Talk:On the Jewish Question

message: A. I think it would be helpful to rename the existing article sections to make them more in line with better articles on Marx works, this will not be a “bold edit” as I will just be changing section names, not their content. Manboobies (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with both of those proposals.  The title is crystal clear: the article is about Marx' book.  The order is appropriate, since background such as publication history are almost also dealt with first before plunging into content, but I don't feel strongly about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond My Ken, should that Muntzer section still be there? How does his view that Marx liked animals have anything to do with whether Marx liked Jews? I'm confused. Any thoughts on this, Manboobies? It has been tagged for a loooong time.--FeralOink (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: To clarify, having an entire subsection just about that is WP:UNDUE. Also, it is tagged as poorly sourced. Finally, it is confusing! It seems to be saying that the cited passage written by Marx (who references Muntzer) ACTUALLY means that Marx liked animals. Okay... but Marx also still is saying bad things about Jews and the bible, yes? Do we need it in the article, and in its own section no less? I think not.--FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I was bold, and remedied the tagged section about Munzer.--FeralOink (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes going forward

message: Hi . I didn't think it was redundant, but I don't feel strongly about it. If you do I can accept it. Sorry about not having an edit summary, I know I put one in originally, but then I went back to read it again and must have forgotten to put it back in. An honest mistake.  // Timothy::talk  05:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: NP, thanks. Volunteer Marek  06:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  reply to Volunteer Marek about undo 

message: If you have an opinion, please share at Template_talk:Antisemitism_sidebar#On_the_Jewish_Question-BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! It should. Great idea, thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite Marx reflecting a widely held belief of his time, it is still anti-Semitic, in my opinion. The last two sentences of the essay called the "essential essence of Judaism" to be "huckstering" and that "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism." It is not just critical of Judaism, it looks to be more anti-Judaism than anything.--Der under Smurf (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He's quoting Bauer. Do you have any reading comprehension? Marx was critiquing the anti-semitic "jewish question" in his response titled "ON the 'jewish question'" and was QUOTING the anti-semitic tropes in order to respond to them. Karl Marx was Jewish. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Der under Smurf *DOES* have reading comprehension! Don't be nasty. It clearly is of ZERO relevance that Karl Marx was born to Jewish parents and was (I presume) raised as a Jew. He was anti-Semitic, i.e. did not like Jews at all. He wrote about it in lots of other places and times, so I am not making a statement of opinion about this particular tract of his. By the way, the Antisemitism sidebar is on the article. As I stated in June 2022, I believe that it should remain there.--FeralOink (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: it is patently absurd that so many people fail at basic reading comprehension. Marx's response included references to Bauer's anti-semitic premise in order to critique it. Marx wrote "ON the Jewish Question" - a RESPONSE/CRITIQUE of something he considered to be wrong and idealist (not based in dialectical materialism, the framework of his own theories). leave it to WikiCIApedia to get something so basic so completely wrong. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be in the Antisemitism sidebar 

message: Sacks later referred to Marxism as part of the mutating virus of antisemitism. Titanium Dragon (talk)
:Thank you, Titanium Dragon. I removed the associated citation along with two others, see below. The pro-antisemite refs were glommed together with the anti-antisemite refs, all at the end of one sentence at the very end of the lead. in the beginning of the second sub-heading of the article Most of those citations are discussed later in the article, before the strange Muntzer quote about Marx liking animals (relevance here? lol) but the three below are not. I might include them as External Links. If you have thoughts about this, please share. Without accessing the books, it is impossible to tell which of the first two are of each view.--FeralOink (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified what I meant about the Muntzer quote here. Sorry about my lack of umlauts.--FeralOink (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Sacks quote

message: Is it not worth mentioning that both of the sources cited in support of the view that Marx's essay was not antisemitic are themselves self-avowed Marxists? They're hardly the most neutral sources for such a defense.
To rephrase, I hardly think two avowed Marxist scholars defending Marx against the charge of antisemitism constitutes a neutral defense of the claim made by non-Marxists.
If there were non-Marixst scholars who also defend that the essay is not antisemitic, would these not be *actually* neutral sources? KronosAlight (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Although others do not"