Misplaced Pages

Talk:On the Jewish Question: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:21, 29 April 2008 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 edits We can mention Rune and his title in a section, as we should then Robert C. Tucker's criticism that it's a "misleading title," or David T. Cattel's claim that "it can be dismissed as propaganda"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:58, 2 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,859 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:On the Jewish Question/Archive 2) (bot 
(461 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Jewish history}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{move|On the Jewish Question}} {{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Low}}
{{WPBooks|class=|needs-infobox=}}
{{WikiProject Books|needs-infobox=}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:On the Jewish Question/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }}


==Changes going forward==
==Article seems pretty fair now==
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. ] (]) 20:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I have renamed one for now, to be in line with the communist manifesto article.--] (]) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Before I edited it, the article was a whitewash of Karl Marx. My edits, however failed to take the neutral point of view, treating Marxism as uncontroversially and unambiguously evil. Subsequent edits by other people of what I wrote have restored the neutral point of view, without whitewashing Marx or communism.


B. The main body section “2. history of publication” should be below “3. Interpretations” and “4. Reference to Müntzer”, because 3&4 are discussions of content, like 1., ] (]) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
So thanks for the edits, they seem fair to me now.
: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. ] (]) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
] 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::], 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, ]? It has been tagged for a loooong time.--] (]) 06:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
== Let us call a spade a spade==
::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.--] (]) 07:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
When discussing Marx's essay, this article frequently substitutes for Marx's brutal and menacing words, some bland interpretation of his words.
::I was bold, and remedied the tagged section about Munzer.--] (]) 18:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


== Should this article be in the Antisemitism sidebar ==
Marx's essay foreshadows numerous dreadful communist crimes. Marx was not some moderate social democrat objecting to the display of a nativity scene in a public square, and to reinterpret his essay as that sort of stuff is falsification, and to ignore the connections between his essay and the enormous crimes committed by communist regimes gives a misleading context to his words.


If you have an opinion, please share at ]. ] (]) 20:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If it is relevant to Marx's essay that recently existent communism was not in fact a Jewish conspiracy, why is it irrelevant that recently existent communism was anti semitic? This article defends communism against the charge of being a Jewish conspiracy, but my mention of the communist purges of Jews from the party was deleted. If the one is relevant, why not the other?
:Yes! It should. Great idea, thank you.--] (]) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
::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 "" It is not just critical of Judaism, it looks to be more anti-Judaism than anything.--] (]) 22:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 10:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Uh, ] *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.--] (]) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 20:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


==Removed Sacks quote==
] 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sacks later referred to Marxism as part of the mutating virus of antisemitism. ] (])
:Thank you, ]. 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. <s>in the beginning of the second sub-heading of the article</s> 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.--] (]) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
:I clarified ]. Sorry about my lack of umlauts.--] (]) 07:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


== Recent edits by James A. Donald ==


*Muravchik, Joshua (2003). Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. San Francisco: Encounter Books. p. 164. {{ISBN|1-893554-45-7}}.
I am disturbed by the recent edits made by ]. Specifically, this user's recent edits obviously reflect his own stance toward Marx's text and not any kind of concensus; witness the following: "'''most scholars today''' seem to be in denial about Marx's plain words." I would take very significant issue with including this and other of James A. Donald's revisions in an encyclopedia article for the following reasons:
*Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer. ''Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present''. Palgrave Macmillan. (2005). {{ISBN|1-4039-6893-4}} pp. 154–157
*{{cite book|last= Sacks|first= Jonathan|author-link=Jonathan Sacks|title= The Politics of Hope|year= 1997|publisher=Jonathan Cape|location= London|isbn=978-0-224-04329-8|pages= 98–108}}


== "Although others do not" ==
# Insofar as this user's contributions purport to disagree with academic interpretations of Marx's text, it seems to constitute ].
# Following from the above, this user's contributions seem to further a very distinct ].
# This user's contributions also make the somewhat sophomoric equation of disdain for ''']''', a religious belief, with ] directed at ''']'''. Although the two are indeed related, they are by no means identical. Moreover, James A. Donald's claim that Marx's critiques of Judaism make him a "self-hating Jew" reduces ethnic identity to religious identity. Are Jewish atheists thus "self-hating" as well? This is very reductive and problematic, as I see it.


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.
I have refrained from reverting this article yet because I hope to arrive at some sort of consensus about this issue. However, it seems to me that if the overwhelming majority of scholars present a case different from that found in James A. Donald's revisions, then these revisions are either A) wrong, and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or B) the result of original research, and thus again inappropriate for an encyclopedia. ] 08:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


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.
I tried to make a compromise version. All comments are welcome. ] 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


If there were non-Marixst scholars who also defend that the essay is not antisemitic, would these not be *actually* neutral sources? ] (]) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you, Academic Challenger. (Great username, by the way.) Your revisions address my concerns about particular interpretations of Marx's text without completely ignoring the possibility of anti-Semitism. The current revision presents anti-Semitism as a very real ''possibility'' for interpretation rather than as a ''fact'' about the text. ] 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


:I don't think it's at all fair to assume that Marxist scholars are any less neutral than non-Marxist scholars on the issue, and in fact you could make the same argument about bias the other way round - it is perhaps worth noting that the source used to argue in favour of Marx's antisemitism on that very line is an article which also describes socialism as "the anti-Semitism of intellectuals" in a magazine often described as "neoconservative".
== "the actual, worldly Jew" ==
:] (]) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)


== The Undefined Behaviour Question ==
I deleted the quote "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew", because the first quote has already referred to "the ''worldly'' religion of the Jew". I inserted other quotes and explanations that I find important in order to clarify the text further. --] 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
:I restored it. I'm unsure that the added text accounted for this important distinction clearly enough. ] 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Notice: this page is being discussed on the Internet in the context of an incident in the C++ programming language standards committee, as detailed here:
== 'acculturation' ==


http://tomazos.com/ub_question_incident.pdf
I believe the use of 'acculturation' in this article is inappropriate. Acculturation implies an active transmission of a dominant ethos to those of an immigrant or otherwise marginal ethos, thus overwriting the indigenous way of life with the normative dominant way. The fact that Jews were barred from certain types of employment thus directing them to a particular vocational norm is not acculturation, perhaps 'marginalization' or 'socio-economic coercion' would be more accurate. -FreddieResearch 5/2/06


This is just a heads up to let everyone know that there may be increased vandalism and disruption to this page because of this.
Personally, I don't know, but the wiki article on ] says: "Acculturation is the obtainment of culture by an individual or a group of people. The term originally applied only to the process concerning a foreign culture ... '''However, the term now has come to mean, in addition, the child-acquisition acculturation of native culture since infancy in the household'''."


Related: ], ], https://isocpp.org/std/the-committee --] (]) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
--] 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== "Specific criticism" ==

OK, this is a repetition of the info that is already present, with a lot of dubious moments. I say delete the whole thing except for Mir Haven's "anti-Semitic" references to Muravchik etc. If not - a "disputed neutrality" tag and "citation needed" tags all over the section. --] 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:Question is whether the section reiterates that information within the context of specific critics or simply repeats what was said elsewhere. ] 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, look at it. First, it mentions the critics who believe the essay is anti-Semitic. Then, it pretends to explain what the work ''really'', ''objectively'' contains. Finally, it refers to two scholars, without specifying who said what - I know for a fact that the only connection with Draper is the word "pun", and I very much doubt that the remaining exposition is taken from McLellan 100%. Until somebody gives me the exact quote, I am inclined to believe that it is exactly the same as the old part of the article - namely the essay retold by Wikipedians themselves. It could only stay if presented as ONE of many interpretations, but then you have to say whose interpretation it is, and I don't think that can be done at the moment. Now the problem with that retelling is that it distorts the facts - among other things, by claiming that Marx isn't referring to real Jews and to Judaism at all, which you, of course, know isn't true, as your last edit shows. That's very bad, and it does a disservice both to Marx (as people are going to think that somebody lied to "protect" him; there's already been one case of that) and to Misplaced Pages's reputation. So what I'll do is: Stage 1: put some tags at the problematic places; Stage 2: if you agree, move it to the talk page until somebody provides a source. --] 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
:Fair enough. I notice Mgekelly has authored that setion , so I'll drop him/her a line. ] 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm really sorry I didn't flag what I was doing with this edit. Basically, I was copyediting the ] page and I simply moved this information from there to here, because I felt that this is where it belonged. However, it was controversial there and the subject of a debate. So what I basically did is move that debate over to this article, which I realise I should at least have left a note here about it. 85.187.44.131, who was really the one who was most interested in it from what I've read of the discussion, consented to this move and his clearly moved over here, so it seems it's working out OK, n'est-ce pas? <span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:monospace; text-decoration:none">]</span> - <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm really sorry El C thought that you were responsible for writing that text. :) --] 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:Not at all; I confess to being confused. :) I wrote the section above it; 172 authored the one above that. ] 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== "Specific criticism" moved to talk page ==

==Specific criticism of ''On the Jewish Question''==
<nowiki>{{NPOV}} {{verify}}</nowiki>
Some scholars have presented an alternative reading of Marx, primarily based on his essay '']''. Economist ], historian ], and political scientist ] have suggested that what they see as an intense hatred for the "Jewish Class" was part of Marx's belief that if he could convince his contemporaries and the public to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to dislike non-Jewish capitalists as well.

Most scholars reject this claim for two reasons: first, it is based on two short essays written in the ]s, and ignores the bulk of Marx's analysis of capitalism written in the following years. Second, it distorts the argument of ''On the Jewish Question'', in which Marx deconstructs ] notions of ]. During ], philosophers and political theorists argued that religious authority had been oppressing human beings, and that ] must be separated from the functions of the state for people to be truly free. Following the ], many people were thus calling for the ].

At the same time, many argued that ] is a more enlightened and advanced religion than Judaism. For example, Marx's former mentor, ], allegedly argued that Christians need to be emancipated only once (from Christianity), and Jews need to be emancipated twice &mdash; first from Judaism (presumably, by converting to Christianity), then from religion altogether.

Marx rejects Bauer's argument as a form of Christian ]{{fact}}, if not ]. Marx proceeds to turn Bauer's language, and the rhetoric of anti-Semites, upside down to make a more progressive argument. First, he points out that Bruno Bauer's argument is too parochial because it considers Christianity to be more evolved than Judaism {{fact}}, and because it narrowly defines the problem that requires emancipation to be religion. Marx instead argues that the issue is not religion, but capitalism. Pointing out that anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews are fundamentally ] {{fact}}, Marx provides a theory of anti-Semitism by suggesting that anti-Semites scapegoat Jews for capitalism because too many non-Jews benefit from, or are invested in capitalism, to attack capitalism directly {{fact}}.

Marx also uses this ] ] to develop his critique of bourgeois notions of emancipation. Marx points out that the bourgeois notion of ] is predicated on choice {{fact}} (in politics, through elections; in the economy, through the ]), but that this form of freedom is anti-social and alienating. Although Bauer and other liberals believe that emancipation means freedom to choose, Marx argues that this is at best a very narrow notion of freedom {{fact}}. Thus, what Bauer believes would be the emancipation of the Jews is for Marx actually alienation, not emancipation {{fact}}. After explaining that he is not referring to real Jews or to the Jewish religion {{fact}}, Marx appropriates this anti-Semitic rhetoric against itself (in a way that parallels his Hegelian argument that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction) by using "Judaism" ironically as a metaphor for capitalism. In this sense, Marx states, all Europeans are "Jewish". This is a pun on two levels. First, if the Jews must be emancipated, Marx is saying that all Europeans must be emancipated. Second, if by "Judaism" one really means "capitalism," then far from Jews needing to be emancipated from Christianity (as Bauer called for), Christians need to be emancipated from Judaism (meaning, bourgeois society). See: works by historian ] and ].

== Removed paragraph ==

"Marx stresses, then, that he is speaking of "the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew." Meaning, not the Jews who may devote their lives to studying the ] and the ], but those Jews who in their daily economic activities are engaged in ]ing, ], and ]."

My problem with this paragraph is that I don't think the interpretation of the quote is correct. The idea is not to distinguish between two kinds of Jews, but between two sides of Jewish life - the religious one and the material/economic one. That's why Marx says that he is talking about the '''actual''' Jew. For him, the "worldly", material side of life is the "actual", real one. --] 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== "World Without Jews" ==

Well, I am somewhat missing a mention of one of Marx's works on Jewish question which is his "World Without Jews". Since I am not much skilled at Marxism, would like to go deeper into it but see this item missing even in the main entry of ], then I must ask myself: isn't omitting works having a 'story to tell' a kind of POV?
David

:Strictly speaking, I think you're right. However, that's also a very powerful accusation that you're making. I am extremely dubious that the omission of this text results from some sort of POV or other agenda on the part of Wikipedians interested in Marx. Rather, it seems much more likely to me that the reason it's not mentioned is that "World without Jews" seems to be a fairly seldom read text. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on Marxism, but I'm interested enough and well versed enough in Marx to be at least loosely familiar with some of the major texts, e.g., '']'', '']'', and the '']'', to name a few. The text in question, however, of which I've never heard before, can hardly be said to be as well known as these examples.

:If you want to "go deeper into ," I suggest you find and read the text under question and, if you feel the text warrants it, write the Misplaced Pages article on it or request that someone else do so—rather than implying some sort of anti-Semitic perspective on the part of Wikipedians. ] 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Job: Definitely I did not mean to offend anyone, just tried to provoke a bit. I also agree that the WWJ is far from representative. But as to "implying some sort of anti-Semitic perspective on the part of Wikipedians" - I think you missed my point. My only "implication" is that all contributions should be as complete as possible as Misplaced Pages is projected to be the most accurate and complete source. Just imagine being an apologist of Karl Marx facing opposition (say, on the part of his Jewish question). Wouldn't you be stunned by not knowing what your partner knows, i.e. that Marx also authored a work which is much closer to anti-Semitism than his well known 'Zur Judenfrage' ? And still, why do so many Marxists omit this clearly less 'representative' work of Marx?
David

:Perhaps it was a bit hasty of me to assume that you were implying some sort of anti-Semitism. However, most Wikipedians (at least it seems this way to me) use the term POV to describe ''precisely'' those edits that have a ''specific'' agenda or perspective that they wish to further. That's why I interpreted the charges of POV the way I did, even though you didn't necessarily mean quite what I inferred. Sorry to misread you, but I also think that ignorance does not constitute an agenda, especially in the context of a user-edited encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages.

:No hard feelings, I hope. ] 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no hard feelings. I have just realized that the work discussed is missing even in the Czech National Library in Prague which I can hardly suspect of POV:) Anyway, to find it and write an article is now likely to be a hard task. I will continue my search over time and hope to give a short mention some time. Thanks and best regards. David


:I changed the paragraph that previously read, "A translation of ''Zur Judenfrage'' was published in 1959 in a book ''"A World Without Jews"''. The editor ] intended to show Marx's alleged anti-Semitism. This claim has been rejected with reference to a distorted translation and a misleading title <ref>Draper 1977, Note 1</ref>." This was incorrect; what was rejected was the title itself - which *was* distorted and misleading - but that has no bearing on whether the claim of Marx's antisemitism in the essay gets rejected or not. In any case, that debate is still ongoing and it's not possible to say, flatly, that it's been rejected. The paragraph should now accurately reflect the point being made about the title. - Ahava Emmett

Thanks, I agree that the point of Draper's note 1 is not Marx alleged antisemitism. So the previous wikipedia article was not accurate. In my new version, I've tried to give Draper's point more accurate.
I think the links to the "worldsocialism" pages show that there were more articles of Marx included in the "World Without Jews" book, and that Runes indeed wanted to show Marx alleged antisemitism.
However, I've taken out the part "Marx as antisemitic, which has been a frequent critique of his attitude toward Jews in the essay." again, since I'm not convinced that this really is a frequent critique from serious
sources. ] 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:What's your criteria for "serious" sources? No sarcasm meant, I just don't want to waste my time combing sources until I know what you're looking for. I've been around a lot of scholars of antisemitism and there is most definitely dedicated scholarship about this question and frequent discussion of it. So tell me what would convince you of that and I'll provide it. ] 19:41, 13 March 2007

By no means I'm in a position to decide how this article should look like. Nor would I have the education and ability to decide this on my own.
But you asked what would convince me that there is a real debate. For example, I consider academic scholars discussing in peer reviewed journals as "serious sources".
Also, any other public discussion should be of interest for wikipedia.
Runes seems to be a renowned scholar, but his interpretation of the essay
seemingly has not found acceptance by the academic mainstream as far as I know.
I believe it is crucial to understand that Marx's rethorical questions (" What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.") are directed to, and answered from the Bauer essays. It seems this kind of Marx's ironic arguing escapes some interpretations.
On the other hand, Robert Fine in his article on the Engage-site says:
''"There is no reason to think, as most commentators claim (including Julius Carlebach in his wonderfully erudite book Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism), that Marx for a moment accepted the ‘real Jew’ of Bauer’s anti-Semitic imagination to be empirically well grounded or an authentic image of Jews and Judaism."''
So if most (or some) commentators (for example Carlebach) really should have claimed that Marx did accept this stereotype, then this wikipedia article could document this claim with sources.
With a search engine, it is easy to find web-sites of Holocaust revisionists, who misinterpret Marx and try to use him as a witness for their cause. These sites are examples of what I don't consider as serious sources.] 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ] 09:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

==Antisemitic publications==

There is currently an edit war about whether to include the category Antisemitic publications. I believe it should not be included because of the disagreement about how to interpret this work. There should be a discussion about this. ] 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:The article should not be put into this Category. An important number of scholars does not consider the essay to be antisemitic. This is supported by the source from ''Encyclopedia of Jewish History'', for example. One should keep in mind that to put a publication into the category implies to charge the author or the publisher with being an antisemite.--] 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

== A Misinterpretation ==

"Marx uses Bauer's essay as an occasion for his own analysis of liberal rights, rather than an attack on Jews, though he does harshly attack the Jews." ''On the Jewish Question'' is most deninately a response to Bauer's essay, but to even consider it in terms of an attack on the Jews, I feel, is to completely misinterpret the purpose of the text.<br />
Instead, Marx uses the Jewish question to reveal that there is something fundamentally flawed in Bauer's notion of political emancipation. Marx agrees with Bauer (although only to a limited extent) that political emancipation requires its religious counterpart, but Bauer's position is reversed when Marx shows that it is the secular state that is the most religious of all. This counter-intuitive idea comprises the theme of the text, with the main issues being political alienation, religious idealism and the relationship between these and the secular state. Ultimately, the purpose of the text is to introduce a distinction between political and human emancipation.<br />
This user is very concerned that this article has taken a particular reading of Marx's text (and it must be emphasised that this text is part of a philosophical discourse) and has created what reads to me as a biased and mistated summary. No doubt the article remains relevant to the themes of anti-semitism, etc., but would be better suited as a sub-section within a proper discussion of Marx's text.<br /><br />] 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

==Citation==
The sentence "The essay has been seen by some writers as prefiguring the anti Semitism of various communist regimes" is marked as "citation needed." I have access to an ad that was published in ''The Nation'' for an edition of this essay which makes this claim. Yes or no on using the ad for a citation.] 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, if ''ad'' means advertisement then it is certainly not suitable to use it for a citation.
] 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:I concur—insofar as we are all engaged here in a non-profit effort, an advertisement would, in the vast majority of cases, be an inappropriate source. Rather than using an advertisement as support for this claim, one ought to cite "some writers"—that is, the specific scholars—who make this claim. ] 08:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so (that's why I asked - no need to get your pants in a bunch). If this doesn't satisfy you, the claim is also made in ''The Marx-Engels Reader Second Edition'' edited by Roberts C. Tucker.] 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:The Tucker reader would be a fine source to cite here. I would point out, though, that there's a difference between supporting one's views with rational argumentation—views that ] solicited—and "get pants in a bunch." ] 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Defending Anti-Jewish Bigotry?==
Why do the authors of this article go to such lengths to defend the plainly anti-Jewish sentiments of Marx?? Is it because he's an important historical figure with Jewish ancestory? So what? If some third-rate christian or muslim (non-Jewish) social scientist had made these exact same statements, he would have been mercilessly branded a rabid anti-semite!! Please re-evaluate the revisionist desires of the authors and make this article more fair and reasonable. Marx made numerous statements that were disparaging and disrespectful towards Jews. That's all there is to say. No "hypothetical" defense of his views not contained in his writing is warranted no matter how much you may "wish" he wasn't a bigot. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Hallo, please refrain from insinuations (e.g. "revisionist desires") and conjectures (e.g. "defending bigotry") about the authors of this article. You are welcome to make constructive suggestions and provide sourced material, see ]. Please note that this article is about the essay ''On the Jewish Question'', not about "numerous statements" by Marx. --] 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

: As far as I am aware, the mainstream academic interpretation of "On the Jewish Question" does ''not'' see it as primarily an anti-Semitic text; we quote a number of these interpretations in the article. If you can find reliable sources putting forward the view that the essay is anti-Semitic, by all means add them to the article. ] 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

== Marx's language ==

Recently, a paragraph, followed by five quotes from OtJQ, had been added to the article.

This paragraph subsequently had been replaced by this two sentences, again followed by the five quotes:
:Marx's writings employed a number of traditional antisemitic stereotypes and scapegoating tactics that have been used to demonize and denigrate the Jewish culture, and ridicule the piety of the Jewish faith. Examples in the "On the Jewish Question" include:

In my opinion, the claim that Marx's writings employed traditional antisemitic language should be supported by a reliable source. Otherwise the article would carry out original research. The second sentence seems to claim that the quotes from OtJQ are in fact examples for traditional antisemitism. Again, this claim would need the support of a reliable source.

Therefore, I have deleted the fist sentence, and replaced the second sentence by
:Quotes from ''On the Jewish Question'', which can be interpreted as antisemitic when taken out of their contexts include:

I have also included two quotes from Draper 1977 about Marx's use of language.--] 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

== My edits ==

Schwalker, I'm sorry, but this is the only post I'm going to make here, because I can't afford to discuss and/or edit war about this (or anything else on Misplaced Pages) day after day. The only reason why I made my edits was because I had invested much effort in editing and discussing it about a year ago and hated to see the way it had become worse in many ways. I spent a lot of time fixing it now, too, but struggling with another editor over this fixing, on top of it all, is just more than I can handle. Here is the explanation for the only (partial) revert that I am going to make, in the form of responses to your edit summaries:

<blockquote>"it is frequently argued..", "..quotes cited as..", "sometimes cited": who? where?;</blockquote>

:We all know very well who and where accuses Marx pf anti-Semitism, citing "On the Jewish Question". Marx-bashers (of Jewish or non-Jewish background) do it. Some of the people cited in the Interpretations section (Greenblatt, for example) do it. The article said that even before my edits. And it's ridiculous not to mention allegations of anti-Semitism in the lead when 80% of the article is devoted in one or another to the discussion of these allegations, and when it is obviously the main reason why most people are interested in the essay in the first place. As for the "quotes sometimes cited", if you don't admit that they are cited as such, then they should be deleted altogether ("can be interpreted as anti-Semitic" suggests conjecturing on our part, i.e. possible ]). Your version, featuring the addition that "they can be interpreted as anti-Semitic ''if taken out of context''" bit is obviously POV, because it presupposes that this interpretation is wrong, which is clearly a debated issue.

<blockquote>"Marx&Judaism is intended as discussion of part II"</blockquote>

:The section entitled "Marx and Judaism" was not anything like a coherent summary of the content of Part II, (there was no such summary at all), it was a mixed discussion of: (1) isolated quotes, (2) interpretations; and (3) Marx' attitude towards Jews in general (unrelated to the essay). (1) Isolated quotes are clearly very bad, and potentially worse than nothing at all. (2) Stuff about Marx' attitude towards Jews in general (unrelated to the essay), including his own Jewish background, should be separated from the summary - assuming that they belong here altogether, which is doubtful as well, since this article is about this particular essay. (3) Interpretations of the essay (Avineri, McLellan, Hal Draper etc.) should obviously go to the section entitled "Interpretations", not stay in "Karl Marx and Judaism" as in the version you reverted to. Otherwise, we get irritating repetitions and omissions. This is an elementary matter of decent organization of the text (a major problem on Misplaced Pages, where few editors ever care to read an article from the beginning to the end).

<blockquote>"partially rv paragraph added to current summary:redundances, "disappearance of religion"not exactly in essay, "within hitherto existing world order" no genuine quote)"</blockquote>

:The quote is quite genuine and comes from the same online translation as everything else. The "disappearance of religion" is not a quote, but a retelling of an obvious part of the message, and in fact the need for religion to ''eventually'' be relinquised by everyone is one of the few things that Bauer and Marx clearly agree in. Bauer asserts that emancipation would require that everybody, including the Jews, "emancipate" themselves from their religion (quote: "give up religion altogether"), Marx' only objection is basically that this is only true for complete human emancipation, but not for mere political emancipation ("Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation"). Without that bit, as in the version you're reverting to, things remain entirely unclear, and in particular the nature and relevance of the difference that Marx makes between political and human emancipation remains a mystery. In this way, it appears almost as if Marx thinks a US-type of secular state is perfection itself, and a case of human emnacipation (i.e. precisely the opposite of what he is saying).

<blockquote>"hotly debated":by who?</blockquote>

:By all the interpreters in the "Interpretations" section. Anyway, I can live without it. Changed it to "discussed most often" os something like that. What I mean is, of couse, that all the "anti-Semitic" allegations are based on it.

<blockquote>"complex and somewhat" (metaphorical argument) - unclear interpretation</blockquote>

:Yes, the wording is unclear, because the matter ''is'' unclear. The argument includes metaphors, but that doesn't mean it consists only of metaphors - the terms "Jew", "Judaism" etc. are used as metaphors, but also literally.

<blockquote>notion "capitalism" is not used by Marx yet</blockquote>

:I think it's clear that that's what is meant, but I think you're right that the word should be avoided here.

I also disagree with rearrangement, because info about Marx' other related publications is more suitable either ''before'' or ''after'' all analyses, but certainly not in-between them (between the "Interpretaions" section and the "Marx and Judaism" section).

Best wishes,
--] 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:Ninetyone hundredfortyeight hundredfiftynine four, thanks for your contributions and comments. I will try to address some of those parts of your comments which are relevant for the article. It won't be convenient or possible to address everything in one single message.--] 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Did Marx strive for the disappearance of religion?==

Following paragraph had been by an editor to the end of the summary of ''part I'' in the "Political and human emancipation" section:
:In Marx' view, Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation: as pointed out above, political emancipation in a modern state does not require the Jews (or, for that matter, the Christians) to renounce religion; only complete human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion, but that is not yet possible, not "within the hitherto existing world order".
I had partially reverted this edit by shifting the ''"Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation"'' part into an earlier paragraph, and deleting the other material. My comment was:
:'' (partially rv paragraph added to current summary:redundances, "disappearance of religion"not exactly in essay, "within hitherto existing world order" no genuine quote)''
Subsequently, my edit had been reverted again by the other editor, who in ] gave the following reasons:
:The quote is quite genuine and comes from the same online translation as everything else. The "disappearance of religion" is not a quote, but a retelling of an obvious part of the message, and in fact the need for religion to eventually be relinquised by everyone is one of the few things that Bauer and Marx clearly agree in. Bauer asserts that emancipation would require that everybody, including the Jews, "emancipate" themselves from their religion (quote: "give up religion altogether"), Marx' only objection is basically that this is only true for complete human emancipation, but not for mere political emancipation ("Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation"). Without that bit, as in the version you're reverting to, things remain entirely unclear, and in particular the nature and relevance of the difference that Marx makes between political and human emancipation remains a mystery. In this way, it appears almost as if Marx thinks a US-type of secular state is perfection itself, and a case of human emnacipation (i.e. precisely the opposite of what he is saying).

My comments:
* I think the need for a phrase like ''as pointed out above,...'' indicates an unfinished presentation. An encyclopedia should avoid repetitions in the text.
* Yes, ''"within the hitherto existing world order"'' is indeed a quote from the essay. I had not recognized this when I made the claim that it was not genuine. Nevertheless, the context of the phrase is:
::Political emancipation is, of course, a big step forward. True, it is not the final form of human emancipation in general, but it is the final form of human emancipation within the hitherto existing world order.
:So Marx says that within the hitherto existing world order, emancipation can't go beyond political emancipation. Nowhere in this quote does he say that the disappearance of religion would be involved in the final form of human emancipation.
* The quote "Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation." can be read in two different ways:
:a) ''Because you can be emancipated politically without at the same time having to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation.'' That means, to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly is a necessary precondition for human emancipation.
:b) ''Because you can be emancipated politically without being capable of, or being allowed to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation.'' In other words, a just politically but not humanly emancipated society won't allow its Jewish members a complete and incontrovertible renouncement of Judaism, whether they aspire it or not.
:The other editor seems to prefer interpretation a). By the way, this is the point of view of Larry Ray's , too. But also b) is a possible interpretation. In my opinion, b) is fitting better within Marx's remaining argumentation.
*According to Marx, in an emancipated society, religious consciousness would ''dissipate'':
::An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.
:But physically speaking, dissipation does not mean ''disappearance''.
*Marx cites Beaumont:
::Nevertheless, “in the United States people do not believe that a man without religion could be an honest man.” (op. cit., p. 224)
:So for Marx, in an emancipatied society a man can be regarded as honest without having a religion. But this does not mean a requirement for everyone to relinquish their religion.
*Marx objection is that Bauer does not take into consideration social reality. For Marx, human emancipation is not reached yet in western secular states, since man is reduced "''on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person''". For him, religion is just a secondary, ideological effect of this reduction. The old version fo the article did point out Marx's main concern: that individuals ''can still be bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality''.

--] 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Neither the ] nor ] shows any such title ==

That's not the title of the published ] form of Marx's work on the ]. --] (]) 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

==='''''World Without Jews'''''===
The correct title, as it was first published in the English language is '''World Without Jews''' & --] (]) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the LOC on it:
:Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
:Uniform Title: Zur Judenfrage. English
:Main Title: ''A world without Jews. Translated from the original German, with an introd. by ].''
:Published/Created: New York, ]
:Description: xii, 51 p. 20 cm.
:Notes: ''"The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on ’the Jewish question.’"''
::--] (]) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:It is very doubtfull that ''A World without Jews'' was the first published translation in English language. However, the essay is known under ''On the Jewish Question'' today. Greeting, --] (]) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::Check out the libraries' online catalogs - and rekieve your doubt. --!!

==Requested move==
This has been listed on ] as a move from ''A World Without Jews'' to ''On the Jewish Question''.

ISTM that the first question is: What is the article about? Specifically, if it's to be about the English translation of 1959, then in terms of ] the existing name ''A World Without Jews'' is probably the one. On the other hand, if it's about the original German article of 1843, the question is more open; I'd guess that ''Zur Judenfrage'' is the most likely contender. ] (]) 09:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:The article is firstly about the original article published in 1844, the Runes edition is only a footnote. If you look at ] and ], you'll see that (except ]) all titels are in their English translation. Greeting, --] (]) 10:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::*(1) But that kind of analysis constitutes ].
::*(2) If you consult the ] - as I have done - namely, the ] & ] ''Online Catalog(s)'' you will, very suprisingly, that there is no such "]" as '''''On the Jewish Question'''''!
::*(3) The latter is the name of the ] by the ] ] institute(s). I do not think, to the best of my recollection, that either library lists this ] in its catalogs.
::*(4) Finally, what the article is about - or should be about - is the (One or Single) ] which is in existence in '''three''' physical forms: (i) the ] or first ] of ], (ii) the 1959 ] in book form, and (iii) the online ''edition'' of the scholarly institute, the ], which is charged I think which ] of all these papers, and published the ].
:::--] (]) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Very few English-language publications use the ''A World Without Jews'' title. You should have waited for the move request to conclude rather than jumping the gun. Also, the addition in the body (first section) is unnecessary and seems to be there purely for the name change. Please take the time to review our ] policy clause. ] 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:*Please discuss things before you Revert my editing. Lets not have an Edit War. Please. I am open to your position if you discuss things! --] (]) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:*There are three other editors here. And I wish to hear what they say. Please do not Revert my Edits. --] (]) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:*The other (two) present WP editors are ] and ]. I would like to discuss things with them also, please. I want to know their points of view as well. --] (]) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::*The fact is that you are the one who is '']'' substantial changes. Not to mention that rather than wait a few days for an admin to close the ], you do it yourself a few hours after proposing it, despite objections. It doesn't look good, sorry. ] 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::*I think you are mistaken. I have only edited the first Paragraph. It is you who simply REVERTED that work, causing me to deal with your Reversion. Regarding "changes" I understand that WP policy says Be Bold in your Editing. And I have not Reverted - you have. --] (]) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::*As to Substance, consider the First English Language Edition '''(1959)''' and what the Library Card says: ''"The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on 'the Jewish question.'"'
'
::That's said by librarians, not me. --] (]) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, it's not "said by librarians." It's just a quote from the book. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ludvikus goes so far as saying "that this text is only known in the United States and the United Kindgum by that ."<sup></sup> It just seems so far fetched that it's the dominant, not to mention the ''only'' title, for this famous work. Thx. ] 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*Do we really need the bold text? It just comes across as too excited and aggrendizing. The article is known in the English-speaking world primarily by the conventional title; I'll refactor: <tt>A simple ] yields for ''A World Without Jews'' and for ''On the Jewish Question'' (with ~10,000 Misplaced Pages-related results omitted). Likewise: ] produces for the former versus for the latter.</tt> ] 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::It's a bogus rendering of the actual title, and should not be in there. It has no historical credibility. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. The fact that google has more than 20 times the mention of the "A World Without Jews" ''phrase'' and that scholar google has more than 35 times the mention is, I submit, highly revealing as per usage. ] 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:*Removed Boldface above. Sorry for that. And I agree that most likely that's the book's self discription. --] (]) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:*But what's wrong with this twice Reverted (not by me) 3-sentence opening?: --] (]) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-----
{{cleanup}}

{{otheruses}} <!-- Should REDIRECT to "Jewish question (disambiguation)" -->
:''Or see ]''.

'''''A World Without Jews''''', a.k.a. '''''On the Jewish Question''''' (]: '''''Zur Judenfrage'''''), is a ], 51 page ], published as a ], of a ] article(s) by ] originally written or published in autumn ].

It is disputed whether or not it is ] (see ]).

Scholars of Marxism maintain that it is one of Marx's earliest attempts to deal with ] that would later be called the ].
:* --] (]) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-----
You put the minor title before the dominant one (we're unsure if it the alternate should even be mentioned in the lead — also un-ref'd, untitled, plain url sources are problematic for the article, highly problematic for the lead paragraph, and immensely so for the lead sentence). The Marxian scholars is an unnecessary qualification — other, non-Marxian scholars also maintain this. The bite-sized paragraph that attributes antisemitism to Marx and this work beyond how it's treated in the mainstream and academia. None of the changes should be kept at this time. ] 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:OK. But that can all be ajusted, compromised, etc. And I do not think I'm responsible for all that. Also, I found a practical solution. I just now started a <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> on ]. I was shocked to find that WP had no article on him. So can you guys, or gals as well, help me on that/him? I believe if we write about him we may find a compromise. Since it is he who published the text of our concern under the title AWWJ - and you people only want OTJQ. --] (]) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::I'm interested in representing scholarly consensus, and since google scholar has ''+35 times'' the mention of the original, conventional title, it seems sensible we should go with that. Maybe somewhere in the article talk about the history and origin of the minority, alternate title, but I don't think we need to do it in the lead. Certainly no superseding the predominant one (I confess that after all we discussed already, you still asked what was wrong with it — I'm sorry, it does look a bit suspect). ] 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Just because the book description says first "unexpurgated" does not mean the "first time" — you're, again, conflating the two. ] 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::'']''. I think I'm not intentionally responsible for your suspicions. Having said that, I find the German to be ] of this work, by the ]. The difference between your scholarship and mine is this: I go to the greatest libraries in the world - even the ] where ] so much of his time. But what do you do? You do ] using ] to do your own statistical surveys. And you ignore the fact that Google reproduces THIS (sorry for this shouting, but its just not being heard) article, which you wrote I believe. So what really going onwith your research? You are counting how many times what you said is repeated on].--] (]) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::And I challenge you to find just one other edition of this 1959 English language book. I'm goping now to the ] to see if I can do that. See you later (also, I need to eat something). --] (]) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::What can I say? Your original synthesis with this book description inspires little confidence. The fact that both google and google scholar favour the conventional title by factors of tens speaks for itself, as per usage. There's nothing ''original'' about that, I didn't make it up. Not to mention that your version was poorly written, with idiosyncratic emphases, going on about that translation (I guess to prove this bogus alternate-title-as-predominant theory), with stunted prose, with an inexplicable first section that is basically a verbatim ] of that translation (again, awkwardly, to prove its validity?). Sorry for being so blunt, but it does not speak of quality. Maybe review some featured content, I don't know... ] 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-----
==='']''===
I just stopped of at the ]. They have Seven (7) titles for this ]. See how many ones are in English:

:* ''Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft? Ryba, R. Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft?
:CALL NUMBER: DS141 .R9
:* ''Zur judenfrage.'' Bresslau, Harry, 1848- Zur judenfrage. 1880
:CALL NUMBER: DS135.G33 T73

:* ''Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben.'' Gauvain, Hermann von. Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben. 1881
:CALL NUMBER: 4DS 190

:* ''Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch.'' Kopp, Josef. Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch. Von dr. Josef Kopp. 1886
:CALL NUMBER: DS145.R7 K6 1886

:* ''Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche.'' Klopfer, Carl Ed. Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Ernst Hallier. 1891
:CALL NUMBER: 4DS 318

:* ''Zur Judenfrage. English. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. ''World without Jews.''Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes. 1959

:* ''Zur Judenfrage.'' Italian. 1982. Parinetto, Luciano. Marx e Shylock : Kant, Hegel, Marx e il mondo ebraico : con una nuova traduzione di Marx, La questione ebraica / Luciano Parinetto, Livio Sichirollo. 1982
-----
:Back from the ], a.k.a. the ]. It has Fifty Seven (57) entries for this title. I'm very hungry now, and will get something to eat. So can you see if you find any English translation(s) there? Thanks. --] (]) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-----
That doesn't respond to anything I said with respect to usage in the English-speaking world. ] 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:You're ignoring my point. Your ] ] constitutes ] - don't you realize that? Is this not an article about a ]? But in 1843 there was no book, just a ] which I believe is currently at the ] in Mascow (no?). And in 1844 it was a ] ]. Finally, in 1959, in the USA, it was printed as a small hardback book. It apparently has not been ]ed in a version which the ] found desireable to own and catalog. --] (]) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Since when is the library of congress an authority on Marx? What I have in print, at home alone: "On the Jewish Question", translated from German by <tt><u>Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat</u></tt> (1967) and I also have an "On the Jewish Question", translated by <tt>]</tt> (1963) I also have the same article/translation appearing in the Robert C. Tucker's (ed.) ''The Marx-Engels Reader'' (p.24), 1972. Again, that's just what I have at home, in print. As you look at various compilations and translations of this work, you will find that title vastly predominates, and this is exactly why ] mentions this title over ''35 times'' more. ] 17:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:I think this is all totally irrelevant. If the article is primarily about the original article (in German), then the German title should probably be used, as that's ''what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize'' (see ]). If the article is primarily about an English edition, then of course one of the English titles is a more likely candidate, and your research will help determine which of these is best. But we need to make the underlying decision first: What is the article about? And this still seems unanswered. ] (]) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
::The title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world, especially in the scholarship. There has been various English translations, most use the conventional title. You two seem determined to use the single translated title which barely see any usage. ] 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree that ''the title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world'' but not ''especially in the scholarship''. The last comment is a bit strange if I'm one of the two, since I was the one who proposed using the German title. Using the translated title to me reeks of ] observation: ''And then rather than do either you'll do something else that neither likes at all''. ] (]) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, what is clear: we have various English translations of "The Jewish Question" title, widely used by modern scholars in the West (see above; I haven't even touched the East: also translated the same). On the other side, we have a single "A World Without Jews" translated title, scarcely used in the scholarship (online: for eg., google scholar: less than 100 mentions vs. 3,500; in print: in various compilations and so on). ] 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::What's it about? Why are you not Bold as WP wishes. It's obviously about what Marx wrote in 1843. It was reissued under varius titles. That is absolutely important. And in fact, it can only be about two other things, the varius ] interpretations, and the ] ones. Have I ommitted any? So I appreciate very much the references give by our editor above. I will look into that. But, it is not for us to speculate on the so-called ] in general. We do also have now a disambiguation page, do not forget: ]. So you can choose the other meanings you wish to develop. --] (]) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Probably I'm not as bold as you wish because I like to conform to Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures, and also a ]. Please ]. ] (]) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::No one takes the Runes version seriously. A 1960 review by David T. Cattel in the The Western Political Quarterly says Rune's "''introduction can be dismissed as propaganda without scholarly value''." Marx scholar Robert C Tucker reviewed it in 1960 in The Slavic and East European Journal and said ''"Runes, who has produced here a not completely accurate new translation of the essay, wittingly or unwittingly misses the main point in giving it the misleading title "A World Without Jews", and in using it to present Marx, in his Introduction, as a theoretical originator of modern totalitarian practices of anti-Semitism. The criticism of Marxism is a very important task for scholars, but it should not be performed on such a flimsy or fraudulent basis''." additionally, it wasnt the first English translation--the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow did an earlier English translation. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Very good points, which belong in the article IMO, assuming we're not going to have a separate article for the Runes version, which is another possible outcome. ] seems citable enough. ] (]) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::We can mention that in a section but in the lead would be excessive — and a re-title would be... highly irrational. ] 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not bold as ''you'' wish me to be, Ludvikus, because the three books I possess in print which featrue the work (that use two different translations) all use OtJQ; because all other translations —except that single one— I've seen use that title; because marxists.org (the largest repository of marxist works) use that title; because google scholar mentions it +35 time more. ''Et cetera, etc.'' Being bold does not mean giving ] to a single source/title, one that by every measure sees much less usage than the original, longstanding one. I doubt you would be able to gain consensus and persuade me so long as you fail to show usage. ] 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

===Process===

So, what now? It's been moved, despite the move debate still having several days to run. The move notice at ] still reads ''A World Without Jews → On the Jewish Question'' but the one on this page now reads ''It has been proposed below that On the Jewish Question be renamed and moved to On the Jewish Question.'' Do I move it back and protect it? That would mean that the current lead section was completely out of step with the title. Suggestions welcome, please try to make them consistent to Misplaced Pages policy, procedures etc.. ] (]) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::You do not need to protect it as far as I'm concerned. I certainly am not going to Revert anything. I'm interested in ] and ] and not in an Edit War. Regarding Boldness - I do not understand your reaction to that. It is WP policy to tell editors to be bold. That just means that we should use our judgment - to the limit of an edit war. Now I want to take some time-out to research the comments by editor ]. I'm hopeful we can reach a consesus. Cheers. --] (]) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:I reversed the order at the RM page. Now we are having a discussion about whether to move it to the new title, because it was moved without consensus or a proper move discussion (which is why I moved it back). Thanks for your patience. ] 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::Also, I just realized I confused you in the above with another. I'll be back in a flash with his/her name & contribution. --] (])

::I was considering moving it back to ''A World Without Jews'' which was the title at the start of the discussion regarding this WP:RM. My primary reason for being here is to help others sort it out. This preemptive move made this a bit more difficult IMO, but reversing it would just make it worse. Or that was my feeling.

::By all means be bold, but also learn from your mistakes and those of others. Preemptive move(s) are not helpful IMO. ] (]) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:58, 2 December 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconJewish history Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Changes going forward

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) I have renamed one for now, to be in line with the communist manifesto article.--Manboobies (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

B. The main body section “2. history of publication” should be below “3. Interpretations” and “4. Reference to Müntzer”, because 3&4 are discussions of content, like 1., Manboobies (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Should this article be in the Antisemitism sidebar

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)

Yes! It should. Great idea, thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Removed Sacks quote

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)
I clarified what I meant about the Muntzer quote here. Sorry about my lack of umlauts.--FeralOink (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


  • Muravchik, Joshua (2003). Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. San Francisco: Encounter Books. p. 164. ISBN 1-893554-45-7.
  • Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer. Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan. (2005). ISBN 1-4039-6893-4 pp. 154–157
  • Sacks, Jonathan (1997). The Politics of Hope. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 98–108. ISBN 978-0-224-04329-8.

"Although others do not"

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)

I don't think it's at all fair to assume that Marxist scholars are any less neutral than non-Marxist scholars on the issue, and in fact you could make the same argument about bias the other way round - it is perhaps worth noting that the source used to argue in favour of Marx's antisemitism on that very line is an article which also describes socialism as "the anti-Semitism of intellectuals" in a magazine often described as "neoconservative".
PaintTrash (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Undefined Behaviour Question

Notice: this page is being discussed on the Internet in the context of an incident in the C++ programming language standards committee, as detailed here:

http://tomazos.com/ub_question_incident.pdf

This is just a heads up to let everyone know that there may be increased vandalism and disruption to this page because of this.

Related: C++, Undefined behavior, https://isocpp.org/std/the-committee --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: