Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayreuth Circle

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayreuth Circle

Delete The 'Bayreuth Circle' is sometimes used as a shorthand for Winifred Wagner and her associates, and can be dealt with as such under WW. It was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims insofar as it existed at all, and did nothing. Thus, not a topic for an article. --Smerus 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like an obvious redirect to me. Grutness...wha? 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful at closing admin's discretion and redirect - as above. Metamagician3000 13:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Vienna Circle also was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims, and "did nothing"; it was just a bunch of people gathering around Moritz Schlick. And yet highly notable. The Bayreuth Circle had several prominent members whose role cannot easily be described as being "associates" of Winifred Wagner, for example Cosima Wagner, the artist Franz Stassen], Ludwig Schemann, who founded the Gobineau Society, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. This has potential to grow beyond mere stubhood. --Lambiam^Talk 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A false argument. The Vienna Circle is recognised by philosophers and historians of philosophy as a group of pepople who made a contribution to philosophy. The Bayreuth Circle is not recognised by historians (or anyone else) as a group of people who did or achieved anything at all.--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article is simplistic and needs much work, but subject is well-recognized, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wagner-01dynasty.html. Monicasdude 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, this citation is irrelevant and cannot support keeping this article - the NYt article concerns a book about the Wagner family, not the supposed 'Bayreuth circle'--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect per nom/Grutness. Kuzaar 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude. JoshuaZ 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per nom/Grutness/Kuzaar - Kleinzach 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & expand (in fact, insist on it)—notable. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An example of the dangerous power of Wikipedia to create rather than to reflect. A minor and indifferent term with no real connection to the claimed significance as presented in the article and yet if it stays, the result will be an irresonsible legitimation of the phrase, even though it is historically spurious and innacurate. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, and this is a flagrant violation of that implied mission. Eusebeus 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above OSU80 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Eusebeus. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable phenomenon in German history. Has been the subject of academic study (random samples: Wolfgang Altgeld, "Wagner, der Bayreuther Kreis und die Entwicklung des völkischen Denkens". In: Richard Wagner 1883-1983, ed. U. Müller, Stuttgart 1984, S. 35-64. Winfried Schüler: Der Bayreuther Kreis von seiner Entstehung bis zum Ausgang der Wilhelminischen Ära. Wagnerkult und Kulturreform im Geiste völkischer Weltanschauung (Neue Münstersche Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung 12), Münster 1971.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Future Perfect. It is indeed a notable German historical phenomenon. ProhibitOnions 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Bayreuth Circle had great cultural impact on the age--Aldux 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fut.Perf.'s good work. Vizjim 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As the author of Wagner Societies, Wolfgang Wagner and a major contributor to Bayreuth Festival, let me say that I find the above keep votes questionable. The Bayreuther Kreis in the titles above references the enthusiasts who championed Wagner's music; this is well-covered at the origins of the Festival itself, as well as the main Wagner article. We don't need a spurious article claiming some kind of political extremism gathered around the figure of Wagner and blessed with some kind of official title - it is historically inaccurate. Eusebeus 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree: just because the word 'Kreis' has a capital letter in German doesn't raise the circle of Wagner enthusiasts to any sort of movement. Let me reemphasize: these enthusiasts did not have a 'great cultural impact on the age', nor were they 'a notable German historical phenomenon'. Anyone making such grandiose statements has at least a responsibility to provided some resepectable citation in support - of which we have seen none so far in this debate amongst the 'keeps'.--Smerus 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have no specific opinion on whether it is in fact true that the circle had any notable effect - but the existence of scholarly literature such as that cited above indicates that such an idea exists out there and that the term has currency. Which for me is enough for inclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is the problem Eusebeus is pointing out. Someone writes a book with 'The Bayreuth Circle' in the title, to describe a social / political / cultural milieu, someone else puts it on WP as a formal body (it even has an organisation-stub tag, would you believe), and then its kept because there's a published title (in a language many of us don't read). Suddenly Winifred Wagner's music evenings have become the precursor to the SA. Utterly nonsensical. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - why not be bold and rewrite the article to give a better idea (as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject) of the origins of the phrase "Beyreuth Circle", the milieu it describes, and the objections to the use of the term? Seems to me as though the objections you are raising are an occasion for rewriting, not deletion. Vizjim 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, changed to weak keep and improve as the article contains nothing but an unreferenced assertion, is non-notable (eg no article on the German wiki[1]), and would seem to give spurious credibility to a speculative bit of German history. Guinnog 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Vote changed after reading edit from ILike2BeAnonymous below Guinnog 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Ezeu 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I added a few references, that only mention the Circle tangentially, but they are clear that there was such a group, and that it was a link between Wagner and the Nazis. AnonEMouse 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean, link 'between Wagner and the Nazis'? Wagner died in 1883. Hitler was born in 1889.--Smerus 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I was about to write [2], but that seems to only refer to the video game character. Yech. Anyway, link, connection, that which brings two things together. The Bayreuth Circle were a link between them - people connected with both, in fact people quite actively connecting them, in the sense of interpreting Wagner to support the Nazis, and encouraging the performance and even adulation of Wagner during Nazism. I'm not sure what the objection is. AnonEMouse 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Sigh. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where accuracy is subservient to guesswork. Was oben geschrieben wird ist ganz und total Scheiße. Eusebeus 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand, we deal in neither accuracy, nor guesswork, but verifiability. So far we have 2 German books, a scholarly music article, and Bnai Brith referring to such an organization in the manner that it's described in the article: that's verifiable. The obscenity, however, is uncalled for, please remove it. AnonEMouse 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The obscenity may be uncalled for, but it seems fairly accurate to me. And btw since when have Bnei Brith been recognised authorities on musical history? Just to make clear my own POV, I write as an orthodox Jewish music historian who desparately wishes to draw clear lines between music history and the Holocaust industry. This article is a disastrous concession to the latter by exaggerating something utterly trivial to a specious significance that can clutter school essays under the 'authority' of Wikipedia. Not only is it wrong-headed in itself, it damages Wikipedia's reputation--Smerus 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, as I'm certainly by no means an expert on either Wagner's music nor German history, but it seems to me your objections are misplaced. Rather than rail for elimination of this article, wouldn't your time and energy be better spent in the article itself, trying to achieve historical accuracy? It seems fairly obvious that there are compelling reasons that the article should exist, given all the citations given; your job, it would seem to me, would be to put things in proper perspective in the article, like in a "Myths & misconceptions" section. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, are you the same ILike2BeAnonymous who on 7th May 'insisted' on keeping this article and claimed it was 'notable'? Why then don't you rewrite it? I would not wish personally to be associated with this non-topic in any way, and certainly would not to wish to give it undeserved status by writing it up or expanding it - that indeed is why I proposed deleting it. You may not agree with me, but at least I am consistent. :-) --Smerus 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would, if I were qualified to do so. I'm not, which puts me at the mercy of people like you. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. If nobody is prepared to improve it soon, does it meantime lend undue credibility to a controversial idea? I am certainly not qualified to improve it. Guinnog 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I added two more references to the article, in English, from two different college professor's sites. They're pretty damning. I am writing without a POV, I'm just a guy who can type "Bayreuth circle" into Google, and see what comes up. From that, even if the article won't approach "good article" heights, the term looks pretty verifiable. AnonEMouse 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, in response to requests I have rewritten the article with proper references. I deleted one external link which said nothing about the 'BC' except to mention that Chamberlain 'was a member' of it. The other link, which is pretty footling, I have left so you can all assess it yourself. I have given Frederic Spotts's book as appropriate literature; he at least knows what he's talking about and has researched all the German publications relating to Bayreuth. Enjoy.--Smerus 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I approve. Didn't read it all, but what I skimmed appears to have the proper arch tone and raised-eyebrow feel that your skepticism imparts to it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, and I'm sure you mean well, but I am finding it difficult to see how your edits are more than just deleting references, and arguing, in the article, for the deletion of the article, for lack of those same references. I won't revert your edits without a bit more consensus, since that would be just an edit war, but I hope there is something you could do other than delete my and others' work. By the way, the Bnai Brith you have left with the wonderful comment "does not, as has been claimed by a previous editor of this article, mention the 'Bayreuth Circle'." contains the text: "Richard’s wife Cosima Lizst, the daughter of composer Franz Lizst, was also a vicious antisemite, and after his death in 1893 she consolidated a Bayreuth Circle which attracted such antisemites as racist writer H.S. Chamberlain. This circle attracted the elite of German intelligentsia and royalty, including both Kaisers Wilhelm I and II."AnonEMouse 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re the references - I deliberately removed the German references. Neither I - nor anyone who has contributed - knows what these say. Someone picked up two reference titles from [www.copac.ac.uk] or somewhere, with articles in two obscure German periodicals, not exactly available through your local library. And how many English readers of Wikipedia could read thme, even if they could find them? English articles should show English sources, as a matter of principle - if none are available it's a sign of weakness of the article topic. sorry about the so-called 'Bnei Brith' quote - write in haste, repent at leisure. The quote is actually from a review of the autobiography of Wagner's self-hating grandson, and cannot count strongly as a powerful citation for the topic. I still think the article should be deleted, btw. --Smerus 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You actually removed 3 references, in English, that I put in, including 2 with quotes, from university sites. Please look at the "your edit" link I put in above. I'm glad to know that it was inadvertent, but I must ask that you be more careful about that. You're quite right that I haven't read the German references, but per WP:AGF, we need to assume that the editor who put them in has. We can't go around deleting all references we haven't read on the assumption that no one else has read them either. AnonEMouse 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now I see the good Eusebeus has erased my nice article and replaced it by a couple of sentences. I have corrected them, by the way. I can't help feeling this was just a little high-handed on Eusebius's part - I shall invoke the shade of Robert Schumann, who originally used his pseudonym, and was a responsible musical critic, to haunt him. It seems I can't win - I am castigated for not using my (alleged) expertise, and then when I use it to produce an informed article, it is effectively deleted. C'est la vie, c'est die Scheisse......Anybody who wants to see a 'proper' article on the topic (insofar as there can be one) can see my article by clicking on the history.--Smerus 08:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted and restored the status quo ante, minus your most recent edits. As I pointed out in my edit summary, apparently Eusebeus attempted to accomplish by "editing" what he could not by deleting. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.