Talk:Houston Stewart Chamberlain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the Richard Wagner WikiProject, a collaboration to develop articles on the composer and his operas. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.  See comments for details.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Contents 1 Rating by Richard Wagner Project 2 Content 3 Fact tags 4 A fresh look at the article 5 Discussion on content 5.1 #1: as natural scientist 5.2 #2: Foundations - A 5.3 #3: Foundations - B 5.4 #4: Correspondence with Hitler 5.5 #5: Impact 6 A new proposal 7 Additions 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Hschamberlain2.jpg 9 New information [edit] Rating by Richard Wagner Project Start class. Good basic article, but lacking in sources, references and inline citations. Could also benefit from: Critical appreciation/opinions section - material must be plentiful! Complete bibliography More illustrations -- Kleinzach 11:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Start class. Agree with above comments. Article needs copy-editing. If he's really part of the Wagner Project, more material on his relationship with the Wagner family and the works of Wagner would be useful. --GuillaumeTell 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (edit)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

Direct citations and attributions should be left in the article especially if made by people at the time who knew Chamberlain and had significant knowledge of his writings. David Lauder 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content

Hello David,
regarding the following edit: [1], I would humbly submit that you consider good faith considerations before assuming that a contribution is POV. While I am have no interest in initiating an edit-skirmish, I would like to make the following points:

1. He was an anti-Semite, a proud and archetypical germanophilic anti-Semite, as is primarily remembered for providing pseudo-scientific fuel to racial hatred in Germany. One may omit that fact from the lead, but to deny him status on Category:Antisemitism, a place where the far less intellectually influential figures of Cartman and Borat have found a cozy home, would be an insult to his memory.
2. In what ways is he a "natural scientist"? In his anti-Einsteinian mystico-passionate defense of the aether? In his contributions to anthropology and astrobiology? In his contemptuous dismissal of Darwinism? (see his admirer's page - which, incidentally, nowhere called him a "scientist" - here for choice tidbits). Call him a political philosopher if you will, but by no means a "natural scientist". (His brother, in contrast, contributed some really nice enthographic material on the Ainu by the way).
3. To say that Grundlagen sold millions of copies despite it's anti-Semitic content is akin to saying that Uncle Tom's Cabin sold millions of copies despite it's abolitionist content.
4. "Whether or not nazis or anyone else liked his book 25 years after it was written is immaterial" would be true if nazism were some sort of a fringe fad and the book were noteworthy in any other way. Grundlagen remains an "philosophical" cornerstone of an ideology of historically enormous importance, and it is for this much more than his interpretations of Kant that Chamberlain is primarily remembered and clings to any encycolpedia-worthy notability. As a point of comparison, Encyclopedia Brittanica offers the following very succinct lead: "HSC: British-born Germanophile political philosopher, whose advocacy of the racial and cultural superiority of the so-called Aryan element in European culture influenced pan-German and German nationalist thought, particularly Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement."
5. "Huge book" just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. not even War and Peace gets that kind of endorsement.
6. His relationship to the Wagner family is probably lead-worthy, no?

Like I said, as a working "natural scientist" I have better things to do than worry about the wording in an article on a (brace yourself for some real, uncut POV) contemptible, pseudo-intellectual bigot with a disproportionately distateful impact on world history. I will, however, copy these comments on the Chamberlain page so that further discussion are accessible to others and I do hope that you or whoever else consider these arguments when formulating an appropriate introductory paragraph. I also think that people interested in anti-Semitism would benefit from having his name appear in that Category and will reinsert the article accordingly. Respectfully, Eliezg (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my changing your bullets to numbers. It makes addressing the points easier

1. The category is quite obviously appropriate.

2. You have now contested his being a natural scientist. A tag requiring a reference is now approppriate. If one is not provided in a month or so, or someone hasn't announced the intention to chase this up, then the description can be removed.

3. The "despite" certainly strikes be as peculiar.

4. If it was heavily used by Nazis to justify their actions and their beliefs, then a mention is appropriate

5. I don't know how big the book is. "Huge" may be problematic. But I'm sure I've refered to the Ring Cycle in a similar way. (I think as "massive".) The Ring was the largest musical work of its time, and that expression I think is therefore justified. I don't know how "Huge" the book is. But, as we're talking about choice of words, I would also challenge your "virulent". That strikes me as editorialising. Somewhere in the Wikipedia style material there's something about showing Hitler was evil, not saying he was.

6. I'm agnostic on this point.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and Eliezg clearly has POV problems with this article and its subject, whether he accepts that or not. It is not a question of a presumption of good faith. It is possible to see clearly where there is none.

The first of his points is indeed virulent and such wording has no place in an encyclopaedia, rather a newspaper.

Anti-Semitism in the 1890s was more common than not. So whilst Chamberlain was anti-semitic that did not put him beyond the pale then.

I have never heard it disputed that he was a natural scientist. He studied under several famous natural scientist professors and two of Chamberlain's books (written in French) on plants &c., are held in the Linnean Society's famous library in London.

Yes, Foundations sold millions of copies in several languages (is that disputed?) the reason the phrase 'despite its anti-semitic content' was clearly a phrase to demonstrate that not everyone who purchased copies was anti-semitic. That is all.

For the time the book was huge. So big that it was published in two thick volumes. Given that sales of books in 1900 were of no comparison to today, and that they were costly, it is surely remarkable that so many of this book(s) were sold in so many countries?

As User:Eliezg has clearly demonstrated his hatred and contempt for Chamberlain and shown by his comments on bigotry etc etc above that he is incapable of a neutral edit on this page he should avoid it. Otherwise I will raise his vocuabulary on the Adnministrator's Noticeboard. It doesn't assist the Wikipedia project one iota. David Lauder (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

POV and good faith can exist together. There are plenty of topics where there are edit wars with both sides acting in good faith but from biased points of view. Hopefully the issues here can be thrashed out without going to the administrators. I'm not sure how impressed they will be with some of your wording in here. Anyway onto the substantive issues...

I would suggest including some natural science books in the bibliography. My French isn't good enough to be sure what the research title is about. Maybe it is natural science and a translation of the titles would be sufficient. Maybe describe the book as "two-volume" rather than "huge". I'm not convinced that the book is that unique an example. Das Kapital had four volumes and was published earlier and, I supect, also sold loads.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Peter. If I have misrepresented the stance taken by User:Eliezg I apologise but I don't think I have. He has demonstrated a serious bias towards this fellow and that is POV. It is important not to judge someone who was writing over a century ago by 2007 yardsticks. I am not aware that Nazis treated his book as a bible for their policies, although Hitler apparently liked it. But so what? When it was written AH was about ten years old! I have no problem with the description of the book. It just seemed to me a large publication. Even today very few books of that size in two volumes would be a big seller. I take your point about Marx's tome but equally I have no problem how that is described either. If Chamberlain's work is offensive to some, then Marx's work is equally offensive to others. What we are attempting to do here is to present a page which looks and sounds encyclopaedic. Once we permit our personal opinions to enter into it the whole purpose of WP falls apart. I spent some time at one stage in the Linnean Society's library so I recall his books which were eagerly shown to me by the librarian who described them as "brilliant". As I cannot read French I was none the wiser. I'll see what I can find further on them but my time is so limited. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello David and Peter. Your comments are appreciated. I stand chastised on the use of the word "virulent" in the lead of an encyclopedia article, though I am not convinced that it merits being called "hopeless" and "hysterical"[2] or appealing to the Administrative board - nor do I think that it is an appropriate epithet to "Point 1" above. If you feel that a person with a point-of-view should categorically desist from editing a page - I can certainly demur, though I question how "in the spirit of WP" that would be. I will also, from a personal standpoint, categorically deny "hating" Chamberlain - I do not consider hating dead people whom I do not know (and in this case would not wish to know) a productive channel for emotional energy. That said, I do feel that the article as it stands does misrepresent Chamberlain and his historical relevance, in particular his influence on the philosophy underlying Nazism. To address some of the points made above specifically:

1. It is disingenuous to claim that he is merely yet another antisemite, like your ordinary Fritz at the corner bakery. He laid down after Gobineau THE seminal theoretical work on Aryan supremacy over inferior races, with specific attention paid to Jews (with special effort and scholarship paid to demonstrating that Jesus must, in fact, have been racially Aryan). Just about any historical summary of the roots of the myth of Aryan supremacy cite these two (yes, strangely, a Frenchman and an Englishman) as the spiritual/intellectual/philosophical fathers of the theory.

2. Adolf Hitler may have been 10 when Grundlagen came out, but he was 34 when he visited Chamberlain in Bayreuth in 1923, 38 when he visited him again with Goebbels in tow in 1926, and 39 when he attended his funeral a year later.[3] The two also maintained a friendly and lively correspondence. Here's an extract from a 1923 letter [4]:

Sehr geehrter und lieber Herr Hitler. ... Mein Glauben an das Deutschtum hat nicht einen Augenblick gewankt, jedoch hatte mein Hoffen — ich gestehe es — eine tiefe Ebbe erreicht. Sie haben den Zustand meiner Seele mit einem Schlage umgewandelt. Daß Deutschland in der Stunde seiner höchsten Not sich einen Hitler gebiert, das bezeugt sein Lebendigsein ... Daß der großartige Ludendorff sich offen Ihnen anschließt und sich zu der Bewegung bekennt, die von Ihnen ausgeht: welche herrliche Bestätigung!

my own somewhat crude translation:

Most honorable and dear Mr. Hitler .... My faith in the German has never wavered for the blink of an eye, and yet my hope - I confess - has reached deep lows in the past. You have transformed the condition of my soul. That Germany can give birth to a Hitler in the time of it's greatest need reaffirms a man's sense of life ... That the wonderful Ludendorff has attached you to him, has attached himself to the Movement that arises from you: what a glorious thing to state!

If that qualifies as a casual or incidental association with Nazism, then I stand corrected.

2. I do not think an assessment of Chamberlain as an extreme anti-Semite is overly colored by my admittedly 2007 lenses. Theodore Roosevelt writes[5]:

Mr. Chamberlain's thesis is that the nineteenth century, and therefore the twentieth and all future centuries, depend for everything in them worth mentioning and preserving upon the Teutonic branch of the Aryan race. He holds that there is no such thing as a general progress of mankind, that progress is only for those whom he calls the Teutons, and that when they mix with or are intruded upon by alien and, as he regards them, lower races, the result is fatal.... Mr. Chamberlain himself is quite as fantastic an extremist as any of those whom he derides, and an extremist whose doctrines are based upon foolish hatred is even more unlovely than an extremist whose doctrines are based upon foolish benevolence. Mr. Chamberlain's hatreds cover a wide gamut. They include Jews, Darwinists, the Roman Catholic Church, the people of southern Europe, Peruvians, Semites, and an odd variety of literary men and historians... He continually contradicts himself, or at least uses words in such diametrically opposite senses as to convey the effect of contradiction; and so it would be possible to choose phrases of his which contradict what is here said; but I think that I give a correct impression of his teaching as a whole.

Apparently, Mr. Chamberlain was judged a hateful extremist through 1917 lenses as well, and this by an imperialist ex-President who, for all of his merits, can hardly be considered the greatest humanist of the early 20th century. Does it need to be stated that racism and antisemitism were not opinions that were shared by EVERYBODY 100 years ago?

4. With all due respect, I do think that the onus on defending Chamberlain's status as a "natural scientist" should lie with those that feel that he qualifies, not the other way around. The ONLY reference to him as a "natural scientist" that I can find is in the very very sympathetic introduction by Lord Redesdale to the 1910 English translation. A librarian calling a book you can't read "brilliant" just doesn't cut it - though as I DO speak French I would be more than happy to interpret any passage you point me to. Nor does "having studied with scientists" cut it (so, technically, do the thousands of kids that take introductory chemistry courses at my university). The only evidence for scientific work in the article is adherence to (note, adherence, not development of) the Welteislehre, and I really beg of anyone reading this to click on that link because it speaks for itself. He has not, as far as I am aware, contributed to plant taxonomy, identified any animal species, discovered any celestial bodies, formulated a mathematical model for a physical system, synthesized a chemical or medicine, or written a single article in a peer reviewed natural sciences journal. He was opposed to Relativity on the basis that Einstein was Jewish. He was opposed to Darwinism on the basis that it's distasteful. That said, SHOULD you find that he has done any of the above or other valid contributions, by all means present them and I will recant my "doubting" wholeheartedly. The beauty of the natural sciences is that their results exist independently of the personalities that created them - just as Wagner's music remains undiluted in its beauty and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in it's truth despite the politics of their progenitors.

In summary, while I promise not to let my "hysterical", "opinionated" hand into the bowels of the precious Chamberlain article, I do hope you consider these arguments since I do feel that the lead misrepresents Chamberlain's historical role. I will also assert that I have no shame in my abhorrence of pseudo-scientific racism, and even more so of the historical consequences of such "philosophies". Respectfully, Eliezg (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) PS - all the "data" here was gleaned from the two clickable "External Sources" in the article.

Well those external sources are not exactly favourable to Chamberlain. I would rely upon Redesdale (surely highly regarded world-wide) first. Yes, you've found a quote from Teddy Roosveldt but, so what? After all, I could find you dozens condemnations of Marx or Lenin. Should we cite all of them as absolute fact? Or opinion? Chamberlain was not the first or the last to regard the races as unequal and in that context he does not deserve the vitriol you pour over him. So at the end of Chamberlain's life, a sick old man is visited by the new rising star in Germany who praises his works leaving Chamberlain thinking AH was the new man of the day. Look, none of these things are exceptional for the time, or the people concerned. You are trying to compute sufficient "evidence" to enable the boot to be put in and that is not how a good encyclopaedia should appear. It is certainly the way most newspapers would write it and many books are written slagging off all and sundry. But it is not very nice and is tacky. It remains a matter of opinion as to whether or how much influence Chamberlain's works had on nazis but I would guess not that much. There were countless anti-semitic books available in the century before Hitler and his gang rose to any notice. Anti-semitism simply was not exceptional at that time or, indeed, right up until the Second World War (need I mention Henry Ford's own writings). Chamberlain throwing his bit into the mill is hardly cause to call him some sort of leading authority on the subject. He was expressing his own thoughts on all these matters as he saw them, and as a result his works have a certain amount of academic interest (like it or not). His controversial views about Christ were common enough and shared by many before he wrote them up. You refer to "pseudo-sicentific racism" but this is pure left-wing terminology. There remain countless professors about who continue to insist on differences between the races. (One was recently denounced in London, despite his obviously brilliant scientific credentials). You may denounce them all in private with phrases like that but you should leave them off Wikipedia, please. We have to try and be very balanced and present our articles not as a Guardian newspaper reporter would, but in as academic manner as possible - without all the vitriol. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say it feels distinctly strange to be painted as an out-of-whack, vitriolic, left-winger in asserting something that is the standard historical interpretation of the man. Consider the following random smattering:

1) Encyclopedia Brittanica:[6] ... His theories, which owed much to the writings of Joseph Arthur, count de Gobineau, influenced German nationalist thought, particularly Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement.

2) German Wikipedia [7](a well-researched and written page, incidentally): His most famous work ... became a canonical work in the racist and idealogical antisemitism in Germany... had a great influence on the ideas of Alfred Rosenberg and, later, Adolf Hitler.

3) WestDeutscheRundfunk (German media source) :[8] Chamberlain wurde zum Wegbereiter für die Ideologie der Nazis. Kein Wunder, dass zu seinem Begräbnis im Januar 1927 mit Hitler an der Spitze die gesamte NS-Parteiprominenz erschien ... translation: "Chamberlain was the trailblazer of the Nazi ideology. No wonder that the entire cream of the Nazi party with Hitler at it's head showed up at his funeral in January 1927.

4) Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler:[9] Governments ... [are] indifferent to principles of civil wisdom laid down by thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain. These people are too stupid to think for themselves, and they have too much self-conceit to take from others the instruction which they need.

Note that Hitler did not cite many people, yet out of the "countless" sea of theorists he somehow landed on Mr. Chamberlain. Where and who are these other people among whom Chamberlain merely tossed his "bit into the mill"? If Chamberlain really is just one of "countless", the entire Nazi party would have been too busy visiting funerals to have gotten too far in applying their unique sort of pro-active philosophies

Now, I am a sceptic and don't absolutely have to blindly believe Encyclopedia Brittanica, or German Wikipedia, or media outlets, or even Hitler himself. I am open to evidence to the contrary. However, if Wikipedia is going to coddle historical revisionism it needs to be VERY, VERY, VERY well supported with hard evidence, and attain consensus. The fact that you, alone, for some inexplicable reason remain an apologist for Mr. Chamberlain is not sufficient to justify what I am increasingly perceiving as a gross misrepresentation of the man and his contribution to "natural science", "philosophy", "racial theory" and world history. Eliezg (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A few preliminaries: It may be a good idea for all concerned here to take a look over WP:NPA (be sure your comments are directed at the contribution, not the contributor). With regard to the specific concerns, admins have no more say that any other editor with regard to the content of the article, so word choice in the article is not really an admin issue (although an admin may decide to be involved, the same as any other editor). I should also clarify that revisionist history, no matter how well founded, may not be included in Wikipedia unless it has been published elsewhere in a reliable source first. This is to keep with the no original research policy.

Ok, enough legalism, provisos, and addenda. Reading through the talk above I get the sense that there is a hint of consensus. If not, I would be happy to discuss some options for dispute resolution. If anyone has any concerns, feel free to let me know. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:Eliezg shows his hand when he uses phrases packed with bile about the subject (his personal opinions), when he accuses other users of being "apologists", cites some journalist on a German radio station as an authoritative source, the Britannica which merely says had great influence on Rosenberg, and highlights things in his assertions which is akin to quoting out of context. I don't think there is any dispute that the nazis in the 1920s liked his works. That is not in dispute. The extent to which it contributed to their political programmes, mainly written betweem 1920-24, is entirely a matter of debate. And that is the problem here. People manufacturing history. I'd believe Lord Redesdale's point of view on the subject long before I believed User:Eliezg's, about whom we know nothing but what he tells us. But his opinions speak volumes. Lets face it, everyone can find sufficient books to support their side of an argument. That, alas, is one of Wikipedia's great flaws. He who shouts loudest, wins. David Lauder (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Lord Redesdale is a better informed, less biased, objective source of information on Mr. Chamberlain than subsequent historical consensus. In fact, it appears that much of the material in the article itself was lifted from the introduction of the English edition of his book. This is how our objective, unopinionated source assesses Mr. Chamberlain's writing:

The deep learning, the sympathy with knowledge in its most various forms, a style sometimes playful, sometimes ironical, always persuasive, always logical, pages adorned with brilliant passages of the loftiest eloquence...

For the choice samplings of eloquence, persuasiveness, logic, playfulness, etc. I heartily recommend browsing Chapter 5: THE ENTRANCE OF THE JEWS INTO WESTERN HISTORY.

I have nothing more to say. The sources and facts are all here, in this discussion, in the sources, in the links. It is time for outside arbiters to assess or ignore this conversation and possibly act accordingly, as our dialogue appears to have reached a point of negative return. Best, Eliezg (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. In a lame gesture of good faith I have downloaded and looked over Mr. Chamberlain's Recherches sur la sève ascendante - it is a long-winded treatise on the mechanics of rising sap in plants - the merits of which are pretty difficult to assess as is is uncited and unreviewed. I suppose that made him at one time a "natural scientist", though his later work certainly doesn't do the term "science" any favors.

I think enough has been said here to demonstrate the following

• Chamberlain did research and write about natural science topics
• He loathed Judaism, believed in racial purity and wrote about an Aryan Jesus
• He was admired by Hitler who cited him in Mein Kampf

--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

I have appended two fact tags in order to help get this resolved. Statements of fact that are challenged must be supported by sources. The statements flagged are:

1. "natural scientist" It's disputed whether this description applies. In order to call him a natural scientist, someone has to produce a reliable source, preferably a secondary source, who calls him that. This must be someone other than Chamberlain or one of his acolytes. One example of an acolyte might be someone who wrote an introduction one of his books, especially his most notorious one.
2. "selling millions of copies, despite (or perhaps because of) its antisemitic sections" It is not for Wikipedia editors to speculate on whether the antisemitic content helped or hindered sales. That would be original research. For Wikipedia to say anything about this one way or the other, someone else has to have said it first. Once again, reliable sources are required to retain this characterization in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, what is meant by the phrase "antisemitic sections"? Would it be safe to assume that this book has "antisemitic sections" in the same sense that "Deep Throat" has sections that depict human sexual activity?

I will say now that I'm not a huge fan of unsourced claims, especially hotly disputed ones, lingering for months in limbo with fact tags on them. I'll have no trouble deleting them in a week or so if I don't see progress on this, but I don't necessarily expect others to wait so long. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Slightly pompous comments and a distinct lack of good faith by you, a fairly new Wikipedia User, if I may say so. Reliable sources are provided for this article generally, and specifically where necessary. Nothing in this article is "hotly disputed" except for one other user who clearly loathes the subject. It would help the Wikipedia project if "sides" were not taken in this matter (yes, I've noted the messages floating from Talk Page to Talk Page attempting to introduce this element) and the issues addressed correctly and without clear prejudice. I have attempted to locate some further references today and have added them. David Lauder (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First, using words like "pompous" does nothing to help bring this discussion to a satisfactory conclusion and violates WP:CIVIL. I have made every effort to keep my talk comments within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially since this is a contentious topic, and ask that you do the same.

Second, although I cannot see the relevance of calling me a "relatively new Wikipedia user," since you've raised the subject I will mention a few facts. My first edit as a registered user was made on 26 January 2007. Yours, David Lauder, was made on 29 November 2006. My current edit count, excluding this one, is 6928. David has a user box on his home page claiming 7000 edits. Perhaps Mr. Lauder can enlighten me as to what epiphanies or revelations have occurred in the last two months and few hundred edits that have made him more fit to comment on this talk page than I am. Since I don't seriously expect an answer to that inquiry, I'll go on to something that actually matters.

In case you really don't know what it is we've been arguing about for the last few days, I'll point out that what's "hotly disputed" about this article is this edit by Eliezg, which was reverted by David Lauder and, more importantly, the claims that 1 Chamberlain was a natural scientist and 2 his book sold well despite or perhaps because of its antisemitic content. I think it's time for David Lauder to recognize that he's clearly in the minority with regard to inclusion of both of those claims, yet his preferred version of the lead section has remained on the page during the pendency of this dispute. I realize that Eliezg's edit changed more than that, but I really think those are the central issues here.

Fourth, it is true that I have left comments on Eliezg's talk page and he has left them on mine. I invite all interested parties to examine those comments, which are entirely appropriate and within Wikipedia Guidelines and policies. The comments on my talk page are here. Those on Eliezg's are here. The comments on Peter Cohen's talk page are here and here.

Last, your characterization of "sides" being taken begs the question. Occasionally Wikipedia editors have disputes. Frequently those disputes consist of a binary question, i.e. should a recent edit stand or be reverted? When this happens editors are inevitably going to have opinions on one side or the other of the question. If this is what you mean by "sides" being taken, and if you think that's out of bounds, then no Wikipedia editor would ever be able to express an opinion in a dispute.

I will comment further on how I think this should be resolved below. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fresh look at the article

It seems like the issues of the article are getting a bit more tense than necessary. There are several dispute resolution pathways open from here, probably starting with a request for comment. Alternatively, I would be happy to try and come up with a solution (although I have worked with Eliezg on an unrelated article before, but I don't want anyone to think I am biased in some direction). Critical, in either case, is that people keep focused on the article content itself, and not the motivations or presumed opinions of other contributors. Thoughts on how to proceed? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All any Wikipedia article needs is for it to be properly sourced from reliable and hopefully quality sources. There is little wrong

with the article as it stands. The salient facts are all there. Articles cannot be written to please everyone's POV. David Lauder (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy for you (TeaDrinker) to come up with a solution. But there's a lot of development been happening on the article in the past couple of days, and its probably worth seeing how it settles down.

In issues discussed above, I'm not convinced from looking at Algernon Freeman-Mitford, 1st Baron Redesdale that Redesdale is a first rate source. He's useful for seeing how people thought of Chamberlain at the time, but more modern academic writers would be distinctly more reliable. Teddy Roosevelt would give another contemporary opinion, but would be similar less reliable than those writing from an academic viewpoint with hindsight. There is material already on Chamberlain and the Nazis and I would expect to see something taking up that space in the articles summarised above.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how absolutely fundamental connexions can me made between a man who died aged and paralytic in 1927 can be made with the nazis. His Foundations as written in the 1890s. There were many writers before, during, and after his life who wrote equally if not more sensational and more radical books about race. So however much "modern academic writers" might wish to hypothesise on all this and reach 2007 conclusions I feel we should make some attempt to keep this article in a proper context to Chamberlain's lifetime. The salient points about his influence on National Socialism have been made. David Lauder (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right David. The article is in excellent shape. Perhaps a little short, considering the breadth and excellence of the man's ideas. I have contributed some more details on his contributions, primarily referencing and citing his own work. I trust my contributions will be considered to be of sufficiently encyclopedic caliber by the community. Best, Eliezg (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Sarcastic vandalism is not the solution to this pro blem.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on content

I'm glad you made this reversion wholesale. This gives us the opportunity to see if there's a way to separately incorporate the content of the contributions while removing the sarcasm. I propose voting on each component separately and/or revising the wording collaboratively.

[edit] #1: as natural scientist

Under the tutelage of Professor Julius von Wiesner of the University of Vienna he studied botany in Geneva, earning a Bacheliers ès sciences physiques et naturelles in 1881, his thesis Recherches sur la sève ascendante (Studies on rising sap) was not finished until 1897 and did not culminate with a degree.^[1] The main thrust of his dissertation is that the vertical transport of fluids in vascular plants via xylem can not be explained by the fluid mechanical theories of the time, but only by the existence of a "vital force" (force vitale) that is beyond the pale of physical measurement. He summarizes his thesis in the Introduction:

This hypothesis has yet to achieve broad recognition among specialists in the field.^[3]

Comment: It is asserted in the lead and elsewhere that the man is a natural scientist. This is the only scientific work of his that can be found, and the only evidence presented of contributions to natural science. The contribution is factual and referenced. The translation is mine, which might be considered OR except no one has bothered to translate this piece of science. I assure you the translation it is very literal and accurate, as anyone with working knowledge of French will attest. The call to offer any other natural scientific results by Chamberlain has not been addressed elsewhere. I have his dissertation and have read much of it and am willing to provide as much information as anyone needs regarding it.

I was shown two books by him at The Linnean Society libary about ten years or so back. Lord Redesdale also asserts he is a natural scientist and unless you are saying he is a liar your original research which has not yet found all of Chamblerain's works should not be a be all and end all. People just don;t make these things up. David Lauder (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My main issue is what I see as sarcasm in the sentence "This hypothesis has yet to achieve broad recognition among specialists in the field." Something along the lines of "Modern botany continues to use physical explanations." would remove such a tone. If more scientific works of his are identified, then tey can be assessed or, preferably, secondary sources commenting on them can be found.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #2: Foundations - A

He was consequently an eloquent opponent of what would today be termed anthropological relativism:

Comment: This is a succinct summary of his principal attitude in his own words. The term "eloquent" can probably go.

With or without the sarcasm, "eloquent" is judgmental and would need justification from a reliable source. Remove it and I'm happy with this being included.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #3: Foundations - B

Building on the theories of Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Chamberlain made insightful and original contributions to cultural enthnography. In particular, he was skilled at identifying the relationship between cultural/ethnic origins and the spiritual traits of modern races. Thus, he notes that the modern Jew (Homo judaeica) mixes some of the features of the Hittite (H. syriaca) - notably the "Jewish nose", retreating chin, great cunning and fondness for usury^[5] and of the true Semite - the Bedouin Arab (H. arabicus) , on the other hand, in particular the dolichocephalic (long and narrow) skull, the thick-set body, and a tendency to be anti-intellectual and destructive.^[6] The generality and applicability of the theory can be shown in it's application to the Armenians who, with a purer Syrian heritage with an admixture of the European, but undiluted by Bedouin blood show: "the same greed, the same business cunning and the same passionate fondness for usury as the Jews, but all to a much higher degree, so that there is a proverb in the Levant that an Armenian is a match for three Jews."^[7] He concludes his analysis with the following summary:

Comment: Chamberlain's principal racial theory is exemplified in these passages, again with concrete examples in his words. It is a comprehensive theory of various racial strains and the effects of intermingling between them, with a concrete example of an application of the theory. As such I feel it is a valuable contribution to a discussion of the book. Again, some weasely words could be removed. Perhaps some of these quotations can be paraphrased. But they cannot but be an accurate representation of the man's thoughts.

Again the main problem is the tone. Such words as "insightful" should go and the racism shoudl clearly be identified as his views not Wiki's. "Original" would need a supporting reference.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #4: Correspondence with Hitler

Chamberlain, paralyzed, and despondent after Germany’s losses in World War I, was jubilant, writing to the young and promising politician:

Comment: This is a fleshing out of the original passage. It adds insight and depth into Chamberlain's feelings about Hitler. The word "jubilant" was there previously.

Look, MILLIONS of people felt this way about Hitler at that time. You are attempting a smear here in retrospect. David Lauder (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As you have pointed out, Chamberlain died in 1927 before the Nazis gained power. The fact that Hitler visited Chamberlain twice and brought his central committee (or whatever it was called) along to the funeral indicates that the Nazis regarde it useful to identify themselves with Chamberlain's heritage. This quote shows that Chamberlain was happy to be so identified. You've tried comparing Chamberlain previously with Wagner, but Wagner died fifty years before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and there is no evidence that someone who previously associated himself with Bakunin would necessarily have supported Hitler. So I think this bit can remain.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Millions? I agree with Peter. When Chamberlain died in 1927, The nazis had only 12 seats in the reichstag. Plainly Chamberlain loved Hitler before it was cool to love Hitler. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #5: Impact

A smattering of modern scholarship and arguably biased media and reference sources have acknowledged Chamberlain to have been a leading figure in scientific racism and a significant influence on the development of Nazi racial philosophy (see, for example, ^{[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][9]}). However, it has been pointed out that the influence of Chamberlain's works on the Nazis was possibly minimal as there were countless anti-semitic books available in the century before Hitler and his gang rose to any notice, that anti-semitism was not exceptional at that time and that Chamberlain throwing his bit into the mill is hardly cause to call him some sort of leading authority on the subject.^[21]

Comment: The references presented, ranging from Encyclopedia Britannica and the BBC to histories of the Third Reich and Nazism to scholarly articles on this history of ideas all state unambiguously that Chamberlain was a leading figure in scientific racism and had a direct and large impact on the development of Nazi racial philosophy. The ONLY citation/reference/statement to the contrary - or casting doubt on this assertion - is D. Lauder's comments above. Aware that any attempt to actually state in the article that "Chamberlain's ideas influenced Nazi racial philosophy" would be eliminated, I had no choice but to carefully present the one side with reservations, and fully paraphrase the only evidence I could find of the other side's opinion. Obviously the statement can't stay as it was written. But the references are valid, valuable, informed and scholarly (arguably more so that the words of Lord Redesdale) and I don't know how else to work them in to the text. I've made an effort to choose references that are openly accessible on the internet and I encourage people to explore the links.

My votes are:
1) Retain - with minor word choice revisions
2) Retain - with minor word choice revisions
3) Retain - with significant word choice revisions
4) Retain as is
5) Exclude - but consider incorporating references and "alternative" viewpoint elsewhere in text, perhaps even the introduction

Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding number 5, the wording is absurd, but why is the information apparently being repressed? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, Jayjg, that if you examine Eliezg's edit closely and look into the recent history of this dispute, you'll find that he was showing what the article would look like if it were slanted in the same direction and as heavily throughout the article as it is in the lead. This may be a violation of WP:POINT, but it's a brilliant explication of WP:IGNORE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, it will always be possible to find books written by denunciators such as Kershaw and Richard Evans who are well on The Left of the history writers cabal. I prefer Alan Bullock and Maurice Cowling. More balanced. Whilst what I have said here is largely misrepresented in the context it has been quoted the fact remains that Chamberlain died in 1927 and his work, so denounced by the usual suspects, was written in the 1890s. They're the facts and whether or not later 20th century historians of a certain perspective are raking around seeking to nail countless people as Nazis etc., for what happened during WWII and printing their hypothesis doesn't make it true. As for citing the BBC as an authoritative source, that is just beyond the pale. Norman Tebbit referred to it as "Britain's dedicated political broadcaster". David Lauder (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The solution then is to provide references on both sides of the argument. Wikipedia policy says that if there are significant advocates on either side of the argument, both chould be represented. I'm glad to see that there are page references in Eliezg's comment. If you provide page references to Bullock and Cowling saying that Chamberlain's influence on the Nazi's was negligible, then go ahead and include them too.

As for Tebbit's views on the BBC, Wikipedia regards it as a reliable source. Tebbit had charisma and was most active at a time when British politicians had a turn of phrase (Foot's reference to him as a "semi-house-trained polecat" does mean that if I ever get a ferret I will call it Norman) but he can hardly be regarded as the most impartial assessor of the Beeb.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new proposal

I have reworked the lead. My changes and the reasons for them are:

1. Removal of all references to Chamberlain as a scientist. This, I think, is appropriate, more because of WP:WEIGHT than any issue of sources. Allow me to refer to some articles that, I think, handle this sort of thing well and can be used as examples. The article on Jimmy Carter does not mention, in the lead section, his work as a nuclear physicist or as a sub-mariner. That's not what made him notable and if he had dropped dead before entering politics, his work in those fields would not have merited a Wikipedia article. Also compare Alfred Rosenberg which does not mention in the lead his work as an architect, although he designed some buildings which still stand in Talinn; and Hitler in which the lead demurs from discussing his work as an artist. (Incidentally, having seen some of Hitler's sketches, and read a now-deleted excerpt of Chamberlain's scientific work in this article, I think it's safe to say that Herr Hitler showed more promise as an artist than Chamberlain ever did as a scientist.)
2. Removed the never-before-heard-of neologism Teutonic Nationalism. Note the color of the link, and no fair creating it just to turn it blue now that I've pointed this out. Nineteen hits at Google, led by this page. Replaced with "pan-Germanic antisemitism" as in an earlier version of this page. So far as I can tell, there's no such (notable) thing as "Teutonic Nationalism."
3. Removed all references to sales and reasons (or impediments) to them. I have no idea how many copies of this book sold, but the claim of millions is clearly unsourced. If we can find a source for that claim, I will have no objections to including it in the lead.

I consider this edit to be highly NPOV and an effort at consensus, as it removes non-notable material that is opposed by some, but does not include phrases like "virulent antisemite."

Before anyone changes this, I will ask that concerned editors register their views here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

I support my edit for the reasons listed above. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose only the first item, the removal of him as a natural scientist. Your comparisons are not good. Chamberlain published works on the subject, and studied it under notables. Before and when he wrote Foundations he was noted as a natural scientist. You are pandering to the original complainant only in this matter and it is unacceptable. If the potted biography of Chamberlain is what he was known as then All the things he was regarded as should be shown, otherwise you are excersizing POV here. I saw another remark about something Chamberlian commenced whilst at the University of Vienna but was not completed and published until years later "which did not lead to a degree". What is that supposed to mean? Where is the evidence, firstly, that it was meant to? Secondly numerous scholars attend more than one university. They don;t always gain degrees from each one. So that appears to me like a thinly disguised smear.

It is debateable that you should have removed the reference to the massive popularity of Fopundations. It was not just another book. It sold millions in an age when to do so was quite exceptional. That should also be reconsidered. David Lauder (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not opposed to keeping the statement that the book sold millions if we can source it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Come up with a compromise rephrase Instead of calling him a natural scientist, I've inserted a phrasing that includes natural science among the subjects he wront on. Given the number of Wagner books in the bibliography, I've also included mention of those and the marriage.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, the above sounds fair to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

After all of that, it would have been weird not to add some of the passages discussed above. So I did so, making some effort to maintain flow and improve other passages. It is hard to maintain encyclopedic tone when writing about his science in particular, but I hope the text meets approval. In the meantime, I can't say how relieved I am to be removing this page from my Watchlist! (Back to working on critters that could care less about your "race" - as long as you're edible!) - Eliezg (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these were a substantial improvement on the article. I've gone and done some minor edits, for example, making clear that the idea that Jews are anti-intellectual(!) was part of CHamberlain's theory, not somethign Wikipedia is affirming.

Do we need a list of so many of Chamberlain's teachers? I've removed the word "great" - they're so great that most don't have articles here. But do we need lists of people most people will never have heard of?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The material looks quite good to me, and seems obviously significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hschamberlain2.jpg

Image:Hschamberlain2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That image might or might not be out of copyright depending on when it was first published or when the photographer died. The admirer site, however, got it from a book published after 1923. I have identified Image:Hschamberlain1895.jpg which was published in 1914 and therefore is in the public domain.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New information

I've added quite a lot of material from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Apologies for forgetting to log on initially.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)