Talk:The Jew of Linz/Archive 1

Mini Note

This article about the book The Jew of Linz is exceptionally long for an article about a book. Book articles have a general format which this article clearly does not follow. Please edit the article and attempt to conform to a wikipedia article book format.Xsxex 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Where, precisely, do we find out what the canonical general format for Wikipedia book articles IS, in order to do the editing? I note that the entry is shorter than the one for "Moby Dick" and a variety of other books that have Wikipedia entries.

(No Heading)

Large parts of this article (especially prior to my copyediting) seem to be taken from a letter written by Cornish to David Irving (Cornish also appeared at the 2000 revisionist "Real History" conference organised by Irving). The only serious review of the book I can find on the web is here (author Andrew Harrison is a Reader in Philosophy at the University of Bristol). The review is not complimentary. --Andrew Norman 14:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm done with this for the time being. Having just snagged the library copy, it's worse than I thought - the "Wittgenstein made Hitler a Nazi" and "Wittgenstein was a Commie" chapters are full of "it seems likely", and "if this is correct" and "could Hitler not have known X?". Speculative piffle, in other words. The last two thirds of the book are about magic (Cornish believes it's real), Aryan mysticism, the Universal Mind and so on. --Andrew Norman 16:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Revised version: Paul had control of the family finances. Gretl negotiated with the Nazis, Ludwig stepped in towards the end (once he had British citizenship and could guarantee he would be able to leave Germany again) to meet with a bank official in Berlin and with Paul in New York (to persuade him to sign over the family wealth to the Nazis in return for Helen and Hermine's :::reclassification). So while Wittgenstein did travel to Germany, it wasn't the sort of meeting implied in the earlier version of the paragraph (and it was definitely Paul rather than Ludwig who did the actual transferring of funds to the Nazis). --Andrew Norman 21:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In, out, in, out

Finally (I hope) I've removed all the stuff about Ludwig negotiating with Paul and the Nazis, because Cornish doesn't actually mention this in the book (perhaps because his thesis that Hitler was consumed with an all-encompassing hatred of the Wittgenstein family which led him to destroy half of Europe doesn't quite fit in with the Wittgensteins being one of the few families he agreed to reclassify as non-Jews, and his alleged arch-enemy Ludwig being allowed to travel to Berlin unmolested). --Andrew Norman 09:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A point on editorial decency

The tone of the above comments is thoroughly objectionable, particularly from an editor whose own page states "I occasionally make minor tweaks to a range of philosophy articles. I'm interested in this area, but not sufficiently knowledgeable to contribute much." In fact Cornish's book contains NO chapters "Wittgenstein made Hitler a Nazi" and "Wittgenstein was a Commie" and it is quite wrong to write on a page with a world-wide audience that there are. Rather than discuss particular issues, this editor writes "chapters are full of "it seems likely", and "if this is correct" and "could Hitler not have known X?". Speculative piffle, in other words."

What SPECIFICALLY is the "speculative piffle"? What does Cornish say "seems likely" that actually isn't? What implication that depends on something being correct doesn't in fact follow? And, by the way, what is the X that this editor thinks Cornish was not justified in raising for consideration of what Hitler's knowledge might have been? On the magic section of Cornish's book, this editor ought to read Wittgenstein's Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough, in which it is very clear not only that Wittgentein wanted to "preserve the depth of Magic" but that he saw his own work as having the character of Magic in dispelling Metaphysics. On Cornish's stuff about the Universal Mind, it appears to be nothing more than a generalisation of Schopenhauer's idea of a Universal Will, which doctrine we know Wittgentein adhered to as an adolescent anyway. That he held a "no-ownership" theory of the mind (and that is what Cornish appears to mean by a Universal Mind doctrine) in the 1930's is not disputed by anyone. Cornish's thesis here would appear to be simply a commonplace of Wittgenstein scholarship. And what is the point of raising Wittgenstein negotiating something with the Nazis in a discussion of "The Jew of Linz" when so far as I can see, there isn't a word on it anywhere in the book? Rather like criticising Aristotle for writing falsely about Christopher Columbus. Let us have some reasonable academic standards, please!

Well, I'm away from the university for a few more days, so I don't have access to a copy, but the first two chapters, as I recall, deal with the theory that Hitler was so full of hate for the young Wittgenstein that his entire subsequent career was shaped by that, and the theory that Wittgenstein was Stalin's top secret agent in the UK. Hence the descriptions, which may be facetious but are not as inaccurate as Cornish's theories. SPECIFICALLY, pretty much everything in those two chapters is speculative piffle. I tried flicking through at random to see if I could find a page on which there wasn't some statement along the lines I mentioned previously, and it was very very difficult - all the phrases above were taken directly from the book at random, and I am not going to go ploughing through it again to find what the X was. As many reviewers have pointed out, those two chapters are built entirely on circumstantial evidence and guesswork, and wouldn't convince anyone who didn't have the visceral hatred of Wittgenstein you seem to share with Cornish (if you and he are two different people, which I doubt). The material relating to discussions with the Nazis was originally moved here because you had inserted it into the Wittgenstein article alongside the material inspired by this book - it was removed as soon as I found it was not in the book, and that fact and the reasons for it were recorded here. --  ajn (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Cornish asserts anywhere that Wittgenstein "was Stalin's top secret agent in the UK." A reference please. And a reference that Cornish has a "visceral hatred" for Wittgenstein, which was never my own impression of the book. And it might be easier when you write "SPECIFICALLY, pretty much everything in those two chapters is speculative piffle" if you had the book to hand so that you might provide us all with even a single reference, as you were asked to do. Of course, being "away from the university for a few more days" does explain your inability to do so at the moment, but the matter of providing source references rather than general blasts of opinion ought to be treated a bit more seriously, so here we go again with a second request for a source reference. Perhaps when you get back to university. (NOTE ADDED 28th NOVEMBER 2005: Still no source references provided! This is more than "a few days"; it is now a few months and it would be nice not to have to wait for a few years!)

It's the return of the Erich von Daniken of analytical philosophy! I have no intention of wasting any further time on this garbage - you wrote the book, it's not my problem if you can't remember what's in it. --ajn (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A futher point on editorial decency

The fact remains that the editor who gives his name as "Andrew Norman" is not responding to a request that he document the claims he made as a Wikipedia editor except first, to excuse himself on the grounds that he was "away from the university for a few days" and secondly (three months later) that he will not be "wasting any further time on this garbage". Wikipedia disputes are better resolved by producing textual support for a claim than by abuse, I think. So far we have had from him the epithets "speculative piffle" and "garbage", but nothing either reasoned or supported by textual quotes. Mr Norman is entitled to his private opinion, but to present it to the world in a abusive fashion and then just proclaim it to the world in a louder voice when questioned, is a rather different matter. Might I suggest that he take his editorial duties a little more seriously or else simply announce (leaving the abuse to one side) that he no longer wishes to correspond about the matter.

Which part of "I have no intention of wasting any further time on this garbage" are you having difficulty understanding? It's a conspiracy book written by a crank, which has received universally derisory reviews in the serious press. The multitude of errors of fact and reasoning are covered in great detail in the reviews linked from the article, and some of them have also been dealt with here. That's enough for anyone who doesn't share your curious obsession. --ajn (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The other point is that Cornish's apparent "philosophical" thesis about "universal mind" (whatever that means) and "preserving the depth of magic" have nothing whatsoever in common with any of Wittgenstein's thought. At best it's one of those things of taking a few words from W dramatically out of context, and pretending they have something to do with that; but I can't really squint that hard. In a completely different context, it's sort of like the way Randians delude themselves into thinking their idol had something in common with Nietzsche (the latter a great thinker, the former a foolish hack).

I don't doubt that W read Schopenhauer when he was 14 y.o.—or even that he was boyishly enamored with it—but, y'know, W did his philosophical work after he was 14. In my generation, boys (and some girls) ooh'd and ah'd over how very profound Hermann Hesse was, in a similar way (even some who grew up to do real philosophical thought; not to say Schopenhauer isn't also an important philosopher, of course). W grew up before writing the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:38, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

As an adult, Wittgenstein said to Miss Anscombe (See her "Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus") that his first philosophy was a Schopenhaurean Idealism. Perhaps just an infatuation, but Wittgenstein was generally exactingly precise in his choice of words. That anyone's generation might take Hesse seriously is neither here nor there, but merely a reflection of its total unfitness for Philosophy.

On Paul Monk

There is a Paul Monk. He is a former Australian intelligence officer and occasional writer on intelligence matters. His criticism of Cornish suffers from the common misconception (also shared by Nigel West's criticism of Cornish) that Glasnost meant that all KGB records were examinable by Western researchers. Cornish ought not be criticised for not utilising KGB records on the Cambridge spies, if the Russian government still has them under embargo.

What a nutsy book!

I confess I haven't read this book (and I can't really imagine making it through much of such a rant—I assume the description is more-or-less accurate). So I guess I won't attempt to edit the page; mostly I'm just glad to get the silliness out of the Wittgenstein page, as much as possible.

But seriously! How can anyone take any of this seriously? I.e. just a few:

• If W's family, and the child Wittgenstein, had no idea that he had Jewish ancestors, how is an adolescent Hitler supposed to know that?!
• Even stipulating that Hitler really did yell anti-semitic taunts at W, it is utterly daft to imagine that some single pivotal and spontaneous childhood bullying shaped H's whole world view. Even if this happened, it's hardly like H's racial hatred could have been as simple as that.
• The "Aryan" Unicity of Will weirdness has nothing to do with anything W' ever wrote. It bears only the most distorted similarity to Schopenhauer, and also none to Emerson or Collingwood.

It's nuts in its entirety. I guess readers can figure that out well enough from the content itself... but I worry slightly about our anonymous advocate of this describing this non-objectively, and with too much advocacy. Oh well, just a conspiracy book. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Well, I was about to post a similar message - though maybe not quite so boldly - after I read the Wiki article....This one reminds me strongly of Machtan's book "The Hidden Hitler"; an awful lot of speculation and innuendo. Ah, well....Engr105th (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some factual corrections

1. That it is demonstrable that Wittgenstein was the very first target of Hitler's anti-Semitic spleen is all by itself of very great historical interest. That Wittgenstein is the Jew at the Realschule referred to in "Mein Kampf" ratchets the matter up to quite another level again. Anyone who dismisses the matter as being of no consequence displays nothing so much as total incompetence in matters to do with historical investigation. The origins of Hitler's anti-Semitism are of importance because Hitler's anti-Semitism was the cause of the world we now live in - new European borders, tens of millions dead, a new state in Israel, the Cold War confrontation across a divided Germany, just to name four.

2. Hitler might have picked out Wittgenstein as a Jew by his Jewish appearance. We read in "Mein Kampf" that in Linz Hitler was at first "fooled" and took the Jews to be Germans, but then realized his error. In any case, were Wittgenstein circumcised, it would have been evident to the non-circumcised Austrian boys in the changing rooms and toilets. Karl Kraus wrote of Karl Wittgenstein's dodgy business practices in papers with an empire-wide distribution. They were certainly read in Linz. And we know that Ludwig and Paul were denied membership of a gymnastic club because of their non-Aryan origins. However it was that Hitler came to know of it, he knew.

3. Emerson wrote (amongst many, many similar passages) "There is one mind common to all individual men. Every man ia an inlet to the same and all of the same." It is quoted on page 224 of McGuinness' Wittgenstein biography as a "favourite thought" of Wittgenstein's. Might I respectfully suggest for someone who publicly proclaims his reluctance to read books, that he get a copy of Emerson's "Essays" and read them.

4. Collingwood wrote his essay "The Idea of History" precisely to argue for shared thought across time; that the historian becomes one with his subject of study by re-thinking the subject's thoughts within himself. He specifically denied that there was any theory of personal identity that rendered this theory untenable. Again, Collingwood's paper is famous to philosophers interested in the Philosophy of History and has featured in anthologies on the matter, with Collingwood expounded by professional philosophers exactly as I indicated above.

5. Wittgenstein himself wrote that two people can have the same sense-datum and cooked up an example of Siamese twins sharing the same pain. The whole anti-privacy stuff in the Investigations is directed against the idea of private minds with unshareable content.

6. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters informs us that "Even stipulating that Hitler really did yell anti-semitic taunts at W, it is utterly daft to imagine that some single pivotal and spontaneous childhood bullying shaped H's whole world view. Even if this happened, it's hardly like H's racial hatred could have been as simple as that." Thank God we know on Lulu's authority (despite the fact he admits to not having bothered to read the book!) that we don't have to do any investigation here!

I would think that the authority of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is a lot better than that of an editor who categorically refuses to sign any contributions, and who is believed by some editors to be a sock-puppet for Cornish himself (and won't state otherwise)... if you know what I mean.

You can, after all, read my user page, including a link to my "other" name (and from there find publication history, degrees, stuff like that). "Some IP address that seems to be in Monash" is a little less authoritative, IMO. Especially given the wildely tenuous line of thought advanced. And the grotesque misreadings of Collingwood, Emerson, etc. given above; to say nothing of the at-the-edge-of-schmarmy insinuation that an anti-semite can "just tell" who is really a Jew. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:58, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

The argument here seems to be: '"I have a publication history, degrees, stuff like that" and so don't have to justify my false assertions.' Nobody has impugned Lulu's academic credentials or even raised them as an issue. The only issue that matters is whether what he writes is correct. Now:

1. My IP address has nothing whatever to do with Monash, which is a university in Melbourne. The point of what Lulu writes here is somewhat obscure to me, but I shall charitably assume that he is just mistaken.

The really straightforward point is that editors who refuse to sign their posts (not even with an IP address; though that can be reconstructed from the history, with much work) should be trusted much less than those who sign. If you are not trying to disguise or mislead your editing comments sign your comments! (I don't really know or care whether anon lives in Melbourne; another editor had mentioned an IP lookup, but I didn't verify that).

Letting people see publication, degrees, etc. of an editor adds a minor measure of extra background to evaluate the trustworthiness of posts. But as a start, editors who refuse to create even a pseudonym are, and should be, treated with a high degree of suspicion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

2. That there have been "grotesque misreadings of Collingwood, Emerson, etc." is the point at issue and is not made true by Lulu's mere assertion. I quoted McGuinness on Emerson's doctrine and the fact that it was a favourite thought of Wittgenstein's. If what McGuinness wrote was incorrect or untrue, we are owed a reference or argument to that effect.

McGuinness/Emerson, as quoted, says nothing remotely similar to the universal mind silliness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

3. What Lulu represents as an "at-the-edge-of-schmarmy insinuation" - that "an anti-semite can "just tell" who is really a Jew" - was not made in my text above, nor is it reasonable to suggest that it was insinuated. I simply provided four different ways in which Hitler might have beome aware of Wittgenstein's Jewishness, one of which was by appearance. I note that in 1972 I climbed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem with my wife. A bearded Hasid (whom we had neither met nor spoken to before) asked her not to continue because the site was forbidden to Jewish females. He was quite correct about her Jewishness. Sometimes it really IS possible to deduce Jewishness from appearance, as happened in this case. There is no reason to suppose the ability is confined solely to Hasidim but denied to anti-Semites.

The very unlikely parable about Hitler and Wittgenstein in school is not a known fact, certainly. Let's try this again very slowly: W's allegedly "detectable Jewishness" is claimed to be detectable by the baby Hitler, and yet was not detected by W's family members, teachers, other students, etc. Definite failure of old Occam's Razor here, methinks (and also lacking any actual evidence).

It appears that your Hasidish acquaintance was quite a bit past the edge of schmarmy, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. He certainly didn't "deduce her Jewishness", but simply assume it... and it sounds like then receive "confirmation" from you or your wife (but maybe I don't understand the sequence in the story). It's the same game "psychics" play, FWIW: make a fungible claim, then watch a reaction... hmmm, I'm sensing your name, anon, has a "J" in it... oh wait, maybe that's an "M"... am I right? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Another voice

I have included another judgement of the book, from the German historian Michael Rissmann. In the original German, his text reads:

"Die jüngst vorgetragene These, Hitlers religiöse Anschauungen seien bereits in Linz entscheidend durch Ludwig Wittgenstein geprägt worden, beruht hingegen auf allzu kühner Spekulation.456" (on page 95)

"456 Kimberley Cornish geht davon aus, daß beide dieselbe Klasse der Linzer Realschule besuchten und sich persönlich gut kannten; als Beweis dient ihm ein Klassenfoto, auf dem er Wittgenstein erkennen will. Außerdem konstruiert er Parallelen zwischen Wittgensteins Philosophie und dem Weltbild Hitlers. Dabei überschätzt er die intellektuellen Kapazitäten des Diktators und greift. um | Hitlers angebliche okkultistische Interessen zu beweisen, auf die erfundenen Gespräche zurtick, die Hermann Rauschning mit Hitler geführt haben will (vgl. zu diesem unten S. 163-166). Kimberley Cornish: Der Jude aus Linz. Hitler und Wittgenstein. Berlin 1998." (footnote 456 on pages 241-242.)

Based on this I have removed the claim that no one disputes the photograph. There is probably a lot more in this article, in the evidence section, that needs thorough questioning, but I don't have the time or means right now to do it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating article, but the thing with the photo allegedly of W. and Hitler is surely a joke, right? It is supposed to be a photo of 15 year old boys but anyone can see at a glance that the boys in the photo are much younger than that. I'd be amazed if they were older than ten. Therefore if one of them really is Hitler, the photo can't have been taken later than about 1899 in which case athe other boy can't be Wittgenstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.48.130 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Brigitte Hamann said: "The picture was not taken in 1903 and the child standing close to Hitler was not Wittgenstein. Instead, the picture was taken at an earlier date when Ludwig ... was [still] being taught in Vienna." (see the Carlos Widmann review under "Response"). A hundred years ago, kids grew up more slowly and reached puberty later. However, that difference alone cannot account for the glaring age discrepancy between supposedly 14- or 15-year-old boys and the much younger kids we see in the photograph.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Rissmann criticism

Michael Rissmann, in the above, does not actually deny that Wittgenstein is in the photograph, hence the claim that he disputes it is false; it is merely that he is unconvinced. And it would be better, I think, if rather than saying "There is probably a lot more in this article, in the evidence section, that needs thorough questioning, but I don't have the time or means right now to do it" that you refrain from insinuation until you actually CAN question it, with full references to sources. That way, everyone can judge the matter on the basis of objective facts rather than on hastily spun off, and so far, totally unsubstantiated opinions. 11:15, 20 June 2006 User:Kimberley Cornish

Dear Kimberley Cornish,

I have received your e-mail:

Back in June, you added a line in the "Discussion" page of the Wikipedia article The_Jew_of_Linz that "There is probably a lot more in this article, in the evidence section, that needs thorough questioning, but I don't have the time or means right now to do it."
One appreciates the difficulty of adequately criticising an article when one is under time constraints. I had rather hoped, however, that at some stage since then you would have been able to detail precisely what you had in mind as "probably" needing "thorough questioning". In the absence of such detail, however, what you wrote in the "Discussion" section is simply an unsupported slur upon the article.
I should therefore appreciate your either detailing your concerns reasonably soon (thus allowing them to be met, should this be possible) or else removing the slur. Should your concerns be objectively justifiable, they might asist us all in getting to the truth of the matter. If not, then the slur should be removed in order to stop misleading readers. That is, if "thorough questioning" is required because of some evidentiary failure, the failure should be brought to light as soon as possible. If there is no evidentiary failure, readers should not be misled into thinking there is.
Sincerely,
Kimberley Cornish

I am indeed honoured that the author himself deems the little of me worthy of such a fiece reply. However, I do not think that your loud complaints are warranted. You say that Rissmann does not deny the photograph. However, he does maybe not actively deny but doesn't subscribe to your thesis of Hitler and Wittgenstein, not to speak of the further, much more far-fetched theses. I still don't have "the time or means right now to do" the questioning I spoke of. And note I said questioning, not trashing - hence I think my "probably also can stand. However, if it makes you feel better, substitute "probably" for "possibily". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cornish on the Bush payrole?

Finally! A book of serious scholarship. I can't say how many books i've had to put down and throw away in these past few years -all for naught. I thought i was about to give up on reading altoghter. Boy, what an eye-opener when I noticed this title! I mean, i've always been fascinated by the truth and truthfulness, and things that are relavent and important, but let me tell, 'the Jew of Linz' has really caught my fancy. sure there are a lot of "theoretical" philosophy books and "speculative" books about history, but this one here is above and beyond the rest. Although the end had me questioning my respect for Bush and Goering, when I heard her rumors from a reliable friend that Cornish worked for the CIA, my mind was blown! -Teetotaler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Who cares? Besides, working for the CIA (when?) is not being "on the Bush payrole". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsound Logic

1. A boy at the Linz Realschule was of Jewish descent, but ignorant of his Jewish ancestry.
2. Hitler yelled "Saujud!' at this boy.
3. Wittgenstein was the only boy at the school who was of Jewish descent and ignorant of his Jewish ancestry.
Ergo
4. The boy at whom Hitler yelled "Saujud", was Wittgenstein.

This presupposes that Hitler somehow knew that Wittgenstein was Jewish. However, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have known it, being only a boy of young age, if it were not a common knowledge already. If it were however a common knowledge, then surely Ludwig himself would have known it, the fact that he is Jewish being the most personally relevant detail to himself. There is no evidence that Ludwig ever found out that he was a Jew at this stage (while being in Linz) and thus the argument breaks down here unless the author proves somehow that Hitler came to this uncommon knowledge (at least among youth) through some other means that were inaccessbile to Ludwig himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.215.218.216 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

The argument in fact presupposes nothing and follows deductively from its premises. (PLEASE check its formal validity with a competent logician if you are unconvinced - ring a university Mathematics department if you have to!) The ONLY way it can be attacked is if one or more of its three premises are false. That said, I shall also remark that public discussion of Karl Wittgenstein and his shonky business practices was in the newspapers all over central Europe. Karl Wittgenstein himself wrote lengthy articles in the popular newspapers defending his iron and steel cartel with the Rothschilds and Gutmanns and his own Judenberg ("Jewstown") production of scythes, which was confiscated by the authorities. (See Karl Wittgenstein's "Politico-Economic Writings", edited by J. C. Nyiri, with an introduction by J. C. Nyiri and Brian McGuinness, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia 1984.) For a web profile of Karl Wittgenstein and the industrial troubles at the Wittgenstein plants, reported in the Vienna newspapers, see http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/KarlWittgenstein.htm. Hitler's father was an avid newspaper reader and his obituary notice in the Linz "Tagespost" described him as "universally well-informed, he was able to pronounce authoritatively on any matter that came to his notice." (See John Toland's "Adolf Hitler", Ballantine Books, New York 1976, p.19.) It ought to be reasonably clear that Wittgentein's arrival at the Linz Realschule was NOTEWORTHY, Wittgenstein being heir to the (at that time) richest Jewish fortune in Europe, if not the world. It is thus not at all surprising that Hitler's family knew of his Jewish origins. Equally it is not at all surprising that papers that (in 1903 anti-Semitic Austria) labelled Wittgenstein's own father as a Jewish crook, might have been withheld from fourteen-year-old Wittgenstein. There is therefore no real issue in this at all, let alone "unsound logic". Issues such as this ought to have been thrashed out in this discussion section first, before being added to the article. I will leave things unchanged in the article for a month to allow for further discussion and, if nothing eventuates, then edit it to reflect the points made here. Any intelligent discussion, of course, is very welcome. 210.49.121.35 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC).Kimberley Cornish 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)192.232.155.152 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I don't see any rationale in separating the evidence from the argument. It would be better to structure this article in the same way as the book, outlining what is said in each chapter. Items cited by the author as evidence can then be mentioned alongside the points to which they refer. If there has been subsequent debate about the evidence, then that would be better reserved for later, when the criticisms of the book are summarised. Itsmejudith 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not set up by me, but by Andrew Norman, whose chief concern was to get my non-hagiographic interpretation of Wittgenstein off the Wittgenstein page. Separating the evidence from the argument does have the effect of making the case of "The Jew of Linz" less plausible, but then that is precisely why it was set up that way. Norman refused to discuss his specific objections (See the earlier discussion under the heading "A Point About Editorial Decency") and I simply adopted the policy of correcting the manifest errors in his presentation. Given the reversions and vandalism to which the article has been subject, it is a tiresome business. Had I written the article (as opposed to merely correcting it) it would indeed have been set up as you suggest. Norman claims the book is crank literature, which makes its publication by Random House in the U.K., Presses Universitaires de France in France, Ullstein in Germany and other reputable publishers in Holland, Turkey, Korea and Romania quite mysterious. The discussion topic "Cornish on the Bush Payroll?" illustrates the sort of stupidities I am talking about, as does "What a Nutsy Book", written by someone who first confesses that he hasn't read it! My own view is that the whole thing needs to be done from scratch, but I am hesitant in removing an article that has had so many contributors. Perhaps it might have some historical interest in the on-going Wittgenstein debate.Kimberley Cornish 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence on the other side re spying

Not incompatible, but (unless one presumes dissembling) does indicate some disenchantment --JimWae 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/text/biogre9.html

The material on the above site is largely a rehash of John Moran's article in "The New Left Review" of 1972. However I recall Moran also quoting a Soviet academic (Gornstein) who said she saw Wittgenstein in the Soviet Union in 1939. (I stress that I don't have the article before me and haven't read it for thirty-five years, but I'm sure my recollection is correct.) This is at odds with the received biographies, but that is not a matter of any consequence at all. My bet is both that the Website is wrong about 1939 and that Wittgenstein was dissembling. On the other hand, it is a useful reference - my thanks for providing it - and if Wittgenstein were not dissembling then it is indeed evidence of some disenchantment with the Soviet Union. What remains true, however, is that Wittgenstein's students described him as a Stalinist and that he was offered high Soviet academic positions during the Great Purge, a still inexplicable fact (from a political perspective) under any hypothesis other than my ownKimberley Cornish 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which students described his politics as Stalinist? And which referred. sarcastically, to his agressive habits of shooting down students and peers who disagreed with him as "Stalinist"?Threepillars (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones referred to in Monk's biography, p.354, who believed it because of his political sympathies; not because of his discussion methods. My book names the individuals involved, whom I interviewd in Australia in the late 1970s. 122.107.208.210 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean-Up

This article, especially the section on the book's argument, is full of NPOV statements and generally poor adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. It requires a massive clean-up, as well as a severe shortening; no article on a book this small should be so long, not to mention anything about the books merit as a work of scholarship - or the fact that it seems the author himself wrote much of the article.

Why there is no header on this article is beyond me. I shall add one. Enigma00 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It might help if we were given examples of claimed NPOV statements in the article so that issues can be thrashed out in the discussion pages before the article is altered. The Random House English version of the book contains 298 pages, the French edition from Presses Universitaires de France 452 pages, and the German edition from Ullstein, 431 pages. Dutch, Turkish, Korean and Romanian editions follow the French version. The reference to "a book this small" is thus quite unsupported. The book's merit as a work of scholarship is obviously doubted by our objector (whose academic qualifications as "Enigma00" to make such judgments are not clear) but reputable British academics, both philosophers and Holocaust historians support its theses. The article was not set up by the author of the book and it has had very many contributors. On the other hand, I agree that it needs revision. I would do it myself, but rather feel that existing contributors' editings should be respected. So ... let us thrash out the issues in the discussion pages first, as is proper. What is the first NPOV point that needs alteration?Kimberley Cornish 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking off the pov tag

While it may be true that the book itself makes statements that are not neutral the article itself seems to be on track. I read the book when it first came out. Anyway if anyone wants to put the tag back on please feel free to do so, If the article misrepresents the book then please advise me as to the where it does this and I will read the book again. The book seems to be very speculative but I still think it is a fun read. Albion moonlight 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the author of the book itself is involved in this discussion. That seems like all the more reason not to have the tag on there unless some one can show that the article makes claims that the book doesn't. Albion moonlight 09:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I originally put the tag there because I felt the article was a bit suspect; on further review I suppose you did the right thing. But I still think the "clean-up" tag should stay, as I think the article needs a big re-write, and probably should be much shorter.Enigma00 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the "requires clean-up" tag has been there for two months, with no feed-back from the tagger as to what even the first of the points that requires clean-up IS, and this despite a request by me from the very beginning that it be provided. The request was made both on this discussion page and on his own Wikipedia talk page, I do not doubt that the tagger has expressed his opinion (and perhaps derived some satisfaction therefrom) in placing the tag. Nonetheless, if the tagger is to justify what he has done, as opposed to merely placing whimsical graffiti on the page, then discussion is required. That is to say, at the moment, without further details, the placing of the "requires clean-up" tag is akin to vandalism; not to a contribution. So here we go with a second request; could we have some SPECIFIC details on what it is that requires clean-up and why? Should reasonable points be provided, then we can all agree to go ahead. Otherwise, the tag should be removed.Kimberley Cornish 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to "tag-and-run" so to speak, but I haven't recently had the time to pay attention to Wikipedia or this article. I don't mind that you removed my tag after my doing nothing about it, but there's no need to characterise me as a whimsical grafitti artist intent on spamming clean-up tags on everything I dislike. I just simply had more important things on my plate than to worry about a Wikipedia article. Right now in the great scheme of things this isn't too important to me, so the article can stay as it is, or if Albion wants to clean it up he can. As for me, I'm content to let sleeping dogs lie.Enigma00 06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the following on my user talk page: "Just for the record: you write on the discussion page of "The Jew of Linz" 'I don't mind that you removed my tag'. In fact I didn't remove your tag." I realise that you did not, and that it was someone else. What I meant to say was "I don't mind that my tag was removed", and I guess I meant "you" in a more general sense. I apolagize for the poor choice of words, but I hardly think it necessary for you to read my remark so literally and then make a point of showing me wrong, as if I intended to slight you by saying it was you who removed the tag. Also I would like to note that you don't have a user talk page that I can comment on in the same way, which forces me to reply here; I imagine it is because you did have one and it got spammed a lot or something. But nonetheless, it would make it easier if you did.Enigma00 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do (and could have done at any time) is click on my name on any comment I have posted and then click on "discussion". You can (and always could) comment on any issue "in the same way" as I left notes on your page months ago requesting clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Talk about the specifics of the clean up you think this article requires. Please do this in a timely fashion, I will try and help with the cleanup if I am convinced that it really needs one. Albion moonlight 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm

In the autumn of 1939, Wittgenstein and his friend Norman Malcolm were walking along the river Cam in Cambridge when they saw a newspaper vendor's sign announcing that the German government had accused the British government of instigating an attempt to assassinate Hitler. When Wittgenstein remarked that it wouldn't surprise him at all if it were true, Malcolm retorted that "the British were too civilized and decent to attempt anything so underhand, and . . . such an act was incompatible with the British 'national character'." Wittgenstein was furious, and the incident broke off his relations to Malcolm for some time (Malcolm, p. 30). Five years later, he wrote to Malcolm:

Whenever I thought of you I couldn't help thinking of a particular incident which seemed to me very important. . . . you made a remark about 'national character' that shocked me by its primitiveness. I then thought: what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious than any . . . journalist in the use of the DANGEROUS phrases such people use for their own ends. (Malcolm, p. 93)

It seems it was Malcolm's naive use of "national character" that LW objected to --JimWae (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Wiggy met well but I also think that Philosophy is as useful as a game of chess. It can be a great was to pass the time but its beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder. I feel the same way about the so called important questions of everyday life. Every question is as important as anyone decides to make it. Norman Malcolm's assertion was fallacious to the point of being obtuse but I fail to why anyone bothers to point that out except for the fact they find it interesting. Anyway thanks for the story. Perhaps the people who visit and or edit the Wittgenstein article will enjoy it as well.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported edits

Editors who criticise the arguments of the book are asked not to proffer their opinions or add comments unless what they claim to be the case is supported with a specific reference to the published literature. This is in any case simply Wikipedia policy. Some editors have persisted in presenting their own opinions, even after being reminded of this Wikipedia policy. In some cases they have misquoted original references. Readers should bear in mind the controversy the book has aroused and be scrupulously careful not to go beyond anything verifiable by a public domain reference. That is to say, please use the format AUTHOR, TITLE, PUBLISHER (or JOURNAL TITLE), YEAR OF PUBLICATION, PAGE No, when making claims. Past experience has also shown the value of raising issues in the discussion pages first. Following these policies will help reduce vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to ask for semi protection for this article. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Readers who wish to edit the article after the semi protection period expires are asked (after first running their arguments in the "discussion" section) to add their edits to the "opposing views" section and not alter the summary presentation of the book's arguments.Kimberley Cornish (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A few questions: (1) Is the main section of a Wikipedia entry for a book to summarize a book or for the author and others to debate the book's merits? It seems that Cornish is using this page to not just summarize his book, but to reassert (and perhaps fill in or fill out) his arguments. This strikes me as much as "proffering" as anything else. (2) Are critiques of the book only allowed if they are summaries of published criticism? I assume so as Wikipedia is not meant to be a debating forum (which is also why I think Cornish's rehashing of his arguments instead of summarizing them succintly is inappropriate, hence question 1). I hope these questions are taken in good faith; I am just trying to understand the purpose of the page. Thank you. Threepillars (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can answer Three Pillar's 2nd question with a hearty yes. Only published summaries and criticisms are acceptable. And they need to come from reliable published sources. Cornish is allowed to edit that article if he so chooses but he too is expected to conform to the wiki guidelines and policies. I will place a welcome mat on your talk page to help you explore wiki policy and wiki guidelines Thank you for your participation thus far. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am, of course, happy to summarize the book's arguments. Please note that I am far from the only contributor to this page and it has sort of "growed like Topsy". State what is a rehash (as opposed to a summary) of the book's arguments and we can thrash out what alterations are needed. My own view is that the whole things needs to be redone from scratch, but this is a matter that I have raised before. By all means, however, let the hundred flowers bloom. May it achieve something positive.122.107.208.210 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

122.107.208.210, When did you 'raise this matter before' ? . Perhaps you should consider getting a user name and sticking to it. It would help us to put your edits in proper context. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I raised it in the "Clean-up" section of these discussion pages. My apologies for the absence of a user name. I used the 4 tildes to sign my last, but evidently was not logged in.Kimberley Cornish (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem and no apologies are necessary. I have done that myself many times. If you want to rewrite the article I say go for it. You might want to post a request for comment 1st. I do not have much time these days. But feel free to be bold. I mostly just watch this article to prevent it from being overtaken by well meaning newbies and or vandals. In this particular case we are dealing with newbies. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So sorry you have to "deal with newbies." I actually don't think that is the problem. The problem is that only a postive summary of the book seems to be allowed. A summary that mentions, as a fair summary can and any academic or journalistic understanding of summary would, lapses in reasoning in the books fundamental argument seems to be rejected here. I understand that a thorough critique of the book is not the point of the summary but fair observations about where the logic is misapplied in the book is a legit part of a summary. Threepillars (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the book's argument should surely go into the "Opposing Views" section, which is there for that precise purpose. The book's arguments, that is to say, should be allowed to be fluently presented first and any "lapses in reasoning" in presentation explicitly brought out in "Opposing Views". It is quite certainly NOT the case that "only a positive summary of the book seems to be allowed" as is evident from the various reviews quoted. Raise any issue of logical inaccuracy or of historical reference you wish, offer it for discussion, and if reasonable, put it in as an "opposing view". Should you think the article goes beyond what is in the book, simply state where it does and how it does. Should you consider "Opposing Views" to be an unsuitable section title, perhaps you might consider adding an "Issues Arising" or "Errors" or some similiar section title. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

False claims about the Jewish descent of the Bethmann family

Cornish bizarrely claims that the Bethmann family of bankers in Frankfurt were "Jewish", or "halakhically Jewish", or "Sephardic Jews". As support for his claim, he cites the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. In fact, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, [1], does not mention the name Bethmann at all, as anyone can verify for themselves.

The Bethmann family's name goes back to the northern German town of Goslar and the year 1416. The Bethmann males were all Christians and married within the Christian faith. Accordingly, Cornish's attempt to claim Jewish descent for Cosima Wagner through the Bethmanns falls flat. Aside from the occasional crackpot or practical joker, no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews, now or in the past.

Needless to say (or is it?), the fantastic claim made by Cornish in the article that "... the German Chancellor in the Great War, was of Jewish descent..." is equally bizarre, and equally unsupported by fact.

What is the passage about the Bethmanns and Cosima doing in a Wikipedia article anyway? It is argumentative, its sources turn out on inspection to be false, and isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to refrain from "original research" and a "non-objective point of view"?--Number17 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had the devil of a time correcting intentionally false misstatements spread out over at least a half dozen cross-referenced Wikipedia entries, all with the apparent goal of creating a false "Jewish ancestry" for Cosima Wagner.

I do not want to go so far as to attribute these falsifications to Mr. Cornish, as I have no proof. However, his misstatement about a Jewish ancestry of the Bethmanns being attested to in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is on record, and is as blatantly false as it is inexplicable, for if Mr. Cornish had applied the tiniest bit of due diligence this could have been avoided.

Accordingly, I find myself compelled to disbelieve a priori anything that Mr. Cornish writes, unless I am supplied with ironclad proof.

An Australian forensic unit has analyzed the yearbook picture and determined with near certainty that it shows not only Hitler but also Wittgenstein?

Should I take Cornish's word for it? I don't think so. And so on, for all of Cornish's claims that I cannot easily verify.--Number17 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I intend to access a hard copy of that encyclopedia at the local public library. Untl then I will eagerly await a reply from Cornish himself, Thanks for the the information. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Kimberley Cornish

The Bethmann-Hollweg reference in Wikipedia (certainly not inserted by me or by anyone whom I have any knowledge of) read, on the date I referenced it (at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theobald_von_Bethmann-Hollweg&diff=226523572&oldid=226251527) as follows:

"He was born in 1856 in Hohenfinow, Brandenburg, the son of Prussian official Felix von Bethmann-Hollweg (born Breidenbach), whose father Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach, an offspring of the Jewish banking family of von Bethmann from Frankfurt, was a prominent law scholar, a Rector of the Humboldt University in Berlin and Prussian Minister of Culture. Cosima Wagner was his relative from the von Bethmanns side. Theobald's mother Isabella de Rougemont was a French Swiss."

The Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Bethmann-Hollweg's grandfather is on line (28th July, 2008, 8.29 p.m.) at:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1439&letter=B.

All reference to Breidenbach at Wikipedia in the Bethmann-Hollweg article have been edited away. Please note that our objector, who is not assuning good faith on my part (writing of my "intentionally false misstatements") assures us that "Aside from the occasional crackpot or practical joker, no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews, now or in the past." The article he is criticising in fact cites reputable historians from major universities who assert precisely that, none of which citations he deals with. I add the following citation from the Professor of Music at the University of New York, E. Brody ("The Jewish Wagnerites", Opera Quarterly, 1983, 1: p.68) referring to Richard Wagner and Cosima:

"As for his beloved helpmate, suspicion and speculation were both unnecessary. Cosima, the second child of Liszt and the Countess Marie d'Agoult, would not have passed muster under Germany's racial laws. Her maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Bethmann, daughter of Simon Moritz Bethmann and descendant of Schimsche Naphtali Bethmann, was Jewish, a member of the prominent banking family of Frankfurt am Main."

Professor Brodie explicitly states here that Elizabeth Bethmann was Jewish, from which it follows (halachically) that the whole chain of her female descendants, not only down to Cosima, but also to her (and Richard Wagner's) son, Siegfried Wagner, were also Jewish. Going back the other way, Elizabeth Bethmann's Jewishness, establishes that of her mother. And this means that Simon Moritz Bethmann (her banker brother) was also Jewish, which suffices to establish what I wrote.(I am, of course, not concerned here with public confession of Christian faith, but with Halakha.) Professor Brodie's peer-reviewed paper is downloadable as a PDF for a small fee from Oxford University Press Journals (http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ to anyone with access to JSTOR.) Note that Number17 has publicly accused me of dishonesty on the WikiAnswers page "Is the Bethmann family of bankers in the article The Jew of Linz correctly identified as Jewish?", so his preservation of anonymity is perhaps very wise. Incidentally, he has dealt with none of the citations I made there, criticising instead a Liszt Biography by one August Gollerich, which I did not cite at all. I would rather prefer that he refrain from further abuse should he continue to post Kimberley Cornish (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I note also that clicking on Number17's talk page (at 9.05p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time on 28th July 2008) showed "Goodmorningworld", which is the name of the Wikipedia editor who deleted the Breidenbach reference in the article "Theobold von Bethmann-Hollweg". Our objector is thus accusing me of "intentional misrepresentation" after first deleting the Wikipedia references I cited. In short, the original (unmutilated) Wikipedia article on the German Chancellor referred to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on his grandfather, whose name was Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach. Referring readers to the Jewish Encyclopedia and oh-so-innocently stating that it "does not mention the name Bethmann at all, as anyone can verify for themselves" strikes me as rather dirty pool, given that the same poster had himself excised the relevant Briedenbach reference, which would have correctly directed enquirers.Kimberley Cornish (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like dirty pool to me too. If I were you I would report it via ANI. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides the Breidenbach entry, readers should be aware that Number17 has edited the following Wikipedia entries to remove all references to the Bethmann Jewish ancestry:

Cosima Wagner

Franz Liszt

Marie d'Agoult

Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg

Wikipedia, therefore, can no longer be relied upon (30th July 2008) to locate supporting references concerning the Bethmann's halachic Jewishness. Fortunately the references I have cited in the article are to academic studies preserved in university libraries. These are the sources that researchers must now consult. The on-line Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Moritz Breidenbach also remains sound, never having been available for anonymous editorial mutilation. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuation and consolidation by Number17

Mr. Cornish. I really don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse or perverse just for the sake of it. I will try to type slowly so that you may follow.
(1) The Bethmann family of bankers was not Jewish, or formerly Jewish, or converted from Judaism, or Marrano Jews, or Sephardic Jews, or halakhically Jewish, all claims that you have made in various places and at various times.
(2) I ripped through your "argument" with a devastating refutation at WikiAnswers. That page has been locked by the management and edited for clarity, however, they put in one mistake about a third of the way down where the bolded user name "Number17" instead of "Kimberley Cornish" appears once too often in succession; otherwise, the edits are accurate.
(3) To summarize: German scholarship has never considered the Bethmanns as Jews or former Jews in any sense of the word. See, e.g.,
(3a) the German Wikipedia entry on the Bethmanns, which notes that the family goes back to the northern German town of Goslar and the year 1416, hence the claim that the Bethmanns were refugees from 1492 Spain is nonsensical. (Note to non-Germanophone readers: in the meantime, I have received permission from the author of the German-language Wiki page on the Bethmanns to translate his text into English; I expect to have this ready sometime this weekend or next week.) Note the two reference works cited at the end of the German Wikipedia article.

(3b) a direct weblink to the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, 14th edition, 1894-1896, (link goes to a page of text OCR'ed from the printed encyclopedia, contains typos) and [2] (the same information, but JPEG of the printed page, which is in Fraktur typeface and hence difficult to read for non-Germans. (However, no problem for scholars researching German history.)) The Brockhaus entry gives the reference to the year 1416 and continues:

"Dort gehörte die Familie seit dem Beginn des 16. Jahrh. zu den ratsfähigen Geschlechtern und zu den Mitgliedern der ersten Gilde"

. My translation:

"There [in Goslar] the family, since early in the 16th century, was among the families entitled to delegate representatives to the town's council, as well as being members of the first guild."

(3c) a recent scholarly work on bankers under the Kaiser, Bankiers im Kaiserreich: Sozialprofil und Habitus der deutschen Hochfinanz, by Morten Reitmayer. Searchable online at amazon. Mr. Reitmayer devotes an entire chapter of the book solely to the topic of the Jewish bankers among the top German bankers of the age. He employs an extremely broad scope in defining who among the high-powered bankers of the era should be considered Jewish. For example, the Oppenheimer family, who had converted to Christianity in 1807, is still considered Jewish by him.
However, even Reitmayer never considers the Bethmanns to fall within his broad (overly broad, in my opinion) definition of Jewishness.

(4) The Jewish Encyclopedia entry. Here is what you claimed on WikiAnswers:

'I also adduce the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach, who was the grandfather of the German Chancellor Bethmann-Holweg. The text (viewable on the (June 8th 2008) Wikipedia entry on Breidenbach, reads" he was the son of Wolf Breidenbach and an offspring of the Jewish banking family of von Bethmann from Frankfurt. Cosima Wagner was his relative from the von Bethmanns side".'

In fact, Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach (who was indeed Jewish and does appear in the Jewish Encyclopedia) was NOT the grandfather of German chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and he was NOT an offspring of the Bethmanns. The Jewish Encyclopedia makes no such claims AT ALL. The Wikipedia entry cited by you is FALSE. And instead of thanking me, you have the NERVE to complain about me in the administrative area because I went and corrected the false Wikipedia entry!

(5) I hope I don't have to explain to you who Paul Johnson is, in particular what a towering figure among historians he cuts and the length of the shadow he casts. In his book, A History of the Jews, Harper Perennial, published in 1988 (also searchable online at amazon), Johnson writes (on page 314):

"What happened was this. Until the beginning of the revolutionary wars in France, in the mid-1790s, European merchant banking was dominated by non-Jews: the Barings of London, the Hopes of Amsterdam and the Gebrüder Bethmann of Frankfurt."

(6) Okay, you say, but then there is the article by someone named Brody claiming Jewish descent for Cosima Wagner via the Bethmanns (for which Brody gave no reference or source, or you neglected to mention it). Given the overwhelming weight of evidence on my side, I could have just ignored this, but I actually chased down the source of the "Jewish Bethmanns" canard. It was a spurious piece of writing by someone named Albert Göllerich in 1887, which prima facie had no credibility, as I was able to show on the above cited WikiAnswers page.

Mr. Cornish, you should apologize to everyone here for having wasted our time.--Number17 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just noted this by Cornish:

"Please note that our objector, who is not assuning good faith on my part (writing of my "intentionally false misstatements")...."

No, Mr. Cornish, that is not what I wrote: but if you want the shoe to fit, then wear it!--Number17 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Fritz Stern, in Gold and Iron, Vintage Books, published in 1979, searchable on amazon, page 16, writes,

"... he appealed to the Prussian prime minister, Otto von Manteuffel, to appoint the gentile rivals of the Rothschilds, the House of Bethmann, as Prussia's court bankers."

In the meantime, I took a look at those other references given by you that are searchable online at amazon. The picture that emerges there is different from the one you painted. Gutman does write,

"... by marrying the daughter of Simon Moritz Bethmann, a Jewish banker of Frankfort on the Main. There Marie was born in 1805. ... For a while the child again lived in the Jewish household of those ancestors who were to prove so embarrassing to her own daughter, Cosima. ... Ashamed of her descent from the patriarchal Schimsche Naphtali Bethmann, she spent a lifetime seeking to deny it through such abuse." (!)

Gutman gets points from me for his splendid talent for confabulation, but nothing else. He took Göllerich's half-joking, half-libellous reporting of a rumor ("according to some accounts") and ran with it, turning it into a mini-drama worthy of television.
Perenyi's book on Liszt is not searchable online.
Phyllis Stock-Morton is so embarrassed by Gutman's display, she quietly changes his yellow-press style back into reported rumour and writes,

"The Frankfurt Bethmanns were originally from Nassau in the Netherlands; rumour had it that there the family had converted from Judaism,"

footnoting both Gutman and Perenyi as sources. (Note, btw, that while Nassau was long ruled by the House of Oranje, Nassau lies smack next to Frankfurt in the heart of Germany, far from Amsterdam.)
Haven't found the Jacques Vier book on the Comptesse d'Agoult at amazon.
Finally, there is Watson, who does write that Dutch ancestors of the Bethmanns had converted from Judaism to the Protestant faith. (Watson cites no sources.)
That, my dear Cornish, is thin gruel indeed. It suffices for me to withdraw my suspicion that you might be a fabricator, but as a researcher you fail the basic test of competence.--Number17 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: It is better to include here what I wrote regarding Göllerich on the above referenced WikiAnswers page:

August Göllerich (ironically, a native of Linz) authored a biography of Franz Liszt in 1887, according to the Austrian Encyclopedia at the Technical University of Graz website: http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.encyclop.g/g551413.htm

I quote from Amazon.com's PDF facsimile of the 1908 edition. On page 89 of the book, we find this:

"Marie, Vicomtesse de Flavigny, wurde am 15. August 1805 als Kind eines Emigranten geboren, der nach Frankfurt a.M. gezogen war, um dort Soldaten für die französische Armee zu werben, wofür er ins Gefängnis geworfen wurde.

Derselbe hatte die glühende Liebe einer achtzehnjährigen Witwe entfacht, die sich mit ihm so lange einsperren ließ, bis ihre Eltern seine Befreiung durchsetzten, und ihre Einwilligung gaben, ihn zum Schwiegersohne zu nehmen.

Der Vater dieser Romantikerin war der reiche Bankier Simon Moritz Bethmann, dessen Vorfahren nach den einen Berichten Schimon Naphtali Bethmann, ein Frankfurter Handelsmann, nach andern der Patrizier Bethmann-Hollweg gewesen, der zu Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts seines protestantischen Glaubens wegen aus den Niederlanden vertrieben worden war."

My translation:

"Marie, the Vicomtesse de Flavigny, was born 15 August 1805 as the child of an expatriate [Frenchman] who had moved to Frankfurt-on-the-Main to recruit soldiers for the French army; for this, he was thrown into jail.

The [Viscomte] had inflamed the torrid love of an eighteen-year old widow, who managed to get herself incarcerated together with him until finally her parents relented, made the authorities set him free, and consented to him becoming their son in law.

The father of this romantic lass was the rich banker Simon Moritz Bethmann, whose ancestors, by some accounts, included Schimon Naphtali Bethmann, a Frankfurt merchant; by other accounts the Patrizier [a German term denoting an upper-tier bourgeois, i.e., not a member of the nobility] Bethmann-Hollweg, who had been driven out from the Netherlands due to his Protestant faith early in the 18th century."

I included the first two paragraphs for context; I have not checked whether the portrayal of the Viscomte de Flavigny as a swashbuckler, or the even more dramatic account of how he met and married his wife, Maria Elisabeth Bethmann (not named by Göllerich), is accurate.
On to the third paragraph. It is amazing how much misinformation can be packed into such a short paragraph: First, Cosima's grandmother and Marie's mother, Maria Elisabeth Bethmann, was NOT the daughter of a Simon Moritz Bethmann; in fact, her father was a Johann Philipp Bethmann. Second, her brother Simon Moritz had been elevated to the status of a nobleman, therefore his name should have been given correctly as Simon Moritz VON Bethmann. Third, there appears to be nothing more than rumor ("by some accounts") behind the "merchant Schimon Naphtali Bethmann" with the Jewish sounding name; no such person is found in the Bethmann family tree, in any case not after the family's move to Frankfurt. Fourth, the Bethmann-Hollweg family line starts only in 1795, when Moritz August, the only child of Susanna Elisabeth Bethmann and Johann Jakob Hollweg is born, therefore Cosima could not have been a descendant of a Hollweg.

This amusingly slapdash piece of writing, then, appears to be the wellspring of the "Jewish Bethmanns" canard -- unless an earlier published source than 1887 can be found.

Oh, and how do I know that Göllerich's idea of the Bethmann family tree (and by extension anyone taking Göllerich at face value) is wrong? Well, there are the two reference works given at the bottom of the German Wikipedia entry on the Bethmann family. Unfortunately, neither of the two books are online. Fortunately, on the other hand, a facsimile of the Neues deutsches Adels-Lexicon by Ernst Heinrich Kneschke, published 1859 in Leipzig, is online here, and even the typeface is well legible!

The genealogy in the handbook, and the genealogy given by Göllerich and his copycats cannot both be right. Mr. Cornish, I ask you: which of the two genealogies do you choose as authoritative, and on what basis?--Number17 (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cornish replies

Where to begin?

1. The article you referenced in the German Wikipedia on "Bethmann" (reference: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethmann_%28Familie%29

was contributed by one "Flibbertigibbet". It is clearly not suitable to be cited as an academic reference on this ground alone.

2. You write: "Aside from the occasional crackpot or practical joker, no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews, now or in the past.". You now acknowledge that there are in fact academic sources (Bridie, Watson, Gutmann et al) asserting precisely this, just (I stress) as I Cornish writes:originally cited them BEFORE you called my honesty into question and PRIOR to your bothering to check their accuracy. In addition, the Bethmann Park in Frankfurt was confiscated by the Nazis from the Bethmann family as Jewish property. Readers should simply google "Bethmann Park Frankfurt Nazis" for evidence. It is thus clearly NOT the case that no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews. It is, however, very gracious of you to now "withdraw my suspicion that you might be a fabricator". Thank you very much.

3. You originally wrote "Needless to say (or is it?), the fantastic claim made by Cornish in the article that "... the German Chancellor in the Great War, was of Jewish descent..." is equally bizarre, and equally unsupported by fact." Before you edited the Wikipedia reference, it read of "Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach" "Born in Offenbach, Hesse, he was the son of Wolf Breidenbach and an offspring of the Jewish banking family of von Bethmann from Frankfurt. Cosima Wagner was his relative from the von Bethmanns side." You have now, in agreement with me, swung to write of Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach that he "was indeed Jewish". Here is a reference to Bethmann-Hollweg from another source as at 1st August 2008:

http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Theobald_von_Bethmann-Hollweg

"He was born in 1856 in Hohenfinow, Brandenburg, the son of Prussian official Felix von Bethmann-Hollweg (born Breidenbach) ..."

Please indicate precisely where Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's ancestry back to the Jewish Felix von Bethmann-Hollweg, is incorrectly presented in this. If Felix were originally a Breidenbach then undeniably, the good Chancellor had Jewish ancestors.

3. In respect of your comment 3(b), I am unsure what your point is. The Brockhaus Encyclopedia simply does NOT state that the Bethmanns weren't Jewish. It merely testifies to their ancient high estate, which matter is quite consistent with Jewishness. It is important not to confuse the absence of an explicit statement of Jewishness with the explicit statement of non-Jewishness. So, please provide us with the explicit Brockhaus Encyclopedia statement that the Bethmanns were NOT Jewish. Until this is done, the Brockhaus Encyclopedia cannot even be cited as expressing an opinion on this matter of Bethmann Jewishness, let alone as an academic authority on it.

4. Ditto for 3(c) the fact that Morten Reitmayer does not state the Bethmanns to be Jewish does not serve to demonstrate the non-Jewishness of the family. Please state if and where Reitmayer explicitly denies the Bethmann Jewishness.

5. You write "then there is the article by someone named Brody claiming Jewish descent for Cosima Wagner via the Bethmanns (for which Brody gave no reference or source, or you neglected to mention it)." You cannot consistently condemn Professor Brody for giving no source, while praising Paul Johnson, who also gives no source. In fact, however, you are in error about Professor Brody. She. like any University of New York professor, did mark the relevant passage, in this case with the endnote reference number 15. Her source is referemced on p.78, endnote 15, which quotes the standard authority of Gutmann.

7 I am not familiar with Fritz Stern's "Gold and Iron". It was favourably reviewed by Klaus J. Bade in the journal of the American Historical Association. This is the first reference you have provided (given that Johnson's remark is unsourced) that is of any academic consequence at all and I shall reserve comment for a later occasion after I have examined the book. The crucial matter, of course, will concern Stern's sources. Should his remark be unsourced, it can be rejected with the others as academically unacceptable.

6. You write: "I actually chased down the source of the "Jewish Bethmanns" canard. It was a spurious piece of writing by someone named Albert Göllerich in 1887, which prima facie had no credibility, as I was able to show on the above cited WikiAnswers page." Since the belief that the Bethmanns were Jewish predates 1887, Gollerich cannot have been the source. He is, however, of critical importance for quite other reasons, as I shall explain in a section all to itself. For the moment, however, I point out that I never cited Gollerich as a source. Whatever your labours might have been in debunking Gollerich, they have so far not touched the academic respectability of the ones that I did cite. Good luck with Vier's volumes. Over to you. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Number17 chimes back

Cornish writes:

The article you referenced in the German Wikipedia on "Bethmann" (...) was contributed by one "Flibbertigibbet". It is clearly not suitable to be cited as an academic reference on this ground alone.

N17 replies: Wikipedia entries can be judged on their own merit, if they have any. In this case, just the two reference works given at the end lift the value of the entry substantially above zero. For me, it is easy enough to hop on down to the Public Library and confirm that Flibbertigibbet accurately summarized them. As a courtesy to you Down Under, I also went out of my way to hunt down another reference work online and gave you the URL so you can check for yourself. (By the way, you do read German, don't you...?)

Cornish writes:

You write: "Aside from the occasional crackpot or practical joker, no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews, now or in the past.". (...)

N17 replies: A combination of "crackpot" and "practical joker" certainly covers both Göllerich and Gutman. The similarities between Göllerich and Gutman are far too numerous to suggest that Gutman got his inspiration anywhere else. (Unless he did, and then why haven't you told us yet?) I should have added "lazy copycats" to cover Brody and Watson who simply copied Gutman without checking by going back to the original source, though in fairness to Watson, if that was the only mistake made by him in a book-length text he comes out looking still pretty good. Phyllis Stock-Morton is altogether different, however. She is careful enough not to be taken in by Gutman. It is altogether mystifying what you were hoping to accomplish by including her in your list of sources. I am afraid you have shot yourself in the foot here.

Cornish writes:

In addition, the Bethmann Park in Frankfurt was confiscated by the Nazis from the Bethmann family as Jewish property. Readers should simply google "Bethmann Park Frankfurt Nazis" for evidence. It is thus clearly NOT the case that no one has ever considered the Bethmann family to be Jews.

N17 replies: Yes, two crackpot tourist websites claim that a Jewish Bethmann gifted the park to the city. That is a very low incidence of crackpottery. Try googling Jew Rockefeller or Freemason Rockefeller or even Reptilian Rockefeller... be prepared for the hair on the back of your neck to stand up (I hope I'm not giving Cornish ideas here...).

Cornish writes:

You originally wrote "Needless to say (or is it?), the fantastic claim made by Cornish in the article that "... the German Chancellor in the Great War, was of Jewish descent..." is equally bizarre, and equally unsupported by fact." Before you edited the Wikipedia reference, it read of "Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach" "Born in Offenbach, Hesse, he was the son of Wolf Breidenbach and an offspring of the Jewish banking family of von Bethmann from Frankfurt. Cosima Wagner was his relative from the von Bethmanns side." You have now, in agreement with me, swung to write of Moritz Wilhelm August Breidenbach that he "was indeed Jewish".

N17 replies: Please... I have NOT "swung" to write of Breidenbach that he was Jewish. I never claimed otherwise! The problem with that Wikipedia entry was that it was FALSE and moreover gave a FALSE REFERENCE, so I corrected it (still waiting for a "thank you" from Cornish...). If you really really insist that Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg had a Jewish father named (or formerly (?!) named) Breidenbach, contrary to his numerous biographies, then that is a most extraordinary claim, which, as I am sure you know, requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck!

Cornish writes:

In respect of your comment 3(b), I am unsure what your point is. The Brockhaus Encyclopedia simply does NOT state that the Bethmanns weren't Jewish. It merely testifies to their ancient high estate, which matter is quite consistent with Jewishness. It is important not to confuse the absence of an explicit statement of Jewishness with the explicit statement of non-Jewishness. So, please provide us with the explicit Brockhaus Encyclopedia statement that the Bethmanns were NOT Jewish. Until this is done, the Brockhaus Encyclopedia cannot even be cited as expressing an opinion on this matter of Bethmann Jewishness, let alone as an academic authority on it.

N17 replies: Mr. Cornish, you claimed that the Bethmanns were refugees from 1492 Spain, remember? How could they be ensconced in Goslar from the year 1416 forward? Please don't be silly, Jews during that age might have attained high rank at court as advisors or physicians, for example, but how many were burghers with a seat on the town council or members of prestigious guilds? You are really reaching. Moreover, I dug up the Brockhaus pages because they match information given in the German-language Wikipedia entry on the Bethmanns, thus raising the latter's credibility quotient.

Cornish writes:

Ditto for 3(c) the fact that Morten Reitmayer does not state the Bethmanns to be Jewish does not serve to demonstrate the non-Jewishness of the family. Please state if and where Reitmayer explicitly denies the Bethmann Jewishness.

N17 replies: He doesn't have to. The chapter is headed "Die jüdischen Großbankiers" and focuses on them. I read through the entire chapter online, which took some doing because the page view function is very unwieldy, and the Bethmanns are not in it.

Cornish writes:

You write "then there is the article by someone named Brody claiming Jewish descent for Cosima Wagner via the Bethmanns (for which Brody gave no reference or source, or you neglected to mention it)." You cannot consistently condemn Professor Brody for giving no source, while praising Paul Johnson, who also gives no source. In fact, however, you are in error about Professor Brody. She. like any University of New York professor, did mark the relevant passage, in this case with the endnote reference number 15. Her source is referemced on p.78, endnote 15, which quotes the standard authority of Gutmann.

N17 replies: Yeah but what excuse does she have for quoting that clown?

Cornish writes:

I am not familiar with Fritz Stern's "Gold and Iron". It was favourably reviewed by Klaus J. Bade in the journal of the American Historical Association. This is the first reference you have provided (given that Johnson's remark is unsourced) that is of any academic consequence at all and I shall reserve comment for a later occasion after I have examined the book. The crucial matter, of course, will concern Stern's sources. Should his remark be unsourced, it can be rejected with the others as academically unacceptable.

N17 replies: So let me get this straight. Citing unsupported anonymous Wikipedia entries or tourist websites with missing or false references, as you do, is okay, but citing Paul Johnson or Fritz Stern, who (especially the former) have a towering reputation to defend, is not? Wow. Just... wow.

And now, feel free to have the last word. I will use your statements and your conduct on this discussion as evidence in support of my proposal to get this article moved off to "Pseudoscience".--Number17 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A summing up?

Isn't a fair summary of all this series of exchanges that

1. your position is that the various academic references used by some English writers (including myself) to support the thesis of Bethmann Jewishness are in fact not well grounded, but the result of chicanery or historical errors by Gutmann and others.

2. you agree that Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's grandfather (not father) was Jewish.

I write this not to have the last word, but so you might state explicitly where we differ. I am still unsure what your exact position is on issue 2, though it is fairly clear that you think I have misrepresented matters or otherwise bahaved badly. Ignoring my own wickedness, are my summaries in 1 and 2 a fair summary of the result so far as the factual matters are concerned? 122.107.208.210 (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Number17, bored to tears
The above, though unsigned, presumably was written by Kimberley Cornish.

A very small number of fools and knaves are claiming that the Bethmanns were Jewish. I have shown where the canard originated, how it got amplified, and how some who were lazy or foolish fell for the canard. Others may have a more sinister axe to grind, and I am of course thinking especially of Mr. Cornish, writer of adulatory fan mail to holocaust denier David Irving.

One wonders if Kimberley Cornish would not be better off swinging a mop as a janitor. His reading comprehension problem is huge. I "agree that von Bethmann Hollweg's grandfather was Jewish"??? Have the fairies been talking to you again, Cornish?--Number17 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Number 17 you are being rude, very rude. If you do not cease and desist from that behavior I will report it on an ANI. If you have come here to joust with Mr Cornish you have come to the wrong place. These pages are for discussing changes to the article. Insults are not helpful.Please read this and then this and take into consideration that your debate with Cornish makes for a hostile editing environment. If you are truly bored then just exercise your right to go and edit another article. Otherwise please just chill out and be civil. Albion moonlight (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Report me.--Number17 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You wrote above, "Please... I have NOT "swung" to write of Breidenbach that he was Jewish. I never claimed otherwise!". It you still want to deny that Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg was of Jewish descent, then, as I stated he was, then you would now have to argue (since Breidenbach WAS Jewish) that Breidenbach was not his ancestor. Is your position, then, that the Chancellor's line of descent did not include Breidenbach?

2. The argument over the Bethmann banking family's halachic Jewishness is distinct from that of the Jewish descent of the Chancellor. While I argue that the Chancellor was of Jewish descent through his grandfather Breidenbach (and thus not necessarily halachically Jewish) there is, I argue, a traceable female line of Jewish descent down to Cosima Wagner from Maria de Flavigny, who was a Bethmann. I have supported this with references to reputable academic works. The issue now seems to be simply that you dispute the adequacy of these references as written by "fools and knaves".

3. Both of these issues ought to be able to be reasonably discussed without resorting to vituperation. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Cornish, you finally managed to write something without dishonestly putting words into my mouth that I never said. Therefore, I will limit myself to noting that a reasonably observant and intelligent person reading through this section ("False claims about the Bethmanns") will find that your question (1) has been asked and answered above.
Your claim (2) is in pieces. Shredded. Torn. Destroyed. I could supply many more references to the centuries long, well documented Christian lineage of the Bethmanns in Frankfurt and before. However, the references already given by me are well sufficient. Your stubbornness in holding fast to falsehood in the face of correction is remarkable, I will grant you that much.--Number17 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, there are a few writers who claim Jewish ancestry for the Bethmanns. But that also contradicts what the most respected scholars and sources say.

The Chancellor had not Jewish father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather. Nor are there any attested Jews mentioned among the Bethmann family, certainly not Simon Moritz (the name Simon does not make one a Jew).

Hence, the "Jewish Bethmann" claim belongs only into two kinds of articles. Into the Bethman article as a note about this "not widely accepted claim" and into of those making the claim and their books - but everytime indicating the nature of the claim. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Emphatically NO. Let's nip this in the bud right here. A very small handful of knaves and fools making the "Jewish Bethmanns" claim does NOT justify calling it a "not widely accepted claim". It is garbage, as I have shown. Garbage in the same way as Cornish's claim that Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg had a Jewish father or grandfather named Breidenbach. If your standard for what can be called a "not widely accepted claim" is applied uniformly, in future anyone claiming Jewish descent for Chancellor von Bethman Hollweg will likewise be entitled to call it a "not widely accepted claim", just because someone (Cornish or whoever) makes the claim in a book.

This is precisely why this article is in the "Pseudohistory" category together with Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods and other works of pseudohistory.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The matter of Gollerich

The Nazi Ernst ("Putzi") Hanfstaengl wrote of Hitler's admiration for Wagner: "He had a genuine knowledge and appreciation of Wagner's music, and this he picked up somewhere, probably in his Vienna days, long before I knew him. The seed may even have been sown in Linz, where at the beginning of the century there was a pupil of Liszt named Gollerich, who ws the local orchestral conductor and a Wagner enthusiast." (English translation in "The Unknown Hitler", Gibson Square Books, London 2005, p.54.) We know from "Mein Kampf" and from Kubizek's memoirs that Hitler attended Wagner productions in Linz and thus that he was physically present in the same room as Gollerich. Now the diary notes of Gollerich were published in English by Indiana University Press in 1996. ("The Piano Master Classes of Franz Liszt 1884-1886", transl. Richard Louis Zamindar). The "chronology" of Gollerich's life offered in this book has Liszt inviting Gollerich to Weimar in 1884, accompanying him to Rome in 1885, to Pest and Weimar in 1886 and then adds "July 31: Liszt dies in Bayreuth. Cosima Wagner and he are the only one's present at Liszt's passing." Gollerich, then, was not some remote academic biographer of Liszt, but someone who knew both Liszt and his daughter Cosima Wagner intimately, not to mention Princess Carolyne Wittgenstein who was Liszt's paramour. (Princess Wittgenstein had earlier been responsible for sequestrating Cosima Liszt away from her mother, Marie d'Agoult, and was consequently loathed and hated by Cosima.) We now have the curious coincidence of enthusiastic Wagnerians Wittgenstein (heir to the richest Jewish fortune in Central Europe) and Jew-loathing Adolf Hitler at a school of circa 300 students in Linz, attending local operas put on by a man of close acquaintance with Cosima, who explicitly wrote of her Jewish ancestry and knew of the Carolyne Wittgenstein link. Gollerich may have made the odd mistake about Cosima's genealogy, but his statement about her Jewishness is certainly not a matter just to be dismissed and ignored. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and COI

This article has clear NPOV problems, and I am also concerned about the conflict of interest in having most of the editing of the article done by the author of the book. In addition, Cornish seems to be taking ownership of this article in that he monitors every addition to the article and issues ultimatums about what can and cannot be included.

I would like to address two major problems with the article that I will address in their own subsections below. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I am putting a "conflict of interest" tag on this article until these issues are resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be a little more specific, please, about which partidcular statements are not NPOV so that they might be discussed here first? Kimberley Cornish (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See below. You have to understand that NPOV is not necessarily always as blatant as a single statement that stands on its own as biased (although there are a few of those, too, I think -- I already pointed out and removed one of them, as I mentioned below). Giving too much coverage to a specific aspect of a subject over other aspects creates a problem of undue weight which can unbalance the neutrality of an article without having specific statements to point to.

In this case, the very high level of detail used to recap the arguments/evidence in the book, compared with the very low level of coverage of critical reception, etc., creates a problem of undue weight, in that it overemphasizes the book's theses over the book itself. This article is supposed to be about the book. However, 80% of it right now is not about the book, but rather it is about the same thing the book is about. Does that make any sense?

While it does not directly apply, since this book is non-fiction, I think we can get some guidance from WP:NOT#PLOT. Specifically, I think this article should "discuss...the reception, impact and significance of" The Jew of Linz, and that "a concise [thesis] summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage."

I don't mean to just complain and then leave; I intend to help work on this article to balance it. I am going on vacation tomorrow until Thursday, but I will be back next Friday. I have already made a couple changes to the article, but condensing the "Cornish's arguments" and "Evidence" sections appropriately will take some great care. I also don't want to just hack the article down to something that is worthless -- the central arguments and evidence in the book should be presented in a concise and fair manner, and doing so fairly is going to require some careful writing. As they say, it's always harder to write less than it is to write more! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit, however, illustrates a major linguistic difficulty when discussing Cornish's writing. You wrote,

"If Wittgenstein were indeed responsible for British decryption technology for the German Enigma code reaching the Red Army, as the author argues, then the very same boy who was the occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic, enabled the Red Army victories on the Eastern Front that liberated the camps and ultimately overthrew the Reich."

You started out in the subjunctive mode ("If W. were indeed responsible") but then, inadvertently, you slide into the indicative mode ("... the very same boy who was the occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic..."). Cornish makes such a large number of questionable assertions, a reviewer relating his arguments is almost forced to choose between readability (but then some dubious statements get by without qualification) or critical distance (but then readability suffers as every questionable assertion is qualified as such.)--Number17 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical construction is perfectly legitimate in English. Suppose you are 180 cm tall. Then the sentence "If I were your height then I would be 180 cm tall" is simply a true hypothetical. Likewise "If Wittg. were ... then ..." is likewise a hypothetical. The truth of the consequent is supported by the truth of the antecedent. Perhaps the objection is to expressing "then the boy who ..." as if it were a fact, but the truth of THAT part of it is what is supported by the deductive argument based on Keplinger's testimony. Perhaps the objection might be agreeably dealt with were the passage reworded to "If Wittgenstein were indeed responsible for British decryption technology for the German Enigma code reaching the Red Army, as the author argues, then the very same boy whom the author alleges was the occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic, enabled the Red Army victories on the Eastern Front that liberated the camps and ultimately overthrew the Reich." Put like that, I don't see there is any further ground for complaint, so I shall alter it within the week unless there are objections. I might add that Number17 seems to see the book as in some way anti-Semitic. It is actually a celebration of a Jewish victory against the greatest enemy of Jews there has ever been. The Keplinger quote is evidence that Hitler expressed anti-Semitic vitriol at age 15 and that Wittgenstein was the original (or at least very early)subject of it. Where is the anti-Semitism is arguing that this original Jewish boy managed to bring down the Jews' greatest ever enemy? Surely more a matter of recognition of a so far unrecognized Jewish hero, I would have thought. 122.107.208.210 (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Kimberley Cornish (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence" section is not really appropriate and is too long

The purpose of the Wikipedia article on The Jew of Linz is to describe what the book is, its major theses, its critical reception, its place within our culture, and any other notable facts related to the book. It does not exist to reiterate the arguments made in the book. A few sentences talking about the critical pieces of evidence on which Cornish's argument hinges would be plenty, e.g. the photograph, etc.

The "Evidence" section should not be used to bolster the argument, e.g. with non-neutral statements such as, "This thesis has been accepted by the British philosopher Professor Antony Flew" are not appropriate. First of all, it requires interpretation of Flew's quote, and we don't agree on the interpretation. It seems to me he is saying it is possible Cornish is right. Also, there is the problem of undue weight. Yes, one philosopher allows the thesis might be correct. Is he representative of the general opinion among historians? It appears this is just hand-picking of one guy who maybe half-agrees with Cornish. (I am removing that section at this time)

The "evidence" section should be hugely condensed. We just need to hear the main thrust: The photo, the comments in Mein Kampf about the Jewish schoolboy, a sentence of two on the stuff at Cambridge, etc. The evidence covered in the Richmond Review article is probably a good place to start, as this shows what a 3rd party would likely present as a summary of the evidence presented by Cornish. I would go so far as to say the section on "Cornish's arguments" and "Evidence" could likely be condensed and combined into a single section entitled "Primary Thesis" or "Synposis". --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Failing to characterize the critical reception of this book

The "Reception in Germany and Austria" section is a start, but it fails to actually characterize the overall reception to the book, which seems clear to me from a perusal of the reviews. (BTW, I am removing the External Links to private websites, as per Wikipedia's policy on External Links. The fact that some guy with a website liked the book is not particularly relevant) The general reception of this book by both book reviewers and the historical community is quite clear, yet this is never mentioned. This seems to me to be an attempt at white-washing of sorts. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to address your concerns by revising the section.--Number17 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Added article to category "Pseudohistory"

I tried finding out how to petition to get the article moved off to a separate area called "Pseudoscience". Browsing through the Wikipedia help files, I thought I had seen such a procedure described. Apparently, though, I was mistaken.

As it turns out, however, there is a category called Pseudohistory, and so I added the article to it. I expect that Kimberley Cornish or someone else will revert my category addition, in which case I would welcome directions where to go to defend my categorization.--Number17 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommended: a look at Chariots of the Gods and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance as models for the future shape of this article.--Number17 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard is what I was looking for. According to the guidance given on that page, chances are good that not only will the categorization as "Pseudoscience" stick, a radical revamp focusing on the book's errors/distortions as opposed to its arguments should also have a good chance of going through.--Number17 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to continue working along those lines. If there is a dispute we can try and settle it through the dispute process. Be forewarned that the more people you bring into this discussion the more essential it will become that you adhere to Wiki-Etiquette. I think the addition of the category pseudo history is apt enough to be a keeper because many readers will likely see it as being so.

I also think that the creation of a category called Fringe Theories would be more accurate. Editors are allowed to create categories but I do not know how to go about it. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think that the creation of a category called Fringe Theories would be more accurate. Editors are allowed to create categories but I do not know how to go about it. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors are free to do what they wish, but perhaps a discussion of the book's alleged errors making it "pseudo-science" would be in order here first. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I myself do not see it as Pseudo history or Pseudo science but I do understand why people might categorize it as that. To me it is just an interesting book about a philosopher with whom I tend to be philosophically at variance with. Your book makes him a whole lot more interesting to me. As I said above I think a category named fringe theory's would be the best way to go. But..... Albion moonlight (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Cornish's agenda?

Above, Cornish explicitly denies that he has an anti-Semitic agenda. I suggest that his denial should be taken with more than a grain of salt. We already know that he does not shrinking back from telling untruths (e.g., the false claim about the Jewish Encyclopedia; the bibliography he gives for "Jewish" Bethmanns, but upon inspection, the books do not all turn out to support his claim.)

More significantly, as an associate of David Irving's, he shares some of Irving's agenda. For example, on 29 September 2007 The Guardian reported, "Mr Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallised rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the second world war."

Blaming the Jews for their victimization and exculpating their victimizers are classical anti-Semitic tropes. Cornish claims that "The occasion for Adolf Hitler becoming anti-Semitic was a schoolboy interaction in Linz, circa 1904, with Ludwig Wittgenstein," in short: no Wittgenstein, no Holocaust.

That is nothing more than a variation on Irving's theme, quoted above.

Moreover, this explains the curious insistence by Cornish that Cosima Wagner was "halakhically Jewish via the Bethmanns" (a claim which I have shown to be false) and that the children "sired by Wagner through her" were therefore "likewise halakhically Jewish". It is well known that Cosima Wagner's hatred of Jews dwarfed her husband's and her daughter Winifred became a major supporter of Hitler.

For people of a certain mindset, it is thrilling beyond measure to imagine that Winifred Wagner, who made it possible for Hitler to write Mein Kampf in prison, might have been Jewish. "The Jews as architects of their own misfortune." It reminds me of a favorite tactic of schoolyard bullies, who will grab the wrist of their hapless victim and then use their hand to slap the victim's face, all the while asking solicitously, "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?"--Number17 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Im missing something nunber 17 but I do not see the antisemitic agenda you are referring too. I highly suggest that you call for a request for comment on this matter or drop it altogether. Calling Cornish an antisemitic even by implication is a major no no here at Wiki it is a personal attack. So please be careful about what you say. I am a Jew by ethnicity and I strongly question your accusations against Cornish and his books agenda but like I said maybe I'm missing something. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Albion moonlight", anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet. Unverifiable, therefore meaningless, so you can stuff the claim about your ancestry. Cornish has explicitly denied any antisemitic agenda. I am entitled to weigh his denial and doubt it, question it, even reject it, if I give a reasoning, which I have done. You keep telling me what to do and what not to do. How about if you stop carrying Cornish's water? Like encouraging him to swear out a complaint against me with the admins (based on nothing at all, you should be thanking me instead). Like reverting my edit without comment or explanation.--Number17 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. You are not allowed to make personal attacks against other wikipedians. And you still do not seem to understand wiki policy when it comes to Original Research. I revert you when you make such edits and I will continue to do so. Your oppinions about the book are irrelevant unless they are backed up by reliable sources and your stated reasons for editing that article (on your talk page) strongly indicate that your intentions are disruptive. So cut it out or edit something else. I urged Cornish to go to the admins with his allegations but I did not investigate them. I left the investigation up to the admins. That is the way it is supposed to be. You are making the working environment a battlezone. This is not your right. You need to learn about wiki etiquette and adhere to it. You also need to learn a lot more about Wiki policy in general. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to publish a line-by-line critique of my edits and I will be willing to discuss with you. Wholesale revert of my edits is not acceptable.--Number17 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guy but original research is not allowed. I will revert it everytime I see it. It is up to you to restore any material that you do not find to be original research. Your understanding of wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired but that ok by me I will just keep reverting you until you get it right. Read This and try to learn.Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the above unsigned comment, presumably from "Albion moonlight": scroll up to read Jaysweet's comments on what was wrong with last week's version of the article. I have attempted to turn his comments into edits as best I could, although needless to say, any inadequacy in doing so would be my fault, not Jaysweet's. This covers the majority of my recent edits.

Additionally, I have added a short section on the author and updated/revised "Opposing views" and "Response in Germany and Austria".

You are welcome to address on a point by point basis where you perceive "Original Research". Until you do so, I will keep undoing your reverts.--Number17 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we are likely to end up with an edit war and the article will be protected from editing altogether and one or both of us will be sanctioned. That too is a bad plan. Your new section about the author is original research followed by an allegation you found on the internet. I will place a citation needed flag on it for now. Perhaps Cornish can provide us with more information about his credentials. If he denies what the Blog says then it will likely be removed by an administrator. I do not really see the relevance of his association with Irving but I do find it interesting. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Albion, I am glad we are finally talking to each other instead of at each other. Per your comments above, I have changed the section headed "The author" to HIDDEN TEXT, while I take the time to research how "canonical" book articles handle information on the author. When I come back, I will either change back the section to VISIBLE TEXT, alter it to make it conform to WP guidelines, or delete it entirely.

Cheers,

--Number17 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan to me. And thank you for your comments. I think Blp may apply when we are addressing a books author but we can always go to the blp notice board and ask them if there is a problem. Be well. And thanks again. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you guys have worked this out for now. I would just like to state, FWIW, that I do not think Cornish's "agenda" is at all important for the purposes of building a good article on this book, and I would ask that people refrain from speculating on this alleged agenda further. It may at some point be necessary to incorporate some comments about what others have said about Cornish's agenda, if multiple noteworthy reliable sources are reporting on it, but we should be careful not to speculate on the truth of these 3rd-party comments. As counter-intuitive as it seems, the "truth" is not really important here (see WP:V). --Jaysweet (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think Number17 is now on board with wiki policy. He is also more knowledgeable about the surrounding historical subjects than I am. Tnank for your help and feel free to join in anytime. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see any antisemitism in Cornish's comments. Being somehow linked to Irving doesn't make one an antisemite. Cornish's thesis might be far-fetched, but it is not actually "blaming the Jews for the Holocaust", rather it is fixing Hitler's experience with Jews upon a single person. But whether Hitler hated the Jews because of one or many Jews he met, the blame always rests not with these Jews but with Hitler. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you rejoined this talk page. However, please consider that pointing out Cornish's association with David Irving is not a smear by association; in politics, "smear by association" happens, for instance, when some extremist nutcase endorses an unsuspecting candidate for office and his opponent pounces on the opportunity to blame the candidate. In contrast, by the year 2000, everyone knew what David Irving was about, and unless one went to his conference as an avowed opponent and made sure to distance oneself loudly from his outlook beforehand, one could hardly complain of being associated with Irving.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I think this entire section to be in violation of WP:AGF. The initial poster, frustrated by his interaction with Cornish (who indeed proved to be a pain), accused Cornish of being an antisemite. Even if he were, that is hardly relevant to this article. But I don't see any solid reasons to portray Cornish in that way. His thesis is more than far-fetched, his insistence on nonsense like the "Jewish Bethman family" plainly annoying but that doesn't make him fair game. Hence, I have absolutely no understanding for this smearing attempt or any attempts to justify it. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The label "antisemitic" covers more than one ideology or conduct. I have not seen any evidence at all that Cornish either denies the Holocaust or minimizes its scale, both of which Irving has done. Nor has Cornish ever, to my knowledge, agitated for violence against Jews or tried to justify such violence in retrospect. In his Sunday Times LitSup review, Daniel Johnson quotes Cornish:

"The very engine that drove Hitler's acquisition of the magical powers that made his ascent and the Holocaust possible was the Wittgenstein Covenant violation".

That quote makes my skin crawl, and I am not alone. Johnson comments, "At this point, the non-sensical shades into the downright sinister." I agree with Johnson. More meets the eye here than mere crackpottery, and it is ugly to behold. However, I acknowledge that in viewing the sinister nature of Cornish's suggestion as antisemitic, I may well be in a minority, and that such a classification would not belong in the article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I made an embarrassing mistake in the opening comment to this section, on 6 August 2008. Winifred Wagner was not the daughter of Richard and Cosima Wagner, but their daughter-in-law, married to their son Siegfried. Sorry about that. (Siegfried's sister Eva, on the other hand, was married to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an even more influential race hater than Winifred.) However, this mistake does not distract from my question of why the author of The Jew of Linz is so adamant in holding fast to the discredited theory about Cosima's Jewish ancestry, more generally seeing Jews or their descendants where there are none (e.g., Chancellor von Bethmann Hollweg, the Princess Wittgenstein).

User Str1977, immediately above, suggests that this section is in violation of Wikipedia rules. If someone were to remove this section -- and this section only -- I would not oppose it. Such a deletion, however, would delete the comments from other contributors without having obtained their agreement first. As someone new to Wikipedia, I would rather not do so myself.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein Jewish?

How would 14-year old Adolf have known that Wittgenstein was ethnically Jewish? Wittgenstein's grandfather had converted, and by the time Ludwig was born, the family had been Christian for quite some time. Ludwig was baptized at the normal time as a Catholic (although his father's family was Protestant, his mother was Catholic, and he was raised as a Catholic). According to Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein, no Jewish customs or holidays were ever observed in the Wittgenstein palace. Although Wittgenstein was, as an adult, aware of his Jewish origins (he worked very hard behind the scenes to obtain certficates of the proper mischlinge status for his sisters, after the Nuremberg Laws were passed), it is at least doubtful whether Ludwig knew anything about Jewishness when he was fourteen. In any case, how would Adolf have known this, especially when they were not even in the same class, except for one year? I know that these questions really don't belong on a TalkPage, but maybe someone can help me out. 69.203.13.82 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

Many families have kept their past or current "jewish" faith or ethnicity a secret from outsiders, sometimes out of a desire to conform, sometimes as a means of survival. Anyone that has had children, or remembers his or her childhood, will understand how difficult it can be for a child to keep any secret, even a very important one. So is it possible that Wittgenstein knew of his jewish heritage, and perhaps was even proud of it, even though he had been baptized as a Catholic? I think it is entirely conceivable. Could he have blurted this out in some school boy exchange? Of course. Did it happen? That is where we are left with speculation - no one can really know, and frankly, I am surprised anyone really cares. In fact, I am amazed at this whole debate about the content of the book - let it speak for itself - this article could simply say it was a book written by Cornish about Hitler and Wittgenstein and we could all go on to more important subjects. Vontrotta (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear that too. This article ha a history of sparking debate pursuant to the books content. Do feel free to help watch it and thus guide the newbies

along the path of neutrality. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Australian physicist Kimberley Cornish"

Is Cornish a Ph.D. in physics? Is there independent verification of his credentials as physicist?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took this from the last German review mentioned. I don't know whether he has a Ph.D. but I don't think that is necessarily needed to call him a physicist. I think the information notable as a reader might be tempted to assume that he is a historian. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to remove tag

Seems to me that this article has received enough attention from critics of the author that it can hardly be considered to reflect his "conflict of interest". I suggest removing the tag.Vontrotta (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that too Albion moonlight (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance in the article

Goodmorningworld - Thank you for directing me to the 'talk' page, I'm new to wikipedia. I'm concerned about the balance of the article 'The Jew of Linz', it seems to have a heavy weighting placed upon the reaction to the book and not the work itself (there also seems a bias toward negative reviews). I wonder if you would agree that the article could benefit from a revision to an earlier edit with the addition of some of the 'reaction' section?

• I have moved the above post by User:Sunshine8888 here from my Talk page, where it does not belong. In response to the question, I think the balance is just fine. The article in its current form is the outcome of many edits by several users who worked hard to improve the article. There was consensus that the article as it was last summer was a frightful mess and suffered from the conflict of interest posed by the book's author also editing here. He had turned the article into an advertorial for the book. See #NPOV_and_COI above for User:Jaysweet's comments on what was wrong with a previous version of the article. There is no bias toward negative reviews: I and other editors have worked hard to present a full and fair accounting of critics' responses to the book. That the balance is 20-to-1 or 10-to-1 unfavorable to the book is not my fault. However, if you find additional reviews and they meet Wikipedia's guidelines you are free to add them.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • • Well said. I have always seen this book as little more than an entertaining theory. I will try to see if I can find some positive reviews to add but but all in all it seems like a fairly balanced article. I also encourage others to to the same. Meanwhile good work Goodmorningworld, and thanks for your participation thus far. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo from 1904?

If the photo of Hitler and supposedly Wittgenstein is from as the caption says, 1904, then they should be about 15 or 16 at the time. They only look about five or six years old. perhaps, whoever wrote the description meant to write 1894 and not 1904. What do you think? --75.162.25.31 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Houses in Jesus Lane

When I first read the book in question, I was struck by the way in which KImberley Cornish uses arguments about housesd in Jesus Lane (especially) to support his notion that Ludwig WIttgenstein actively recruited spies.

It is clear to me that the author has never walked anlong Jesus Lane and taken note of the numbers of houses there. Jesus lane's house numbering scheme is not random, but is affected by buildings other than houses - on both sides od the road. ON the North side Jesus College takes up much of the length of the street. and on the opposite side are both Westcott House (theological) and All Saints' Church. There are also two roads, Malcolm Street and Manor Street.

WIttgenstein's rooms in Trinity College were in Whewell's Court - high above Sidney Street and directly opposite the end of Jesus Lane. The view is restrictwed by a small bend near its junctiopn with Park Street.

GIven these observations a substantial part of Cornish's argument is vitiated. If he made any attempt to abtain local knowledge , it was a poor attempt. Hair Commodore (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request: Archive

Obviously in need of one. Top discussions date back to 2005 and it's ridiculously long. 198.188.96.4 (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates of attendance

Is there any clarity on dates of attendance at Realschule in Linz? Adolf Hitler article says he attended from Sep 1900 (age 11+) until 1904 (age 14/15). Other places say Hitler started to attend in 1904 (age 14/15). The kids in the photo (enter "Hitler" and "1901" in search boxes) look about 12, except a few in the back (one especially looks at least 16/17 and might be an assistant - or the teacher, if central man is headmaster/principal). Is photo all one class with one teacher for 41 boys? If so, LW & AH were not in the same class. How big were classes? Any clarity on LW's years of attendance?--JimWae (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zalampas says he started Sep 1900 at age 11 and left in 1904 (presumably June, at age 15), enrolling in a Realschule in Steyre in Sep 1904. --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem to agree year of overlap was 1903-04. Do they look 14-15 years old? Maybe, but MOST seem younger, though AH does seem a bit older than some others - which makes sense since he repeated his first year 1900-01. Kids do appear to be different ages. Are they all the same grade? If so, LW &AH were never in same grade. Perhaps it was a club? --JimWae (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/ identifies class as 1B - which is LIKELY first year, which would mean 1900-1901 or 1901-1902 (since AH repeated 1st year) -- both before LW attended--JimWae (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)