Jump to content

Talk:On the Jewish Question/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer"

(New York: Philosophical Library, 1959)
Library of Congress catalog card discription:
Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Uniform Title: Zur Judenfrage. English
Main Title: A world without Jews. Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes.
Published/Created: New York, Philosophical Library [1959]
Description: xii, 51 p. 20 cm.
Notes: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published
[in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage]
as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on ’the Jewish question.’"
Bibliography: p. xii.
Subjects:
Bauer, Bruno, 1809-1882.
Jews--History--1789-1945.
Runes is not our authority on this article. I'm going to ask you one last time to stop making pointless, needless edits that detract from this and other articles that you CLEARLY have no understanding or comprehension of. The next step will be to bring your disruptive behavior to the admin board. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't he your "authority"? How do you decide? Do you know, for example that Runes was a colleague of Albert Einstein? Who gave you the right to decide who is, or who is not the authority? Marx wrote about a writing of Bruno Bauer. And so it was called either by Runes or by the Library of Congress, a review. What's wrong with that word? Why do you object to it? And stop threatening me with being taken to a review board. It's inflammatory, and makes it very difficult not to be provoke by you. Let's follow Wikipedia policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not discussing article content with you anymore, it's pointless. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On what this work/review of Marx is all about

From the Selected Essay (1926) tr. by H. J. Stenning [2]:

"In 1843 Marx was twenty-five years old. He had just married, apparently on the strength of the modest salary he was to receive for editing, jointly with Arnold Ruge, a periodical called the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (Franco-German Annuals), the purpose of which was to promote the union of German philosophy with French social science.
Only one double-number of this journal appeared in 1844.
It contained Marx's criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right and his exposition of the social significance of the Jewish question, in the form of a review of two works by Bruno Bauer.
That's an exact quote from the "Preface" of the compilation and translation by H. J. Stenning's Selected Essays by Karl Marx (1926) --Ludvikus (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On The Jewish Question → On the Jewish Question — The "t" in "the" should be lowercase. (Setting up on behalf of User:Schwalker.) —JPG-GR (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - This title almost unanimously appears with a lower case "t" in all its versions and in all references to it. Ludvikus, it seems, is wrong in claiming the link he provided is the "authoritative" version; in fac, it is merely a translation by an internet archive of Marx' work. If he would look more closely, he would find the actual Preface to Vol 3 of the Marx/Engels Collected Works, and see that the actual authoritative edition uses a lower case "t". Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The word 'the' should be capitalized, as it is a part of the title The Jewish Question. It does not matter that the word 'the' is no longer the first word of the title, because the name On The Jewish Question refers to The Jewish Question. Notice that in the article titled List of artists who have covered The Beatles, the 'the' in 'The Beatles' is capitalized. Xnux the Echidna 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Marx was writing "on The Jewish Question [by Bauer]" (which would argue in favor of the capital T) and not "on the Jewish question" (which would support the lower-case t). I think the current title is the correct one. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Rename Regardless of the fact that Marx was writing about Bauer's book, the most common usage seems to be the lower-case "t". (As an aside, the fact that Marx merely used Bauer as a springboard to write a broader essay doesn't sway me, because I've read many book reviews that are used in a similar fashion as soapboxes.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Shabazz. If it would have been a book concerning the Jewish Question, t should be used. But given it was an answer to Bauer's book : "The Jewish Question", then the capital T should be used. Ceedjee (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the thrust of that argument (I made the same argument in an earlier round) The issues are, can we say for sure that was the intent on Marx in titling it thus (would be great to have a facsimilie of the original), and what of the fact that 99% of the literature uses lower "t"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ceedjee, you are carrying out original research. The oldest and most widely used scholary translation into Englsih, among them the MECW edition, all use the small 't'. So there is no space for Wikipedians to invent an own translation of the title. Further, Marx' essay was not just an answer to "Die Judenfrage", but also to Bauer's 1843 article "Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden." The current introduction of this article is misleading by only mentioning Bauer's "Die Judenfrage". I guess this results from one of Ludvikus' wrong edits of the last weeks.--Schwalker (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Initially, I wanted to seek in google/google.book/google scholar what was the most used expression. Simply arguing that the most used must be the one chosen. But then I realized it could be an easy mistake and that the most used could not be the most pertinent. Then, I read the article more into details and I noticed it was not an book birthed from nowhere but was an answer and that referred several times to another book (this should not be removed from the article !) and to an article from the same author... I agree this is not far from WP:OR but the fact some authors translate differently (even is not the majority) is enough to justify it is not WP:RS. Pragmatically, I also think there is more information in the title with the T than in the one with the t...
Ceedjee (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that there is so far no known author for the translation with an upper case 'T', since it seems to go back to this web-page of the Marxist Internet Archive. They give no name of a translator, only of a proofreader and corrector (Andy Blunden). So it is unclear who is responsible for the title with a 'T'. - I've now added the titles of both of Bauer's texts as footnotes to the subsequent sentence in the introduction. --Schwalker (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A website is not WP:RS in comparison with published books. If the only reference with the T is that website, then, -without doubt- the title must be changed. Ceedjee (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To be exact, the version from the MIA June 2002 is the earliest translation with a 'T' I know of. This version even does not mention a proofreader or corrector. An independent renowned web-page using both, the 't' and the 'T' is the article by Jonathan Wolff on Marx, [4]. But it was written in 2003 and updated 2008, after the MIA-page had appeared the first time. I am happy that you seem to agree with a move of the article.--Schwalker (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with a move of the article. I wrote : "if... then...". I am just waiting for other arguments. (and I apologize for not looking for myself but I think all people involved know the topic better than I do). Ceedjee (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Version with a lower case "t" seems to be most common version. -- Vision Thing -- 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • There is nothing to discuss. Just look at the edition which all scholars go to. But do not look at the German (1844) first edition since this is the English language Wikipedia and Marx has been translated into English. Furthermore an authoritative English language edition exists - which also is available online - and it uses a capital "T". Ludvikus (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ludvikus you are wrong. The version on the marxists.org site is NOT an online version of the MECW. It is their own translations. But I do agree with you on one point--there is nothing to discuss. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But now there is something to discuss, namely, our respective analyses:
  1. My source is: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
  2. Your source is: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume03/preface.htm
  3. So we're using the same source. The difference is that I'm looking at the title page and your look at the preface.
  4. And the title page clearly has "T."
  5. You make reference to another work, but only say what it has, whereas I'm showing what it has.
  6. And no one else has said anything.
  7. Q.E.D.: Keep.
Now there's again nothing to say since I've conclusively proven my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, stop being so arrogant and try and pay attention. The preface on that site is from the Vol 3 of the Collected Works. The translation of "On the Jewish Question" on that site is NOT from the Collected Works, it is their own translation (by a guy named Andy Blumden, who is NOT the translator for the Collected Works. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't play games, just make your point. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel I'm playing games. That was not my intent. Only now I understand what you're saying. I do not believe it proves your point, however, since it only shows (if what you say is the case) is that our same source is inconsistent. And I think we should give the Title page the greater weight. Nevertheless, I am curious about what you are now saying and will get back to you one the matter after I'ven it some study. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I just found this in the same online source which I think further supports my poisition (Ludvikus (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)):
Further reading:
The Webster On-line dictionary has a complete list of translations of “citizen” but it necessary to know of the specific shades of meaning and connotations. See On The Jewish Question, Marx 1844 for Marx’s discussion of the concepts. [5]
Uh, it's the same site referencing the same version you cited above. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you just said & I'll continue with my train of thought for now. I found the paragraph you're talking about (I think) and here it is (Ludvikus (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)): [6]
In his article “On the Jewish Question”, Marx attacked Bruno Bauer’s idealistic, narrowly theological presentation of the problem of Jewish emancipation. As opposed to his former fellow thinkers, the Young Hegelians, Marx saw criticism of religion, as well as of politics, not as the final aim but as a tool to be used in the revolutionary struggle, and he wanted to go further and deeper in the critical reconsideration of all existing relationships. Marx’s polemic with Bauer provided him with the occasion for a broader materialist examination of the problem of mankind’s emancipation not only from national, religious and political, but also from economic and social oppression. In this work Marx developed the concept of the limited nature of the bourgeois revolution, which he called “political emancipation”. He put forward the idea of the necessity for a deeper-going revolution aiming at the real elimination of all social antagonisms. This kind of revolution he called “human emancipation”.
Now look at what this Preface says at the very bottom
--Ludvikus (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In summary, we have an extremely authoratative edition in which you appear to have discovered a typographical error. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying (1) you found a typographical error which you claim supports your position, (2) that you and I are using the same authoritative edition, and (3) the title in the work collected in this book(s) has On The Jewish Question which conclusively supports my position. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?? 1) How do you know it's a typographical error? Brcause it contradicts your viewpont? Thats the height of arrogance. 2) so? 3) Noooo, the title On The Jewish Question is in the marxist.org website translation, not the Collected Works version. You are making no sense at all. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But (1) I showed you the title of the work and you went to the preface. So it was you who 1st implied that the title is wrong. So the question is what gives you that right. And (2) though you don't like this source you didn't find a better one. Finally, why are you so critical of me? It only you and me arguing now anyway. Ludvikus (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The only Cap T version you found is one from a website. You falsely claimed it was the "authoritative English language edition." I showed you you were wrong, that it wasnt the "authoritative" version, and that in fact, the preface from the actual MECW version uses lower case "t." I have no idea what you are taking about, and why you waste so much time and space making vacuous arguments. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Might I suggest that Marxists.org may not be the best site/cite for this. Their usage seems inconsistent. The preface and TOC from the 3rd volume of the Collected Works show the lower-case "t". Other uses, such as the Marxists' TOC and their translation, show the upper-case "T".

Does anybody have access to the Collected Works itself, and not the Marxists.org online edition? My interpretation of their introduction is that they're in the process of transcribing the Collected Works, but in the meantime they're linking to their own versions of those texts that they have. Having said that, I should point out that "On The Jewish Question" is in volume 3, and Marxists.org says that they have transcribed most of the first 10 volumes.

So, if anybody wants to rely on the Collected Works as an "official" arbiter, I would recommend finding a copy on paper or in some other form than the one posted at Marxists.org. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comments: The consistent use of the lower-case "t" in both the TOC and the preface from the Collected Works suggests that it isn't a typo. But, as I wrote, an examination of the paper edition might help put an end to this debate (at least among those for whom the Collected Works is authoritative). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Digging further, I'm coming to the conclusion that the Collected Works uses the lower-case "t" and Marxists.org is inconsistent in its usage. Start here, with a Google search for the phrase "on the jewish question" at the site marxists.org.
The footnotes to Volume 5 of the Collected Works cite "Marx, 'On the Jewish Question'". A biography of Marx written by Engels, taken from the Collected Works, refers to "On the Jewish Question".
In a subject index, under Ethics, Marxists.org lists "On the Jewish Question, Marx, 1844". Marx and Engels on Religion: "On the Jewish Question, 1844 Marx". Marx and Engels on Philosophy: "Marx further develops these ideas in On the Jewish Question". In its glossary definition of citizen: "See On The Jewish Question, Marx 1844". In the glossary under Right, "From On the Jewish Question, Marx 1843".
So I wouldn't rely on Marxists.org in support of any side in this argument. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would seem to be not the most reliable. The issue comes down to whether Marx' title Zur Judenfrage in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher is referencing the Jewish question as a topic or directly referring to Bauer's essay Die Judenfrage. I initially thought the latter, but in fact Marx' essay is divided into a section addressing Bauers Die Jedenfrage and a second section on another work by Bauer, "The Capacity of Present-day Jews and Christians to Become Free." Every version of On the Jewish Question I have seen has a lower case "t". I own the Easton and Guddat collection of the young Marx, which contains the essay, with a lower case t. I also have the Progress Publishers (Moscow) English translation of the Holy Family (which in part has Marx' continuation of the polemic on the Jewish question with Bauer); in that translation, Marx references his own earlier "On the Jewish Question" again translated with a lower t by Progress Publishers. Google books and JSTOR unanimously seem to have a lower case t. I don't own the English collected works (that would be a nice present!), but I'll see if I can peek at one somewhere. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Per books.google, I've looked at Erica Brenner: Really Existing Nationalisms: A Post-communist View from Marx and Engels, 1995, ISBN 0198279590, page IX, where it reads:

"Marx, On the Jewish Question, MECW 3: 148-74."

So here is (at least) one source independent from the Marxist Internet Archiv which confirms a lower case 't' in the MECW. Other such confirmations through secondary sources should be available easily.

I agree with most of what Boodlesthecat writes. Only a hypothetical difference: Even if this essay OtJW by Marx was a response to, or review of only the book Zur Judenfrage by Bruno Bauer (which it isn't, since it also refers to another text by Bauer, to other primary sources like the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the American constitution, Thomas Hamilton (writer), Thomas Müntzer and more; the conclusions of the essay too go beyond a mere book-review) - even then, this would not have a direct impact on the title of this Wikipedia article. Since we are obliged the follow the most authorative English translations, which are used as a reference for scholary articles.

  • before 1975, the scholary translation was by H. J. Stenning, published in 1926.
  • today, also the Marx&Engels collected works edition seems to be in use.
  • also scholary, but with less citations in secondary sources is the translation by Helen Lederer published in 1958.

All of these three translations use On the Jewish Question" with a lower case 't' as the title.

At Xnux the Echidna: The difference between On the Jewish Question and List of artists who have covered The Beatles is that the former is the title of a work written and published in the real world by real people, while the latter is the title of an wikipedia-list invented by Wikipedians. In the case of the list, Wikipedians had to follow WP naming conventions, and keep the upper case 'T' by the name of the band. Real world people on the other hand are not obliged to follow WP naming conventions.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard work

Clarification
  • Until 1975 the authoritative work - what scholars call the "standard work" regarding Karl Marx's writing - was the following German language edition - Marx's primary language was German, and I would imagine that he wrote mostly in German (--Ludvikus (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)):
from the Library of Congress online card catalogue:
  • Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: historisch-kritische gesamt-ausgabe, werke,
schriften, briefe: im auftrage des Marx-Engels instituts, Moskau, [7]
LC Control No.: 27019649
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Main Title: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: historisch-kritische gesamt-ausgabe, werke, schriften, briefe: im auftrage des :Marx-Engels instituts, Moskau,
Published/Created: Frankfurt a.M., Marx-Engels-archiv, verlagsgesellschaft m.b.h. [1927]-
Related Names: Engels, Friedrich, 1820-1895.
Moscow. Īnstītut Karla Marksa ī Frīdrikha Engelʹsa. [from old catalog]
Goldendach, Davīd Borīsovīch, 1870- [from old catalog] ed.
Adoratskĭĭ, Vladīmīr Vīktorovīch, 1878- [from old catalog] ed.
Description: v. front., pl., facsims. 25 cm.
Subjects: Socialism--Collections. [from old catalog]
LC Classification: HX271 .M3
  • Only after 1927 was there a stand work ("SW", recognized by scholars as such) of Marx's writings translated into the English. It was only after 1975 that the first SW volume of Marx's writings was published. Said SW consists of 50 volumes and the completion of the project occurred in 2005. See the stub I wrote for Wikipedia here: Marx/Engels Collected Works. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Accordingly, the SW in the English language is the following:
Library of Congress online card catalog
  • Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works [8]
Personal Name: Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Uniform Title: Works. English. 1975
Main Title: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected works
Translators, Richard Dixon and others.
Portion of Title: Frederick Engels: Collected Works.
Published/Created: New York: International Publishers (1975, c2004).
Related Names: Engels, Friedrich, 1820-1895. Works. English. 1975.
Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. Kapital. English.
Rossiĭskiĭ nezavisimyĭ institut sot͡sialʹnykh i nat͡sionalʹnykh problem.
Description: v. <1-23, 25, 27-29, 33-43, 45-50 > : ill. ; 23 cm.
ISBN 0717804070 (v. 1)
ISBN 0717805360 (v. 36)
ISBN 0717805379 (v. 37)
ISBN 0717805484 (v. 48)
ISBN 0717805492 (v. 49)
ISBN 0717805506 (v. 50)
Notes: Vols. 35-37 contain volumes I, II, and III of Das Kapital.
Vols. <36-37, 48-50 > prepared jointly by
Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., London,
International Publishers, and
Progress Publishing Group Corp., Moscow,
in collaboration with the Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems.
Vols. 38-<41 > published: Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Includes bibliographies and indexes.
Subjects: Socialism.
Economics.
LC Classification: HX39.5 .A213 1975
Dewey Class No.: 335.4
Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my "educated guess" that the above online organization (http://www.marxists.org/admin/intro/index.htm) must have used the 1975-2005 SW, digitized it, and put it online for us. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you say: "It's my "educated guess" that the above online organization (http://www.marxists.org/admin/intro/index.htm) must have used the 1975-2005 SW, digitized it, and put it online for us."
Obviously your guess is not "educated". The MECW and marxists.org don't use the same translation, see [9]
The majority of works published by the MIA are not the same translation used by Progress Publishers.
This has already been told to you at 20:23, 2 May 2008. It seems that you have forgotten this.
Ludvikus, please stop to spam this talk page with unrelated information, which do not contribute directly to the topic. It is very time consuming for us others who try to read this page, or to reorganize it in a more readable way. --Schwalker (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Digitized version of Marx's collected works

deleted commercial advertisment, --Schwalker (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That was not a commercial advertisement - Restore your deletion immediately. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    deleted commercial advertisment,
    --Schwalker
    (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's extremely provocative - deleting my talk - you are mistaken. Anyway, other editors are not stupid. They can still read for themselves what you have deleted/censored (--Ludvikus (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) [10].
No sorry, I won't restore this text. Its was the copy and paste of ~2 KByte from a web-page, mostly unrelated to the question under discussion (the name of this article). It was the commendation of a CD, telling us to, and how, and for what prize to purchase it, thus effectively it worked like an advertisment. --Schwalker (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You're completely mistaken. (1) this Talk page is now used for a discussion about our sources, citations, references, etc., -- just read the discussion above. (2) The section of the discussion here which you have reverted was our source's recommendation for an authoritative other digital source which our source says cost $1,000. It is not what you call an advertisement. It is rather a book review. I suggest you reconsider to see if you are mistaken in calling it an "advertisement." If you wish to delete my contribution to this talk page, you should get a "consensus." But no one else thinks it is merely an advertisement but you. So that's a mere personal opinion of yours which differs from mine. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Searching Google scholar for the title plus Lawrence Wishart Collected Works is pretty unanimous returns for lower case "t". I'll move the article back to lower case "t" in line with universal usage shortly. Boodlesthecat Meow?

Don't do it the consensus is clearly against you! Three editors oppose your move. You are the Only one who wishes to do this. Are you unaware that the consensus is against you? Look at the votes above, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archiving old messages

I've archived all the messages that haven't had a response since 2007. The link is at the top of the page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't done right. I undid it. Feel free to archive again, but make sure it's right. Academic Challenger (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A complete mess

Ah, didnt see new votes; this page is a complete mess. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your position. It would be nice if we could all work peacefully together. I understand you are a passionate editor, particularly regarding this article. I would like to suggest options which might improve things for us and for Wikipedia. Can we talk about that now? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free, but please try to limit all the needless cutting and pasting into talk pages and confusing formatting. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Why don't we begin by listing the active editors on this page. That way we will be able to tell whose involved, and whose just dropping by. Also, if you agree - at least for now - that the "T" stays, we could go to other issues. You can always bring the issue of a "small" "t" at another time. And if I can get access to that $1,000 edition which shows the small "t" - the first thing I'll do is come to you and tell you that I was wrong and you were right. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS1: I finally learned to remember that you're Bootles-the-cat. I had not realized that before (it's not so obvious as on would think). So, Meow.... to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS2: It would be useful - easier to remember if you added these hyphens to your name. I'm digressing a bit, because we are all human editors and not machines. And I think we need to acknowledge that on this page in order for us to work here as better Wikipedians. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to list "active editors"--it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, which anyone can edit; see WP:OWN. ??In an hour there could be 10 new "active editors" of this article who could greatly improve it. They have as much say as "active editors." Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Nevertheless, if you look above, only four editors have voted. No one else at this moment has expressed their position. So it's for us to come up with a consensus as to what is to be done, no? So what's your position on my other questions above? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What questions? Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) Can/Do we agree that the T stays, and therefore we can Archive or Collapse this extended discussion as user Shabazz has attempted to do? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus, discussions such as this one are generally allowed to continue for several days. You're trying to close it less than 24 hours after it began. Please allow other editors to contribute if they choose to. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken. (1) Three days ago the issue of the "t's" was resolved. Just look at the Archived section of this Page where the same issue was decided. (2) Besides, you've "voted" to Keep above. Have you forgotten? (3) I though you were into avoiding "disruption." But what you are propsing now is highly disruptive since it's inconsistent with your own position as well as the majority (concensus). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<--There is no majority consensus to close the discussion, Ludvikus, and I do not see where this was resolved three days ago. Please remain civil towards Malik, who has made an extra effort to try and assist you through processes that you have trouble following correctly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Three days ago the result of the discussion was no consensus. Please note that the previous proposal to change the article's name was open for 7 days. Also note that the header at the top of this page says that the discussion will continue to see if consensus to move the page emerges "after a few days".
I can't imagine see how allowing editors sufficient time to comment could be considered disruptive. I also don't understand what my opinion on the subject has to do with my feeling that we should adhere to Wikipedia process. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So 7 + 3 = 10. And after 10 days 3 say Oppose (name change) and 1 says says Support. So your dragging this issue out for 10 days after the concensus keep the T is disruptive. Look, Bauer wrote the text he title "The Jewish Question," and Marx wrote (Dialectically, a Marxist would say) about Bauer's book, not directly about the subject. Furthermore, my training in philosophy reminds me of this usage :"on 'The Jewish Question'," but that's awkward - so the Marxists adopted the capital "T." Let's move on. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shabbaz,
Aren't you convinced by the arguments I have been given (here above in the "survey") ? If so, why or if not, why not ? :-) Ceedjee (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What comments? Where? What's your point? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I refer to what have been answered to me after I voted oppose : [11]. Ceedjee (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Müntzer quote section

The section is at first an explanation of the background of the quote as it is cited by Marx. For the theory of Marx views on animals see the article by Lawrence Wilde. I'm not sure if this article is relevant itself, however it seems to rely on relevant marxist sources like Herbert Marcuse or Erich Fromm. --Schwalker (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On the spelling of antisemitism

There seems to be several different spellings on this page of antisemitism and antisemitic. 

    anti-semitic
    anti-Semitic
    antisemitic
    anti-semitism
    anti-Semitism
    antisemitism

I'm a "light" user of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the style is on this or how to look it up, but I just thought I'd mention it if someone wants to take it upon themselves to settle the spelling conflict. 199.106.103.249 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, "antisemitic" and "antisemitism" is the primary and appropriate way to spell it per Antisemitism § Usage. In any case, I've changed it all to be uniformly antisemitism and its derivatives. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Interpretations section

The problem with dividing the interpretations section into "anti-Semitic" vs "not anti-Semitic" is that this implicitly turns the categorization we impose on interpretations into the core argument over the paper's interpretation, which is synthesis at best. Additionally, it risks turning the section into a dumping ground for every op-ed and opinion piece anyone can find that argues one position or the other (more than it is already, anyway); it's important that we try to focus on the highest-quality mainstream sources there, rather than just turning it into a place where people drop whatever opinion pieces they feel argue their preferred position by proxy. I think this is best served by trying to structure it as a general coverage of the entire breadth of interpretations rather than as a for-or-against debate. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

picture for article

¶ The German Wiki version of this article shows, instead of a familiar photo of Marx & Engels (and I think Engels is not identified with this particular essay), the front page of the original German publication of this essay, which I frankly would prefer. I would also like links to a complete text, in the original German and any English translation, of this essay. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

¶ Can someone either explain, translate, clarify, or delete this incomprehensible sentence: "A manuscript of the essay has not been transmitted." (Section: Publications by Marx related to the essay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.230 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This was troubling me as well. I am very tempted to guess that it means "A manuscript of the essay has not survived" and was not written by a native English speaker. But I can find no easy access to the text cited to confirm that this is in fact what it says (Google Books has it, and I would be able to read the German, but it is in snippet form, so you can't read that part of the page). Agent Cooper (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Disingenuous claims that Karl Marx' essay is not anti-semitic, merely seeks to "emancipate Jews"

The interpretations mentioned in the article that claim that Karl Marx' essays "On the Jewish Question" are not really anti-semitic and/or that Marx was simply supporting the emancipation of the Jews are disigenuous, and appear to reflect the bias of some of their authors in favor of Marx' general ideology.
It is clear that Marx was opposed to Bauer's demand that to be emanicpiated Jews should (according to the article) "convert to Christianity" (actually Bauer says "not to Christianity, but Christianity in dissolution, that is to enlightment, criticism and its results, to free humanity) in order to be emanicipated, not because Marx respects their practice of Judaism. Karl Marx makes it abundantly clear his opposition is not only to religious Judaism, but also to secular, "practical" Judaism, and ultimately to the entire identity of the Jew, which he sees as being the driving force of "huckstering", commercialism, capitalism, etc., i.e. everything he is seeking to do away with. Thus, he says:
"Consequently, it is not only in the Pentateuch or the Talmud, but also in present-day society that we find the essence of the modern Jew; not as an abstract, but as an extremely empirical being, not merely in the form of the Jew's limitations, but in that of the Jewish limitations of society. As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism, the huckster, and the conditions which produce him, the Jew will become impossible, because his consciousness will no longer have a corresponding object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, viz.: practical needs, will have been humanized, because the conflict of the individual sensual existence with the generic existence of the individual will have been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."
What Marx is trying to say is that in order for the Jew to be emancipated (and thus for society to be emancipated from the Jew), is that his entire identity as a Jew, both religious and secular, must melt away.
That is not "emancipation of the Jew". That is negation of the Jew's identity as a condition for his "emancipation".
Certainly that is not speaking about the physical elimination of Jews as human beings, as the Nazis would have it. But it is clearly and unequivocally and virulently antisemitic.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.155 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It's anti-Judaism, anti-religion. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


I disagree, there's nothing to suggest Marx isn't talking about the physical elimination of Jewish people. He makes the same vague allusions when discussing eliminating the upper class, and heavily implies, going into great deal how every other option isn't viable, that mass killing is the only option. Considering his proposal is for a global alliance and that he argues the global alliance itself could not work so long as those people continued to exist anywhere. If Hitler is labelled antisemitic, then it's just Wikipedia's bias preventing Marx from getting the same label. Hitler was answering Marx's "question". Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ^ A Marxist in denial about his lord and savior's antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:65CB:BD6E:4D0A:36EC (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Connection to Nazism & Martin Luther?

It seems out of place to have links to The Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, and On the Jews and Their Lies in the See also section. Sure, it is fair to argue that this particular work is antisemitic, but I find it strange to connect Marx directly to Nazi ideology and a 1543 treatise by Martin Luther.SpanishSnake (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't "connect" Marx to anything. "See also" links are to articles that the reader might want to look into, having read the current article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"See also" links should be at least thematically related. Nazis were explicitly anti-Marxist, and certainly did not use this work justify the Holocaust. On the Jews and Their Lies was published 300 years before this work was published. SpanishSnake (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Both systems - Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism and Nazism - were heavily anti-Semitic, one in practice only, and the other ideologically and in practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Is this a joke? We're not talking about Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism here. We're talking about an early text of Marx's which is still read. Arguably, some of it can be construed as anti-semtitic, despite Marx himself being Jewish, but to connect it to Hitler or Nazism or "the Jews and their Lies" shows that this topic is far beyond your ken. You're out of your element, Donny. 47.16.203.5 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I don't know shit about history, or Marxism, or Nazism. But it doesn't really matter, since you don't have a consensus for removing these, so your last removal was editing against consensus. Do it again, and you'll be reported to the nearest "illiterate" admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You likely do know about Nazism or Marxism. But as I said, and as others pointed out to you, they have no relevance here. What you clearly don't know is anything about this text. Have you read it? I'd place a very high wager you haven't, judging from your comments. And in fact, it appears the consensus is against you, friend. You are the only one who supports inclusion of these irrelevant links and you've not supplied any evidence that "the Holocaust" is a relevant link to "On the Jewish Question." Let's continue this discussion once you've taken the time to read the text, it's quite short, and you'll quickly see your mistake..47.16.203.5 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You are not using the correct criteria for "see also" entries. From WP:See also:

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.

The key here is relevance. No one saying that the links is the see also section define the subject matter of the article, but they are definitely related to it and relevant to it. My feeling remains that the removals are POV editing - in effect, whitewashing the subject - and are not sound editorial judgment, however I will not contest them, further. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I’m still missing what the connection between this essay and Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust is supposed to be. This is an unusual theory I have not previously come across. If you want to add Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as a see also, why not add it to “The Jews and their Lies” which the Nazis actually did use as propaganda and read, rather than a text which is only debatedly and vaguely anti-semitic and which indisputably had no influence on Hitler or the Holocaust? Nazis loved “The Jews and their Lies”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.5 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"Debatedly and vaguely antisemitic"? Is that some kind of joke? Try reading the essay again, carefully. If you didn't know it was Marx who wrote this passage, would you honestly be debating about whether it is antisemitic?(Incidentally, it is not altogether correct to claim that Marx was "himself Jewish". He was born a Jew, baptised Lutheran as a child, became an atheist, and remained disconnected from the Jewish community. He is on record elsewhere making virulently antisemitic remarks of the "ugly" kind, and not just the "philosophical" kind...for instance, complaining to Engels in 1879 about a Ramsgate resort having "many Jews and fleas", and his racist tirades against Ferdinand Lassalle.)
""Consequently, it is not only in the Pentateuch or the Talmud, but also in present-day society that we find the essence of the modern Jew; not as an abstract, but as an extremely empirical being, not merely in the form of the Jew's limitations, but in that of the Jewish limitations of society. As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism, the huckster, and the conditions which produce him, the Jew will become impossible, because his consciousness will no longer have a corresponding object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, viz.: practical needs, will have been humanized, because the conflict of the individual sensual existence with the generic existence of the individual will have been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."
Jacob D (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
I am honestly not seeing the relevance in disputing whether this text is antisemitic, since Wikipedia is not a forum. What is relevant is SpanishSnake's (and, I suppose, 47.16.203.5's) concern about whether the aforementioned wikilinked articles in the "See also" section are appropriate given this article's content and their relevance therewith. It seems rather obvious to me that Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust are almost certainly more familiar to anyone with internet access in general than would this obscure essay written by Marx, so them being worthwhile additions on the basis of being unfamiliar to the average reader does not apply. Linking those three seems to be a subtle form of POV guilt by association by framing this essay as relevant and related to Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust, and On the Jews and Their Lies when the only meaningful connection is the fact that they are all related to antisemitism.
Linking those articles in the "See also" section is like linking Religion or France or World War I in a "See also" section. Worse still, the entire historic period in which Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust (and, separately, the period of Luther's tome) are relevant is neither mentioned nor relevant to this article, nor is anything about either topic even cursorily discussed therein. As for Luther's antisemitic tome, that is likewise irrelevant since Luther (and only Luther, not this tome) was only mentioned in passing to contextualize Marx's cursory remark on Müntzer. None of those three aforementioned links are even "tangentially related" (per MOS:ALSO), at least not anymore than Benito Mussolini (who was actually a former Marxist and allowed some pretty antisemitic laws to be passed) or Racism (which is "tangentially related" to antisemitism) or Essay (which is what this work is generally classified as being). The guilt-by-association framing mentioned above applies with On the Jews and Their Lies, as well, although that text is obviously rather obscure to the average reader.
Given these issues, I see no reason why any of those articles are even defensible when it comes to inclusion in the "See also" section and I think MOS:ALSO justifies their exclusion. I would also exclude Materialism from the section, but strictly because it's about as relevant in that section as linking Judaism or Philosophy. So if we are keeping those three items, I think we should also include Benito Mussolini, Racism, and Essay. Also maybe Democritus because he was a materialist and Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation partly on him and The Communist Manifesto because why not. They makes about as much sense here, too. In the latter case, it makes more sense if only on the basis of relevance.
Just to clarify, I am not accusing anyone of intentionally engaging in POV editing, nor do I think anyone's defense of these links being included demonstrates anything of the sort. Nonetheless, there is obviously not consensus on this matter and I happen to agree that the inclusion of those three links (and also, to a lesser extent, Materialism) are at best peculiar and unlike the "See also" section of any Featured or Good article I have ever seen. Their exclusion does not detract from this article; their inclusion, however, implies they are relevant and thus frames the content. Articles do not even need "See also" sections, so I think cautionary erring should be on the side of exclusion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Prolific- "Citations Needed" aren't needed in summary of the essay or in the lede

In book or essay reviews citations are not needed. Neither are they needed in the lede. MOS:LEADCITE Is the summary not factual, seems okay to me? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the editor's changes, as I am not convinced that they improve the article. They need to discuss those changes here and get a consensus for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
None of the content is properly referenced. Describing how the content is this that and the other without citations is just original research. --Manboobies (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You made considerably more changes than just that. Please references the changes you made indiviudally (or grouped in types) so they can be more easily examined by other editors to see if they agree with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but it’s not your job to debate my changes one by one. If you don’t like the article, add to it to make it better, but removing 1000 chars of changes is not good behaviour.--Manboobies (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Any changes which are disputed must be discussed on the talk page. Your mass of edits to too convoluted to discuss in toto, so breaking them down into individual edits or groups only makes sense. If you're unwilling to do that, then a WP:consensus cannot be determined and the article will stay in the WP:STATUSQUO version. So, obviously, it's to your advantage to discuss them.
One other thing, restoring reverted edits with consensus to do so is WP:Disruptive editing, and can lead to being blocked from editing, so I wouldn't advise you to continue doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
you do not have any consensus to revert changes. Please show consensus for reverting my changes. Manboobies (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not need a consensus to revert your edits, since I dispute them. Please see WP:BRD: you made Bold edits, I Reverted them, and then the dispute gets Discussed. Now, you need a consensus to restore your edits. In the meantime the article remains in the WP:STATUSQUO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
see below as you requested. It takes two to “edit war” so I suggest you stop mae making decent changes to this article unless you have valid reasoning why.Manboobies (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

changes broken down for discussion

My changes can be broken down into the following:

1. Removing content from the introduction which is not proven to be correct and for which it was suggested it was unacceptable to put “citation needed” on. There is no evidence in the article that the content is factual so it must be deleted.

2. Changing the first part of the body of the article into a proper synopsis of the book and making sure the fact that the content is clearly uncited is labelled and clear.

3. Moving technical history about release of the essay down as it is less important than the interpretation of the content.

4. Quoting sections of the public domain work, which allow the reader to get a feel for the actual work. Rather than the inaccurate and uncited synthesis of it.

I will give a day to discuss it before I put the content back in place. BRD is not policy and so I am going above and beyond to aid you. --Manboobies (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you will not. There is no time limit on how long it takes to reach a consensus. It will take whatever time it takes. If you restore the edits without a consensus to do you, they will be reverted again, and you will be reported to administrators for disruptive editing, removal of sourced information without a consensus, and WP:Tendentious editing, all of which is likely to get you blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to discuss points 1-4 I have made or just argue? You asked me to break down my changes, and I have but instead you’re just arguing over timetabling? Do you even care about this article?Manboobies (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I will answer when I am prepared to answer, not on your timetable. There is nothing in the article that requires immediate removal. There are no BLP issue and no COPYVIOS. Please see WP:NODEADLINE.
I have not removed any properly sourced material. Please show me where I have. Manboobies (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Concerning your No. 1 & No. 2: You completely misunderstood the policies here. The WP:LEAD section of an article is a summary of the rest of the article. Therefore, it is not required to have citations, as long as the summarized information is properly sourced in the body of the article. It is allowed to have citations, but doesn't have to. So, do not remove anything from the lede that is properly sourced in the body of the article, and do not mark statements in the lede with "citations needed" if the information is properly sourced in the body.
  • No. 3: If the technical history of the books release is in the body of the article, then summarizing it in the lede is appropriate.
  • No. 4: Although public domain material can be quoted without being a copyright violation, it's use should be minimal and care should be taken that it actually is in the public domain. (See WP:Public domain and WP:Plagiarism.) Opinions and analysis of the book which are made by subject experts and published by reliable sources are not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and can, and should be used in the article to help in the reader's understanding of the subject matter. It is not sufficient to quote long segments of the book and leave it up to the reader to decide what it means, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. If the reader wants to read the book, links are available in the "External links" section.
Those are my general responses to your general breakdown of your edits. Unfortunately, a consensus cannot be reached specific edits unless we discuss those specific edits (or specific edit groups) not just by description, but with the actual edits being presented for evaluation. As the proposer of these changes, that is your responsibility, and I look forward to responding once you do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

responses to your feedback, BYK

I will put them in a separate part as to avoid an overwhelming level of indentation

For now, my response to your 1&2:

There is no cited proof of claims made in the lead in the body of the article, please show where text I have removed in my edits are cited in the body.otherwise they must go, uncited info not mentioned in the article body cannot stay. Wiki rules, not mine.

3. That was not what I said, BYK. I moved the technical release history of the article that was in the main body of the article to below the text on interpretations by leading figures, it was placed there above the interpretations because the main bulk of interpretations show this is an anti-Semitic text. By putting publishing history above this, it makes criticism less likely to be read.

4. Long segments of the book have not been quoted. It is 3-4 sentences in total.

Are you suggesting I make individual edits for your approval?Manboobies (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that you explain your purpose in making individual edits for the purpose of reaching a consensus about them. So far, you're talking in generalities, but the devil is in the details. If you don't dig into the details, how can other editors evaluate the edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_the_Jewish_Question/Archive_2&oldid=1189804530"