Talk:The Jew of Linz

Mini Note

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

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

(No Heading)

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

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

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

In, out, in, out

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

A point on editorial decency

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

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

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

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

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

A futher point on editorial decency

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

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

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

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

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

On Paul Monk

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

What a nutsy book!

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

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

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

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

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

Some factual corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another voice

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

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

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

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

On the Rissmann criticism

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

Dear Kimberley Cornish,

I have received your e-mail:

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

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

Cornish on the Bush payrole?

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

Unsound Logic

   1. A boy at the Linz Realschule was of Jewish descent, but ignorant of his Jewish ancestry.

   2. Hitler yelled "Saujud!' at this boy.

   3. Wittgenstein was the only boy at the school who was of Jewish descent and ignorant of his Jewish ancestry.

   Ergo

   4. The boy at whom Hitler yelled "Saujud", was Wittgenstein. 

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

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

Article structure

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

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

Some evidence on the other side re spying

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

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

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

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

Clean-Up

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

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

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

Taking off the pov tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malcolm

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

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

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

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

Unsupported edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False claims about the Jewish descent of the Bethmann family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cosima Wagner

Franz Liszt

Marie d'Agoult

Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg

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