Talk:Das Judenthum in der Musik

message: I'm sorry but this is the better known translation of the title into English.  The meaning of both is pretty damn similar so I think we'd be better off going with the more standard translation.  I mean, should we renname the article on the "kingdom of heaven" the "kingdoms of heaven" just because that's what the Greek actually says?  And in this case it's debatable which is closer anyway. (68.198.181.134 08:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP article, as it clearly states, is not only about Wagner's essay, but about its reception. The history of Wagner's essay, subsequent to its publication, and after Wagner's own life,  is therefore appropriate. As it happens I agree that it has been over-rated as an important text in the history of anti-semitism. But you cannot separate it from Wagner's anti-Jewish sentiments. The sequence of the WP article does make some attempt to disentangle these different elements. If you think that 'fanatical anti-semites' cannot by definition have 'Jewish friends', by the way, think again!! Wagner is the perfect example of this. By his Bayreuth period he was far more anti-Jewsih than he was in 1850, but had plenty of Jews in his personal circle. --Smerus 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judaism" in music 

message: A lot of this seems to be claiming things about its reception with no attribution to who said various things, and little citation even where there's attribution. For example, take this pair of sentences:
:Some writers (for example, Bryan Magee) have sought to make a qualified defence of Wagner's originality of thought in "Das Judentum", despite its acknowledged malevolence. A full consideration of "Das Judentum"'s contents however renders this defence otiose.
It'd be nice if: 1) we cited where Bryan Magee made this qualified defense; and 2) cited some specific person other than us who argues that the defence is rendered otiose by a full consideration. Etc. for much of the rest of the section. --Delirium 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  could use some more citations for 'Recent reception' 

message: The title word is generally spelled Judentum - indeed, it is spelled thus throughout the article. I think that using this spelling in the entry's title would be helpful for linkers and searches. (BTW, I consider this an "A"-level article, but that is another issue.) Thank you for considering this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the spelling used in the first publication (see article header which states this clearly). However there is a WP redirect from 'Das Judentum in der Musik' so no problem exists. If anyone is really bothered, the article could be moved to 'Das Judentum',  and 'Das Judenthum' could be used as a redirect. --Smerus (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the spelling 'Judenthum' ? 

message: The phrase "physical extermination" which is used in the article raises the question "what other kind of extermination is there?"  I suggest removing the word physical.
Feedback please.  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: This article quotes heavily from Wagner's original work without footnoting those quotes. I was very frustrated when I found a sentence that was very topical to a paper I was writing—"'Only those artists who abandoned their Jewish roots—were that possible—could at all express themselves artistically,' claims Wagner"—but when I attempted to verify it [] couldn't locate it. —Andy Bonner 99.194.21.69 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citations 

message: In the
"explain to ourselves the involuntary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews, so as to vindicate that instinctive dislike which we plainly recognise as stronger and more overpowering than our conscious zeal to rid ourselves thereof."
quote, is "recognise" spelled with an "s" in the original version? Should this be corrected?J.Dong820 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really life is too short.  But if it worries you, look it up yourself and correct if necessary.--Smerus 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, on page 79, I found an alternate source for the text which spells it correctly. J.Dong820 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Sorry, but as far as I can tell the recent reception section contains nothing that supports the claim about Wagner's pamphlet being an important landmark in antisemitism. Don't get me wrong - this may well be true! But it is not based on the content of the section in question. This says that the post-war writers did not mention it at all. There follows a - once again unsourced, by the way - claim that "some have suggested...". Then it goes on to say: "It is perhaps therefore inappropriate to bring forward 'Das Judentum' in itself as a major milestone in German antisemitism", which contradicts the statement in the lead section. And in the next paragraph the text doesn't even take a stand on the issue of whether Hitler liked Wagner for his congenial view on Jews or because he enjoyed the music and subject matter of the operas. Overall, the text allocates more room to downplaying the importance/defending Wagner than in listing those who see this as a milestone of antisemitism. In my view, the statement in the lead is simply too sweeping given the lack of a quote to back it up. So either the lead should better reflect the balance of opinion as described later...or the recent reception section needs more anti-Wagner voices.Drow69 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section, antisemitism landmark 

message: Substituted at 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Das Judenthum in der Musik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203090712/http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vulture_.htm to http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vulture_.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Judaism is the religion. Individual Jews can abandon Judaism through conversion to something else, but they can hardly escape the Jewish culture in which they were brought up. So it is with any ethnic group or quasi-ethnic group. Thus someone like Gustav Mahler could convert to Christianity, but he could never fully escape Jewish influences upon his music even if he expressed Christian themes in his music.  
It was a commonplace view of Jews among antisemites that Jews might be successful in the business of art, literature, or music, but they could not create anything worthy. They could at most plagiarize from other peoples. Such is a commonplace image of almost any people who have recently escaped poverty and subjection.  
OK. Wagner underestimated the genius of Mendelssohn, who had the misfortune of dying young. This said, Mendelssohn did not write like Wagner. How he would have thought of such composers as Gershwin and Copland is pure speculation. Heck, he probably missed out on hearing Mahler's First Symphony, a work that many consider the greatest first symphony that anyone ever wrote. But this work, even if fully within the realm of the Classical tradition, undeniably contains Jewish characteristics. So what? We can say much about Tchaikovsky being Russian, Debussy being French, Sibelius being Finnish, or Bartok being Hungarian. All four 'fail' at being German composers. Pbrower2a (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mozart too!  He was Austrian.  Not German.  Subversive Fremdling!  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judaism" versus "Jews" 

message: The article states, with a link to Conway (2012):
Although Wagner had shown virtually no sign of anti-Jewish prejudice previously (despite the claims by Rose in his book Wagner, Race and Revolution, and others)
Why is Conway's view treated as a fact and Rose's version as being wrong? Surely that is not a neutral point of view? Shouldn't it instead say that opinions differ as to whether he previously showed anti-Jewish prejudice, rather than siding with one author against another?
86.19.192.41 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagner's previous anti-Jewish prejudice