problems for several years. Then Indian hemp was lit, which spread a fragrant sweet vapor. He had gotten into such a habit that he could actually only compose when the Indian hemp made nice, thick clouds. When one then came into the music room after composing to open the windows, one felt quite dizzy about it. Frau Cosima was not very happy about all the Indian hemp; she thought that too much was harmful. But Mr. Wagner contradicted, it was not only because of the asthma, but he simply had to have the clouds to compose.

Köhler (the author above) also confirmed Wagner's cannabis use to Vice News Germany (I can't confirm it in the Google books preview portion of The Last of the Titans):

In seinem Buch schreibt Köhler, Paul von Joukowsky, ein russisch-deutschen Bühnenbildner und Schriftsteller, der die Kostüme und vier der fünf Szenen für die Uraufführung von Wagners Oper Parsifal entworfen hatte, habe Hasch später als dessen Inspirationsquelle für Klingsors Zaubergarten genannt. Diesen Akt habe sich Wagner im Haschischrausch ausgedacht. "Wagner hatte ein Faible für Frauenkleider und Rauschdrogen", bekräftigt Köhler auf Nachfrage.

In his book, Köhler writes that Paul von Joukowsky, a Russian-German stage designer and writer who designed the costumes and four of the five scenes for the premiere of Wagner's opera Parsifal, later cited hash as his [Wagner's] source of inspiration for Klingsor's magic garden. Wagner had thought up this act while intoxicated with hashish. "Wagner had a soft spot for women's clothes and intoxicating drugs," Köhler affirms when asked.

Given that this is a featured article, I wanted to discuss on the talk page first before adding the material, but I feel both Wagner's cannabis and laudanum use are worth mentioning and adequately sourced.-Ich (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I can't feel that Kohler's fascination with these very unreliable sources (Joukowsky and the chambermaid) justifies adding this sort of speculation to the article. Wagner certainly provoked contemporary scandalous gossip about his supposed interest in women's clothing and other alleged habits, but unless anyone can demonstrate how (if at all) such behaviour affected his life or work they don't belong here. Smerus (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group

Wagner Group deserves a mention on this page. My proposed change was reverted. —Legoless (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve a mention ; and the proposed change, coming in the section "Nazi appropriation", was completely misappropriately conceived. Wagner Group has nothing to do with Richard Wagner. There is a standard disambig reference at the head of the article.--Smerus (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Problematic wording

Under racism and antisemitism, the article currently states "Wagner's hostile writings on Jews, including Jewishness in Music, correspond to some existing trends of thought in Germany during the 19th century,[252] yet despite his very public views on these themes, throughout his life Wagner had Jewish friends, colleagues and supporters." This is problematic, it is very much like saying "I'm not a racist, I have black friends" and kind of misses the point. Sure, the Jewish friends and colleagues can be mentioned, but in the current sentence structure, it totally downplays the fact that his writings were strongly antisemitic. Even saying "correspond to some existing trends of thought" sounds like it is trying to excuse his way of thinking, and sounds weird in my opinion. Also, "Nazi appropriation" is not at all appropriate. It's not really case of appropriation, and again implies that Wagner's views were distant from Hitler's, whereas his views actually influenced Hitler's. Perhaps "Hitler's admiration of Wagner" or "Nazi uses of Wagner's music" would be more to the point. Even "Wagner's influence on Hitler" would be more accurate than "Nazi appropriation." The article Das_Judenthum_in_der_Musik, for example, clearly presents all the facts without this hazy, indefinite sort of language. LGLou (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I know a lot of people watch this page, and since no one seems to want to comment on this, these are my thoughts. I don't agree at all that the first line sounds like "I'm not a racist, I have black friends"—if anything, it's akin to "I am racist, but I have black friends" (notwithstanding how anachronistic that conclusion is). Regardless, I agree that it could be improved, perhaps by making the first line state clearly that Wagner had antisemitic writings and then having the next thought be a new sentence. I see no issue with the "Nazi appropriation" section title; that is exactly what happened, the Nazi's appropriated his music for their own use, as they did with Beethoven, works by Caspar David Frederich and the legacy of Frederick the Great. It is also important to recognize that the section primarily discusses the influence of Wagner's operas on Nazisim, not writings. So arguing that it implies "Wagner's views were distant from Hitler's" somewhat misleading, as the antisemitism in his operas is not agreed upon. As such, I see no improvement from a change to the section title, and seriously doubt that such a smaller matter has confused or mislead any readers. Aza24 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What Aza24 wrote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made a minor adjustment to the opening lines of the secion, in line with Aza24's comment. Wagner's views were distant from Hitler's and evidence that his views seriously influenced Hitler is lacking. The article Das Judenthum in der Musik (for which as it happens I am largely responsible in its present form) makes this perfectly clear. As even fewer Germans, during the Nazi era or at any other time, read Wagner's writings than saw his operas, it is not conceivable that they had any impact on Nazism imo; nor has any serious writer on the topic ever made such a claim.--Smerus (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that another Wikipedia editor - LGLou - has started raising concerns with the treatment in this article of Wagner's racism and anti semitism. I continue to take the view that the treatment of this topic is not sufficiently straightforward and is over apologetic. It is quite clear that Wagner repeatedly, both in his private correspondence and in his publications, expressed anti semitic opinions and launched anti semitic attacks on Jewish composers. He first published his anti semitic work Das Judenthum without adding his own name. He then republished it under his own name. I think people who read this article are entitled to be given the basic facts and are entitled to be given a relatively straightforward route to the Das Judenthum article (in German and in English translation) so that they can make up their own minds. Anti semitism should be clearly labelled and should not be excused. One reason that I have not pursued this issue further is in fact my strength of feeling on this issue. While I respect Daniel Barenboim's position that the music can be separated from the anti semitic views and propaganda, I do not myself agree. When I discovered the facts about Wagner's anti semitic views and his repeated anti semitic propaganda I was appalled. This was not the casual social antisemitism (disgusting though that is) of an Eliot. Wagner conducted a public campaign against Jewish composers. His grotesque publications are exactly in the historic line which led to the Nazi rulings that the music of a composer like Mendelsohn should be suppressed. For my part I do not listen to his music. Those who do enjoy and value it are entitled to their opinion. But please can we have less of the kid glove and a bit more clarity on the anti semitism. 2A00:23C4:6222:4801:F99C:E5FB:232D:58D8 (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC) gwedi elwch (Alan Griffiths) 2A00:23C4:6222:4801:F99C:E5FB:232D:58D8 (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wagner's attacks on Jews are explicitly mentioned and referenced in the text of the article. There is also a WP article on Das Judenthum in der Musik which details the Jew-hatred expressed by this essay. There is also a link to DJIDM in both German and English in the latter article. Wagner's unpleasant views are stated in these articles and not treated apologetically. A number of sources are cited in both articles on this topic. This article also provides details on the Nazi use of Wagner and Wagnerism. The article does not seek to exonerate or to blame Wagner for his views, nor to invoke Godwin's law to support arguments one way or the other - that is not the purpose of WP. WP should be imo a standard-bearer for objective accuracy, not for subjective righteousness. We should trust readers to draw their own conclusions. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

In Michael Portillo's documentary on Wagner, he pointed out "If the Nazis had truly understood Der Ring, they wouldn't have celebrated it; they would have banned it". The context for this is that a person who forswears Love for the sake of Power ultimately comes to a Sticky End. (I remember watching this, but I can't find a source) 82.8.243.31 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There is virtually nothing in Wagner's music that provides a bedrock for Nazis. If Hitler himself was not infatuated completely with the music, Goebbels would have happily banned it as "degenerate art". 24.69.80.125 (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wagner controversies

The description in the Racism and antisemitism section leans too much to the affirmative (making the readers believe that the scholars generally believe that Wagner's anti-Semitism influenced his works. Very few people will ever read the Wagner controversies article.-Deamonpen (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Smerus, please don't just remove. Explain your reasons here.-Deamonpen (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. This section was I think much discussed at the FA review. The text as it was before your edit was approved. Your opinion that it "leans too much to the affirmative" (presumably meaning affirming W's anti-semitism in his music) is not I think justified by the text - it clearly states that there "have been frequent suggestions of this", which is true, but does not dictate which way or the other Wagner was inclined. It certainly does not imply that "scholars generally believe that Wagner's anti-Semitism influenced his works" (I assume you mean here "musical works") - although in fact it seems to me that at least a very large proportion of present scholars do believe this. I don't believe it myself , for what that is worth. But I am unaware of anyone who has done a statistical count of scholatrs that can be used to cite the majority opinion one way or the other. I note that you disapprove of the citation from a website (which has no page that can be cited) referring to a seminar at University College. I will be happy to replace this with other citations from various authorities when I have a moment tomorrow. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Wagner" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Wagner and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Wagner until a consensus is reached. Mirrortemplar (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Unclear statement on antisemitism

"His controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment – particularly, since the late 20th century, where they express antisemitic sentiments."

His controversial writings on music drama and politics expressed antisemitic sentiments? Or the comments have expressed antisemitic sentiments? I think the latter would be said to have POINTED OUT antisemitic sentiments in the former, but this sentence is all over the place. If no comment, I will revise. There's no reference at this statement, so who knows what the original author meant. Mercster (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Why no Infobox and the command

"<!-- please do not add an infobox-->" StrongALPHA (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

StrongALPHA, infoboxes are optional, see Help:Infobox. The last time the issue was discussed, see Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 13#No infobox, there was no consensus to add one. An info box should not be added unless there is consensus on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The main author of this article doesn't like one, as discussed in the FAC. I have no intention to question that, - it seems sooo important to some people, I don't know why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Turns out the "main author" doesn't have ownership of the article. This is a community project, changes are decided by consensus rather than by amount of previous contributions. The reason why it's so important is because it is foundational to Wikipedia that articles don't have "main authors" in charge of making all the decisions about them. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chaotic Enby, we have a policy regarding that, fortunately, and while yours was a guess that would in most other circumstances, be correct, this is a featured article and "turns out" things aren't as simple as you suggest. Cheers! SN54129 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course featured articles have more detailed policy requirement than others. That still doesn't mean that one person "owns" them. It's not a guess or a "flawed misunderstanding", it's literally what is written in the policy you're quoting me.

No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it).

And the featured article section doesn't make any exception about this. They require compliance with the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, not with the wishes of the "owner" or "main author". Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Diesn't make any exception? It literally says ...does not necessarily constitute ownership as a consensus has already been sought and gained. SN54129 19:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)