Talk:On the Jewish Question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Jewish history On the Jewish Question is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles. Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Occult writers and antisemitism Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess),Jewish assimilation Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded); Assess Sandy Koufax Translate: from German: Judensau ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Judaism Judaism Portal On the Jewish Question is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Books Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archives

- Subjects dated 2006 and 2007

[edit] Neither the Library of Congress nor WorldCat shows any such title

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

[edit] World Without Jews

The correct title, as it was first published in the English language is World Without Jews [1] & [2] --Ludvikus (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the LOC on it:

Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.

Uniform Title: Zur Judenfrage. English

Main Title: A world without Jews. Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes.

Published/Created: New York, Philosophical Library [1959]

Description: xii, 51 p. 20 cm.

Notes: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published [in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage] as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on ’the Jewish question.’"

--Ludvikus (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Requested move

This has been listed on WP:RM as a move from A World Without Jews to On the Jewish Question.

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

The article is firstly about the original article published in 1844, the Runes edition is only a footnote. If you look at Category:Books by Karl Marx and Category:Books by Friedrich Engels, you'll see that (except Das Kapital) all titels are in their English translation. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• (1) But that kind of analysis constitutes WP:Original research.
• (2) If you consult the authorities - as I have done - namely, the Library of Congress & British Library Online Catalog(s) [the BL, incidently has, adopted the Subject Classification of the LC] you will, very suprisingly, that there is no such "book" as On the Jewish Question!
• (3) The latter is the name of the e-Text by the scholarly Marxist institute(s). I do not think, to the best of my recollection, that either library lists this electronic resource in its catalogs.
• (4) Finally, what the article is about - or should be about - is the (One or Single) text which is in existence in three physical forms: (i) the first edition or first imprint of 1844, (ii) the 1959 first edition in book form, and (iii) the online edition of the scholarly institute, the Marx Lenin Institute, which is charged I think which archives of all these papers, and published the collected works.

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• As to Substance, consider the First English Language Edition (1959) and what the Library Card says: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published [in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage] as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on 'the Jewish question.'"'

'

That's said by librarians, not me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "said by librarians." It's just a quote from the book. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus goes so far as saying "that this text is only known in the United States and the United Kindgum by that [title]."^[3] It just seems so far fetched that it's the dominant, not to mention the only title, for this famous work. Thx. El_C 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do we really need the bold text? It just comes across as too excited and aggrendizing. The article is known in the English-speaking world primarily by the conventional title; I'll refactor: A simple google test yields ~2500 entries for A World Without Jews and ~50,000 entries for On the Jewish Question (with ~10,000 Wikipedia-related results omitted). Likewise: google scholar produces ~less than 100 entries for the former versus nearly 3,500 entries for the latter. [not to mention that a great deal of the AWJ mention is not even about the subject, but the phrase, unrelated to it] El_C 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bogus rendering of the actual title, and should not be in there. It has no historical credibility. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• But what's wrong with this twice Reverted (not by me) 3-sentence opening?: --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2008)

Or see Jewish question (disambiguation).

A World Without Jews[4], [5] a.k.a. On the Jewish Question (German: Zur Judenfrage), is a 1959, 51 page book, published as a hardback, of a newspaper article(s) by Karl Marx originally written or published in autumn 1843.

It is disputed whether or not it is anti-Semitic (see below).

Scholars of Marxism maintain that it is one of Marx's earliest attempts to deal with categories that would later be called the materialist conception of history.

• --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Zur Judenfrage

I just stopped of at the Library of Congress. They have Seven (7) titles for this uniform title. See how many ones are in English:

• [ 1 ] Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft? Ryba, R. [from old catalog] Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft?

CALL NUMBER: DS141 .R9

• [ 2 ] Zur judenfrage. Bresslau, Harry, 1848- [from old catalog] Zur judenfrage. 1880

CALL NUMBER: DS135.G33 T73

• [ 3 ] Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben. Gauvain, Hermann von. [from old catalog] Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben. 1881

CALL NUMBER: 4DS 190

• [ 4 ] Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch. Kopp, Josef. Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch. Von dr. Josef Kopp. 1886

CALL NUMBER: DS145.R7 K6 1886

• [ 5 ] Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche. Klopfer, Carl Ed. [from old catalog] Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Ernst Hallier. 1891

CALL NUMBER: 4DS 318

• [ 6 ] Zur Judenfrage. English. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. World without Jews.Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes. 1959

• [ 7 ] Zur Judenfrage. Italian. 1982. Parinetto, Luciano. Marx e Shylock : Kant, Hegel, Marx e il mondo ebraico : con una nuova traduzione di Marx, La questione ebraica / Luciano Parinetto, Livio Sichirollo. 1982

Back from the British Museum, a.k.a. the British Library. It has Fifty Seven (57) entries for this title. I'm very hungry now, and will get something to eat. So can you see if you find any English translation(s) there? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[6]

That doesn't respond to anything I said with respect to usage in the English-speaking world. El_C 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point. Your usage research constitutes WP:Original research - don't you realize that? Is this not an article about a book? But in 1843 there was no book, just a manuscript which I believe is currently at the Marx-Lenin Institute in Mascow (no?). And in 1844 it was a newspaper article. Finally, in 1959, in the USA, it was printed as a small hardback book. It apparently has not been imprinted in a version which the Library of Congress found desireable to own and catalog. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the library of congress an authority on Marx? What I have in print, at home alone: "On the Jewish Question", translated from German by Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat (1967) [taken from: Simon, Lawrence H. Karl Marx: Selected Writing, 1994] and I also have an "On the Jewish Question", translated by T.B. Bottomore (1963) [from Karl Marx: Early Writings, 1963 (p. 1)] I also have the same article/translation appearing in the Robert C. Tucker's (ed.) The Marx-Engels Reader (p.24), 1972. Again, that's just what I have at home, in print. As you look at various compilations and translations of this work, you will find that title vastly predominates, and this is exactly why google scholar mentions this title over 35 times more. El_C 17:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is all totally irrelevant. If the article is primarily about the original article (in German), then the German title should probably be used, as that's what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (see WP:NC). If the article is primarily about an English edition, then of course one of the English titles is a more likely candidate, and your research will help determine which of these is best. But we need to make the underlying decision first: What is the article about? And this still seems unanswered. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world, especially in the scholarship. There has been various English translations, most use the conventional title. You two seem determined to use the single translated title which barely sees any usage. El_C 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world but not especially in the scholarship. The last comment is a bit strange if I'm one of the two, since I was the one who proposed using the German title. Using the translated title to me reeks of Henry Higgins observation: And then rather than do either you'll do something else that neither likes at all. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, I just don't think many English-speaking people would pick up on the German title, I know I most likely wouldn't. El_C 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Probably I'm not as bold as you wish because I like to conform to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and also a personal philosophy. Please discuss the issues, not the contributors. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Very good points, which belong in the article IMO, assuming we're not going to have a separate article for the Runes version, which is another possible outcome. Robert C. Tucker seems citable enough. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We can mention that in a section but in the lead would be excessive — and a re-title would be... highly irrational. El_C 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bold as you wish me to be, Ludvikus, because the three books I possess in print which featrue the work (that use two different translations) all use OtJQ; because all other translations —except that single one— I've seen use that title; because marxists.org (the largest repository of marxist works) use that title; because google scholar mentions it +35 time more. Et cetera, etc. Being bold does not mean giving undue weight to a single source/title, one that by every measure sees much less usage than the original, longstanding one. I doubt you would be able to gain consensus and persuade me so long as you fail to show usage. El_C 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

No problemo, Andrewa. I had not believed there would be strong objection to my Move. But we've "Moved on" as follows:

• Also, I just realized I confused you in the above with another. I'll be back in a flash with his/her name & contribution. --Ludvikus (talk)
• Here's very informative comment(s) I find so useful I'll Cut & Past them here for all of us to ponder carefull:
  • A 1960 review by David T. Cattel in the The Western Political Quarterly says Rune's "introduction can be dimissed as propaganda without scholarly value."
  • Marx scholar Robert C. Tucker reviewed it in 1960 in The Slavic and East European Journal and said "Runes, who has produced here a not completely accurate new translation of the essay, wittingly or unwittingly misses the main point in giving it the misleading title "A World Without Jews", and in using it to present Marx, in his Introduction, as a theoretical originator of modern totalitarian practices of anti-Semitism.
  • The criticism of Marxism is a very important task for scholars, but it should not be performed on such a flimsy or fraudulent basis." additionally, it wasnt the first English translation--the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow did an earlier English translation. User:Boodlesthecat

I personally thank User:Boodlesthecat for these facts. What I'm most greatful for are these precise and exact refernces which can be verified and put into our Encyclopedia. Let me digest all this relevant material. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, as long as it isn't in the lead. That was the problem. That and that odd first section. El_C 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overdo the proceduralism. Unilateral, undiscussed moves should follow bold, revert, discuss cycle. As there were (strong) objections, it was reverted back. Now a proper move discussion about it can take place. When all else fails, use common sense. El_C 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I'm with you. I think we've moved on. Here's where I am now, after I've diggested it.

• The Question is what is the article about, is it not. Can we agree that it's about that writting of Marx of 1843 which he first published in 1844 under the German title which is also the uniform title given to it by the LOC & the BL? And therefore, that should be the title of the article.
• Next, I have just turned the Red Marx-Lenin Institute into Blue Marx-Lenin Institute. Who knows why that was necessary & is relevant here? I suspect that's where the Original manuscripts of Marx are now, and that the Institute has changed its name in 1999 to that long one I cannot remember. Anyway, I believe that they are the ones who made the Digital version of our text widely available in the 1999's (before 1999) under the name the Scholars gave it at the institute and that these were published in the Collected Works of Marx and Engles around that time. And that's the kind of research were need to do for our Wikipedia because no one else has done it for us. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, if you had read the wikipedia article you would know that a manuscript of the essay Zur Judenfrage has not been transmitted. According to books.google, the book Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question by I. Rennap from 1943 has a paragraph "Marx on the Jewish Question" on page 65. Thus it seems that the essay had been called On the Jewish Question in English language before the book of Runes appeared in 1959. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying? Please correct your typos, if any? You're the one who gives specifics, so I'm very interested in any Fact you direct me to. In the mean time, can you guys please help me fix the "REDIRECT" of the Disambiguation page? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the above - hope you don't object? I'm digesting what your saying still! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying an English translation using the OtJQ title existed almost two decade before Rune's title. El_C 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! We're getting somewhere finally. Here's the book: [7]. It's a short work, secondary one, and a commentary. I'm a bibliophile and am interested in that fact. I'll try to learn more about it. But - it shows nothing about the lack of an English imprint preeding 1959. The "Jewish question" is what the subject of the book of Marx is all about. So what? Naturally, this book will talk about the "Jewish question" as Marx so it. But you guys have utterly failed to show me that the "book" published in English is, and remains, "A World Without Jews." I agree that Marx is not responsible for that. But you guys fail to distinguish between the Title of the Text and its Content - 2 different things. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, can you provide any citations for the work being referred to in secondary sources as A World Without Jews? That there is a translation published in English called A World Without Jews is not disputed; the question is, should we prefer that title over the title used for the translations in a number of other sources, notably the Marx-Engels Reader. One way of deciding this would be to see how the article is referred to in other sources.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had followed the link to the 1950 English translation of Abram Leon: The Jewish Question, I had known from footnote 3 that the essay had been published as On the Jewish Question, in an edition Selected Essays by Karl Marx (New York, 1926), p.88. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lower case 't'

[edit] A World Without Jews

User:VoluntarySlave, in answer to your question, almost right above, here I give you the Secondary Source you ask for:

Look here:

Transcribed by User:Ludvikus on April 29, 2008, from: [8]

The Western Socialist

Vol. 27 - No. 212

No. 1, 1960

pages 5-7

"A WORLD WITHOUT JEWS

Under the above heading a small book has been issued consisting mainly of articles by Karl Marx on "The Jewish Question."

These articles were first published in 1844, partly in the "German-French Yearbook" (1) and partly in "The Holy Family" (2), and form part of the criticism by Marx and Engels of the Young Hegelian viewpoint, with particular reference to the views of Bruno Bauer, a leading exponent of this viewpoint."

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The author of this "review" is "J.M." - I don't know yet who that is. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, that's a review of the book; it doesn't establish that that title is used independently to refer to the essay. What you need is a work on Marx that refers to the essay by that title. For instance, States of Injury by Wendy Brown (Princeton, 1995) discusses the essay and refers to it by the title "On the Jewish Question"; is there a similar discussion that uses the other title? I mean, I think the fact that all the other editions of the essay I mentioned on your talk page call it "On the Jewish Question" probably means that that is how we should refer to it; the only reason not to would be if the essay gets refered to by the other title.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On The Jewish Question [9]

That's the definitive title based on the collected works published by the reference in that External link; it's also derived from ::the Marx-Engles Institute which, I recollect, was also published by International Publishers. But as a single book, in the English speaking world we only have A World Without Jews, a compilation by Dagobert D. Runes, in 1959. That's extremely import - because that's the source of the view that Marx was an anti-Semite. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "T" is capitalized since it is referring to Bauer's "The Jewish Question," (hence, it is On *"The Jewish Question."* The book is often somewhat misunderstood to be Marx on "the Jewish question ", rather than primarily his commentary on on Bauer. However, Ludvikus, it is incorrect to say "we only have" the questionable Runes translation. There was an earlier 1958 translation, for eg, by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. In any case, Runes' translation is discredited enough to be not considered anything other than an historical footnote, and was soon superseded by far more reliable translations. And you are mistaken with your assertion that Runes was "the source of the view that Marx was an anti-Semite"--that view had been put forth decades earlier within Jewish theological circles; see, eg Carlebach. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely wonderful work on your part, Boodlesthecat. I am very much excited by your Encyclopedic discover. I'm going to look very carefully at your finding - and with delight. For this, I give the the following rendition of all the extant works of both Marx and Engles, in 50 Volume, compiled & published from 1975-2005 (yes, 30 years to complete!): Marx/Engles Collected Works - I just developed this article/stub! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, note the correct spelling for Frederick Engels (Engels). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo correction duly noted! I've found no listing of the item with the LOC or WorldCat. Will check HUC next! --~~

By Karl Marx, Helen Lederer

Published 1958

Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

Jews

84 pages

I've transcribed your finding - a gem - above for all to see! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't get in - the catalog of the HUC. So, it looks like an obscure(sic-my spelling sometimes is atrocious) work - and the title seems not to be available. Who is/was this Helen Lederer anyway? Anyway, I think that it's established that A World Without Jews is most notable imprint. That does not mean it was accurate, good, scholarly, etc. It just means it was known to exist - and it caused quite a scandal. It was, and remains, the only Englidh language of our text in the form of a single monograph, to this day. True, you can get it online in digital form, and it's available in the collected works. But these facts are simple encyclopedic truths we can know just by going to the libraries. None of that is OR. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, who is Frederick Engles? Do we need him/it? How about a Speedy Deletion on it/him? ----

The fact that there are few stand-alone editions of On The Jewish Question is not so unusual. Marx didnt publish his first (relatively short) book until 1845 (The Holy Family). Prior to that, his published writings were magazine articles (and there were longer works like the German Ideology and the 1844 manuscripts that weren't published until many years later). So it's standard to include On The Jewish Question in collections of Marx' short "early works", or other collections such as "Marx on Religion," rather than alone.

There is no notable Engles, it's a typo; I guess redirected because it's a common typo. And I think you meant "monograph," not "monogram" above. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, thanks again - a bad habit in typos. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed Reversion - Please seek WP Consensus

Here's the latest unreverted version:

• On The Jewish Question [1] is first and foremost a critique by Karl Marx, written in 1843, and first published in 1844 under the German title Zur Judenfrage in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, of a text by Bruno Bauer published in 1843, and titled, also in German, the Jewish Question.
• Please discuss Reversions. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the 1959 USA imprint

I just found this interesting posting on the web:

"A World Without Jews" by Karl Marx

"A few days ago, I found a copy of the 1959 translation (published by Philosophical Library) of Karl Marx's "A World Without Jews," which should be a profoundly embarrassing tract to modern leftists. Contained within are little "gems" such as this "The law of the Jew, lacking all solid foundation, is only a religious caricature of morality and of law in general, but it provides the formal rites in which the world of property clothes its transactions."

"Posted by Russell Whitaker at July 4, 2004 09:48 AM | TrackBack "

That's from the Web.[10] (& you guys say it's obscure/irrelevant, etc.) --Ludvikus (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A 2004, two-line blog posting might very well be the very definition of obscure/irrelevant. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your Original research interpretation. I'm showing that this book exists & circulates. But you told us that this book is obscure. I've been trying to tell you that that's the version that people pick up when they want to know what Marx's view on Jews was. They don't read much German. And Marx anthologies do not sell well here. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you go to a book dealer in the USA and tell her that you want Marx's book about Jews, she get you A World Without Jews. It sells for $12.00 currently, by the way. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point... but does it mean that this is the normal English title for the original work? It may. Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should the title of a book, which some dealer would try to sell me be of any impact for the encyclopaedia? This is just nonsense in my opinion. --Schwalker (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is (some claim) about a book. The title of the book is relevant in deciding what to call the article about the book. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since its first version from 20:17, 19 July 2005, this article is claiming to be about "an essay by Karl Marx", not about a particular publicated edition in the form of a book. Besides, the book A World Without Jews did not only contain a translation of this essay, but of some other texts by Marx, too. I don't see any reason why now the topic of this wikipedia-article should be changed, nor do I see so far any Wikipedian (or do you?) who would demand such a change. --Schwalker (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about this: the "official" title of the this text (as given by the standard work(s) of/on Karl Marx is On The Jewish Question]]'. However, the work was scandalized by Dagobert D. Runes who published in 1959 under the "anti-Marx" title A World Without Jews. If you want a Book version of the item, that's the title by which you have to ask for it. No one has seen fit to publish another version (in book form) of it. So you should note that it's a dusparaging title. But you cannot make believe it does not exist, because it does. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He guys, check this source (but proceed with caution: it's from a Historical Revisionism source, Journal of Historical Review, Karl Marx: Anti-Semite by James B. Whisker): [11]:

"Bibliographical Note"

" The primary source for the racist theories of Karl Marx is his A World Without Jews (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), which was edited end translated by Dagobert D. Runes. Since Runes made reference to the official Soviet edition of the same work we may safely assume that this undated edition published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow was done before 1959. Of the other works in which Marx made passing references to Jews, editions abound. These works include: The German Ideology, The Class Struggle in France, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, and Letters to Engels. Many of the letters were published in L. Feuer (ed.), Marx and Engels: Writings on Politics and Philosophy (Anchor Books). The Foreign Languages Publishing House editions of Marx's many works tend to be accurate and inexpensive."

"One of the first discussions in English of Marx's anti-Semitism was Zygmund Dobbs, "Karl Marx: Father of Modern Anti-Semitism," Plain Talk (September 1949). The fundamental secondary source for Marx's racism and anti-Semitism is Nathaniel Weyl, Karl Marx: Racist (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979)."

• Looks like I forgot to sign the Cut & Paste of the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

To clarify the issues on this clutter page I give the following summary:

• Eary before the French Revolution (1879) the undisputed scholarship is the expression, "Jewish question" emerged. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• In 1843 Bruno Bauer had written a narrative titled, "On the Jewish Question.
• In 1844 Karl Marx had published a review titled "On The Jewish Question". Partisan Marxist scholars are the authorities - and generally recognized as such - Marx's and Engel's writings which have been collected and published as no less than 50 volumes Marx/Engels Collected Works. This is the standard edition of Marx's works. ("standard edition" is the expression used by scholars to identify the authoritative imprint of a writing or publication, particularly when several exist). Accordingly, in order to be precise as to the nature of this particular work, the title chosen and used by the publishers in the one with a capital "T." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• In 1959 this text of ours here being written about had been translated into English an published under the title A World Without Jews by Dagobert D. Runes. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Except for an obscure 1958 rare imprint, whose exact title is unknown, this is the only "book" that exists to this day - and it is discredited by all Marxist scholars. And even among non-Marxist scholars, this text is generally recognized as inauthentic as a depiction of what Marx actualyy wrote or thought about the Jews. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Nevertheless, it is this very edition which is widely referred to in the arguements that Marx was a anti-Semite.--Ludvikus (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My view, as a WP Encyclopidist(sic), is (1) that we capitalize the "T" in the title because that's how its done in the standard edition(s) of Marx's writings, and (2) that we include A World Without Jews in the opening paragraph stating that it is inaccurate and unfair to Marx (that's what all scholars, left and right hold), but mention because it is so pervasive - in a way, like the Protocols of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this copy on the Marxist Internet Archive of the table of contents of Volume III of the Marx & Engels Collected Works is, however it reads "On the Jewish Question" with a lower case 't', too. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's obviously a typographical error. Why don't you look at the actual article instead and see that you're mis-reading & mistaken [12]: --Ludvikus (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, why not research your reference - especially since it proves the contrary, that the "T" is to be capitalized: [13] --Ludvikus (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• OK. I just did most of it for you. Here is who they are: [14] --Ludvikus (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• More specifically, and completely, it's the Marxists Internet Library [15] --Ludvikus (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Who we are" [16]. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Q.E.D.: And they have the usage: "On The Jewish Question".[17] --Ludvikus (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The Link you gave goes to the translation presented by the MIA, but this is not (necessarily) the translation of the M&E CW edition. This is also stated at the page of the MIA about the M&E CW:

"The majority of works published by the MIA are not the same translation used by Progress Publishers".

The MIA does not say who has made their translation of Zur Judenfrage as far as I know, but the web-page reads "Proofed and Corrected: by Andy Blunden, February 2005." Thus Mr. Blunden of the MIA is the person who is responsible for this particular version and typesetting in the first place. It seems to me that the MIA-page with the translation of Zur Judenfrage (for which the frist version known by the internet archive appeared in the year 2002 ) could be the original source for the unusual spelling with a majuscule 'T'. I don't see any evidence why the lower case 't' in the table of contents of volume 3 in the MIA-web-page would be a typographical error. Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• But it's your own source. You picked it. And it shows that you are mistaken regarding the majuscule 'T'. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for that wonderful word majuscule by which I'm enriched & edified by you. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• For me the Marxist meaning & usage is obvious: "On 'The Jewish Question'." Do you really fail to appreciate that? I doubt it. A being whose capable of such fine a vocabulary as "majuscule" must have the capacity to comprehent the point now here at issue! --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Can/do you See the single-quotes within the double-quotes in the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• And the profound meaning of all that is simply that Marx was not writing about the Jewish question, but rather about Bruno Bauer's "essay" (I thought he wrote a "newspaper" or "journal" "article") about the Jewish question. In Hegelian/Marxist terms, he was being dialectical. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not "pick" the MIA page as a source. Anyway, it is irrelevant which sources I have picked, since this article is about the essay by Marx, and has to adjust to the spelling used by the most relevant scholary sources. Also it is irrelevant whether me or some other Wikipedian understands or appreciates the meaning of an upper case 'T', since we are obliged to follow the neutral point of view policy. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Marxism Template

Part of a series on Marxism
Theoretical works
The Communist Manifesto Das Kapital The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon On The Jewish Question Grundrisse The German Ideology Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 Theses on Feuerbach
Sociology and anthropology
Alienation · Bourgeoisie Class consciousness Commodity fetishism Communism Cultural hegemony Exploitation · Human nature Ideology · Proletariat Reification · Socialism Relations of production
Economics
Labour power · Law of value Means of production Mode of production Productive forces Surplus labour · Surplus value Transformation problem Wage labour
History
Anarchism and Marxism Capitalist production Class struggle Dictatorship of the proletariat Primitive capital accumulation Proletarian revolution Proletarian internationalism World Revolution
Philosophy
Historical materialism Dialectical materialism Analytical Marxism Marxist autonomism Marxist feminism Marxist humanism Marxist geography Structural Marxism Western Marxism Libertarian Marxism Young Marx
Prominent figures
Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels Karl Kautsky · Georgi Plekhanov Rosa Luxemburg Antonie Pannekoek Vladimir Lenin · Leon Trotsky Georg Lukács · Guy Debord Antonio Gramsci · Karl Korsch Che Guevara · Frankfurt School Jean-Paul Sartre Louis Althusser
Criticism
Criticisms of Marxism
All categorised articles
Communism Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

So where does the work belong on the {{Marxism}} Template? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Jewish Question was written before those works Marx and Engels which are considered to be central for Marxism. I don't think there would be an agreement to add OtJQ to the template:Marxist theory. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That position of yours is contradicted by the opening sentence of this Article's Page:

    On The Jewish Question is a work by Karl Marx,
    written in 1843, and first published in 1844
    under the German title Zur Judenfrage
    in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
    It is one of Marx's earliest attempts at formulating what would later be called
    the materialist conception of history.

• For emphasis, I repeat your own wtiting: "It is one of Marx's earliest attempts

at formulating what would later be called the materialist conception of history."

• What's misleading is your Reversion just now. Is this, or is this not a Marxist work? And if not, you must remove

the second sentence in the opening paragraph. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Bauer's 115 page book

Here it is: [18]: it is a book (Library of Congress):

• Die Judenfrage
• LC Control No.: 52055661
• Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
• Personal Name: Bauer, Bruno, 1809-1882. [from old catalog] » More like this
• Main Title: Die Judenfrage.
• Published/Created: Braunschweig, F. Otto, 1843.
• Description: 115 p. 21 cm.
• Subjects: Jewish question.
• LC Classification: DS141 .B32
  • It is "proven" above that's its a 115 page book!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Lederer's "On the Jewish Quesion (1958)

Here's the online library card catalog listing of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

• Record 1 of 1

You searched Class 01 - Title: On the Jewish Question

AUTHOR Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.

TITLE On the Jewish question / Karl Marx ; translated by Helen Lederer.

PUBLICATION Cincinnati, OH : Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958.

DESCRIPTION 42 leaves ; 28 cm.

SERIES Readings in modern Jewish history

NOTE Cover ti.

NOTE On rectos only.

SUBJECT Jews - - Legal status, laws, etc.

SUBJECT Judaism.

SUBJECT Jews - - Politics and government.

SUBJECT Jews - - Germany - - History - - 1800-1933.

SUBJECT Germany - - Ethnic relations.

ADDTL AUTHOR Lederer, Helen.

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• This (above) English language version (translation), edition, imprint, appears to be rare and obscure. As I've pointed out above, neither the library of Congress owns it, nor does WorldCat show it's existence anywhere in the Western world. I've even checked with the British Library; result: nada. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please lets not have an Edit War

Let's discuss here the difference regarding the 1959 text. It has been shown above that A World Without Jews is not at all an obscure worrk, contrary to the WP:Original research view of one WP editor.--Ludvikus (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The fact is that this imprint caused a scandal at the time! --Ludvikus (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's you who are edit warring, trying to make an obscure edition prominent (whats scandal??) to fit you DISAMB activities. Please stop immediately or I: will take it to the ADMIN board. Thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Reverting anything - so there's no Edit War. As I told you, I want to go by consenus! You think it's obscure - I don't. What's your problem? How many editors agree with you right now - tell me that, will yoy? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding an Edit War

Since the current one, single, editor persists in reverting all my work, and wishing to avoid an edit War, I'll simply archive here what I think is a better opening than what we have at the moment, and let others do with it as they see fit (--Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)):

• On The Jewish Question is a work by Karl Marx, written in 1843, and first published in 1844 under the German title Zur Judenfrage in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, reviewing, or in response to, Bruno Bauer's 1843 book, The Jewish Question.

• It had subsequntly been published, by Dagobert D. Runes, in the United States, in 1959, under the disparaging title, A World Without Jews, by which title it is known in some cirles there, having caused a scandal thereby.

• Nevertheless, it is considered by Marxist scholars to be one of Marx's earliest attempts at formulating what would later be called the materialist conception of history, and is universally considered by all Marxists as not an antisemitic text.

--Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence of "A World Without Jews"

According to Andrew Valls's "Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy" (p. 242): "It is particularly in the early writings that commentators find traces of an anti-Semitism that some of them diagnose as Jewish self-hatred. The primary text is "On the Jewish Question," which first appeared in English under the title "World without Jews."

Julius Carlebach in "Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism" (p.447) when talking about "A World without Jews" says: "One of the best known but least valuable editions of Marx's essays, which are represented as purely anti-semitic. The presentation is less than scholarly, part of Marx's passages from the Holy Family being added to the essays but not identified, and the editor's comment are highly polemical. As a translation, it is, however, accurate."

So according to these two sources "World Without Jews" is first and one of the best known translations of this work.

-- Vision Thing -- 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Valls is only the editor of this book. The author of the chapter Richard T. Peterson is obviously wrong when he claims that it first appeared in English under this title. Earlier English editions have been mentioned sufficiently enough in the wikipedia-article and on this very talk-page.

Mr Carlebach obviously does not speak about "best known" in scholary circles, which are the circles first of all relevant for wikipedia.

--Schwalker (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, -- Vision Thing --, thats not true at all. Refer to the discussion above--that "translation" was discredited from the moment of it's publication, and within a few years was superseded by reliable translations. That version is all but forgotten, and merits the brief mention it currently has the the text as an historical footnote, and that's it. It also wasnt the first English translation--again, see discussion above. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to User:Schwalker position, AWWJ was published in 1959, but there was a 1958 edition by that "Helen Lerer"[sic]] (can't remember her LN) Helen Lederer pub. in 1958 under the title, OTJQ. I think the issue previous was that 1959 was "obscure." But Schw. now claims it's unscholarly. Whether or not it is is irrelevant if we show that AWWJ caused a scandal. And that's quite easy to do, I think (but I don't have the time at the moment). --Ludvikus (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And whether or not Marx was or was not Antisemitic is also irrelevant in this discussion - which is much weight are we to give that AWWJ edition. I think it's definitely not obscure. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It caused no "scandal" Ludvikus--it was obscure then and it is obscure now. You are just making things up. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeh? Here's my proof to the contrary. In 1942 Dagobert D. Runes edited his Dictionary of Philosophy which was imprinted for at least through 1971 (I'm holding a 1971 imprint in my hands as we speak). He was the book's editor, and his "subordinates" at the time were then some of the greatest academic philosophers of Europe (& in the USA because of Hirler)! Here are their names - his colleagues - as listed on the first page ("contributors") (--Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)):

Dictionary of Philosophy (Currently available Online) [19]

Runes is known for his Dictionary of Philosophy (1942) which he edited. The following distinguished authorities participated in the project (Initials/Names): A.C. ---- Alonzo Church A.C.B. ---- A. Cornelius Benjamin A.C.E. ---- A. C. Ewing A.C.P. ---- A. C. Pegis A.G.A.B. ---- Albert G. A. Balz A.J.B. ---- Archie J. Bahm B.A.G.F. ---- B. A. G. Fuller C.A.B. ---- Charles A. Baylis C.A.H. ---- Charles A. Hart C.G.H. ---- Carl G. Hempel C.J.D. ---- C. J. Ducasse C.K.D. ---- C. K. Davenport D.C. ---- Dorion Cairns E.A.M. ---- Ernest A. Moody E.C. ---- Emmanuel Chapman E.F. ---- Erich Frank E.H. ---- Eugene Holmes E.S.B. ---- Edgar Sheffield Brightman F.L.W. ---- Frederick L. Will F.M.G. ---- Felix M. Gatz F.K. ---- Fritz Kunz F.S.C.N. ---- F. S. C. Northrop G.B. ---- George Boas G.R.M. ---- Glenn R. Morrow G.W.C. ---- G. Watts Cunningham H.G. ---- Hunter Guthrie H.Go. ---- Heinrich Gomperz H.H. ---- Herman Hausheer H.L.G. ---- H. L. Gordon I.J. ---- Iredell Jenkins J.E.B. ---- John Edward Bentley J.J.R. ---- J. J. Rolbiecki J.K.F. ---- James K. Feibleman J.M. ---- Joseph Maier J.A.F. ---- Jose A. Franquiz J.M.S. ---- J. MacPherson Somerville J.R.W. ---- Julius R. Weinberg K.F.L. ---- Kurt F. Leidecker K.G. ---- Katharine Gilbert L.E.D. ---- Lester E. Denonn L.M.H. ---- Lewis M. Hammond L.V. ---- Lionello Venturi L.W. ---- Ledger Wood M.B. ---- Max Black M.T.K. ---- Morris T. Keeton M.B.M. ---- Marcus B. Mallett M.F. ---- Max Fishler M.W. ---- Meyer Waxmann O.F.K. ---- Otto F. Kraushaar P.A.S. ---- Paul A. Schilpp P.O.K. ---- Paul O. Kristeller P.P.W.. ---- Philip Paul Wiener P.W. ---- Paul Weiss R.A. ---- Rudolf Allers R.B.W. ---- Ralph B. Winn R.C. ---- Rudolf Carnap R.M.J. ---- Rufus M. Jones R.T.F. ---- Ralph Tyler Flewelling S.v.F. ---- Sigmar von Fersen S.S.S. ---- S. S. Stevens T.G. ---- Thomas Greenwood T.M. ---- Thomas Munro V.F. ---- Vergilius Ferm V.J.B. ---- Vernon J. Bourke V.J.M. ---- V. J. McGill W.E. ---- Walter Eckstein W.F. ---- William Frankena W.L. ---- Wilbur Long W.M.M. ---- William Marias Malisoff W.N.P ---- W. Norman Ptttenger W.S.W. ---- William S. Weedon W.T.C. ---- W. T. Chan

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D.: The book, A World Without Jews, was not then, and is not obscure. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How does citing one of Runes' OTHER books prove that "A World Without Jews" is not obscure and that is caused a "scandal"??? Answer--it doesn't. You haven't a clue what you are talking about, you go from article to article making things up, adding confusing redirects and edits about things you know nothing about, and clog up talk pages with NONSENSE. Why don't you just stop before you get banned altogether? Hint--removing other editors warnings to you to stop vandalizing pages will not help. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop threatening me with being banned. That's extremely provocative. Don't do that again, please. Be polite, and rational. Instead of threatening me, and having my Discussion page polluted with such extremely provocative threats, why don't you now tell us what evidence you have to support your claim that A World Without Jews is an obscure work? Why should I/we believe you? Because you threaten me with being Banned? If that happens - so much the worse for Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put nothing on your discussion page--other editors have, and they are the ones who will ban you. The burden is on you to demonstrate a claim that something is noteworthy with evidence. So either provide evidence or stop wasting space here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominum: (1) Your allegation that other editors are threatening to ban me is clearly designed to prevent me from arguing against your totally unsupported claim that this edition of "On The Jewish Question" work is obscure. It is clear that you wish that I simply go away so you could persist in preaching to us that is obscure. Your evidence for that claim has so far been zero (0). (2) On the other hand, I have demonstrated by the above that in 1942 Runes had worked with the greatest living philosophers in the Western World. He knew them. And they knew him. (3) Then, in 1958 Runes published "A World Without Jews" (13 years after Hitler and during the Cold War. And you mean to tell me that this Even caused no scandal? Granted, it's not the best evidence. But is far better than yours, which consists merely of reminding me that I might be banned. And since you brought it up - not I - I'll tell you why that is. On one other Wikipedia page there is one editor who's also engaging in such an Ad hominum. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you have no evidence. Are you really claiming that a 1958 book is not obscure because the editor edited another book in 1942?? And your evidence for there being a "scandal" is that I have presnted no evidence that there wasn't a scandal. Do you realize how foolish you sound? Why don't you just stop. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You got it backwards. The burden is on your shoulders to show that the AWWJ text is "obscure." I've shown you that in 1942 Runes worked, as a colleague with the world's greatest living philosopher. He had, in other words, the greatest possible connection among men of letters. Then, in 1958, he published a book involving Marx and Jews, and you, out of the blue, tell me it is an obscure work. I keep telling you that it's the only one volume book or booklet on the subject in the English language. There exist(s) the 1975-2005 collected works - in 50 volume and in English - and we have the text on the Internet.

But all I get from you is your statement: it's obscure. That's your opinion. But anyone doing just a little research will know immediately that it was this text that was the popular propaganda source of material used by anti-Marxists in their battle to show that Marx was an anti-Semite. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here. Take your pick. I give you Google with its 3,730 hits for "World Without Jews" (--Ludvikus (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)): [20]

And the charge of obscurity does nothing for your argument. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was definitely and obscure work at the time of its birth. You know of course its effect in the world? Is this book, through its title, responsible for the pejorative associated with Marx - "A World Without Jews"? Why hide this "title, buried down the page? We do not need to protect Marx against the smear of the title. Marx can rake care of himself now, thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Find a reliable source that says that this obscure book is important for an article about this particular work by Marx. Stop wasting space with pointless arguments with no sources. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No! It's your burden (task) to show the work AWWJ is "obscure." How in heaven's name did you come to that conclusion? We are not allowed to do Original research as you are doing with finding of yours. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer"

• A World Without Jews [21]

(New York: Philosophical Library, 1959)

Library of Congress catalog card discription:

Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.

Uniform Title: Zur Judenfrage. English

Main Title: A world without Jews. Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes.

Published/Created: New York, Philosophical Library [1959]

Description: xii, 51 p. 20 cm.

Notes: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published

[in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage]

as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on ’the Jewish question.’"

Bibliography: p. xii.

Subjects:

Bauer, Bruno, 1809-1882.

Jews--History--1789-1945.

• Thus, according to Runes, the work is "a review" of Bruno Bauer's "The Jewish Question." --Ludvikus (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Runes is not our authority on this article. I'm going to ask you one last time to stop making pointless, needless edits that detract from this and other articles that you CLEARLY have no understanding or comprehension of. The next step will be to bring your disruptive behavior to the admin board. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't he your "authority"? How do you decide? Do you know, for example that Runes was a colleague of Albert Einstein? Who gave you the right to decide who is, or who is not the authority? Marx wrote about a writing of Bruno Bauer. And so it was called either by Runes or by the Library of Congress, a review. What's wrong with that word? Why do you object to it? And stop threatening me with being taken to a review board. It's inflammatory, and makes it very difficult not to be provoke by you. Let's follow Wikipedia policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not discussing article content with you anymore, it's pointless. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On what this work/review of Marx is all about

From the Selected Essay (1926) tr. by H. J. Stenning [22]:

    "In 1843 Marx was twenty-five years old.
    He had just married, apparently on the strength of the modest salary he was to receive for editing,
    jointly with Arnold Ruge, a periodical called the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (Franco-German Annuals),
    the purpose of which was to promote the union of German philosophy with French social science.
    Only one double-number of this journal appeared in 1844.
    It contained Marx's criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right
    and his exposition of the social significance of the Jewish question,
    in the form of a review of two works by Bruno Bauer.

That's an exact quote from the "Preface" of the compilation and translation by H. J. Stenning's Selected Essays by Karl Marx (1926) --Ludvikus (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move (May 2008)

    Further reading:
    The Webster On-line dictionary has a complete list of translations of “citizen”
    but it necessary to know of the specific shades of meaning and connotations.
    See On The Jewish Question, Marx 1844 for Marx’s discussion of the concepts. [25]

    In his article “On the Jewish Question”, Marx attacked Bruno Bauer’s idealistic,
    narrowly theological presentation of the problem of Jewish emancipation.
    As opposed to his former fellow thinkers, the Young Hegelians,
    Marx saw criticism of religion, as well as of politics,
    not as the final aim but as a tool to be used in the revolutionary struggle,
    and he wanted to go further and deeper in the critical reconsideration of all existing relationships.
    Marx’s polemic with Bauer provided him with the occasion
    for a broader materialist examination of the problem
    of mankind’s emancipation not only from national,
    religious and political, but also from economic and social oppression.
    In this work Marx developed the concept of the limited nature
    of the bourgeois revolution, which he called “political emancipation”.
    He put forward the idea of the necessity for a deeper-going revolution
    aiming at the real elimination of all social antagonisms.
    This kind of revolution he called “human emancipation”.

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

[edit] Archiving old messages

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

[edit] A complete mess

Ah, didnt see new votes; this page is a complete mess. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your position. It would be nice if we could all work peacefully together. I understand you are a passionate editor, particularly regarding this article. I would like to suggest options which might improve things for us and for Wikipedia. Can we talk about that now? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, but please try to limit all the needless cutting and pasting into talk pages and confusing formatting. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Why don't we begin by listing the active editors on this page. That way we will be able to tell whose involved, and whose just dropping by. Also, if you agree - at least for now - that the "T" stays, we could go to other issues. You can always bring the issue of a "small" "t" at another time. And if I can get access to that $1,000 edition which shows the small "t" - the first thing I'll do is come to you and tell you that I was wrong and you were right. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PS1: I finally learned to remember that you're Bootles-the-cat. I had not realized that before (it's not so obvious as on would think). So, Meow.... to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PS2: It would be useful - easier to remember if you added these hyphens to your name. I'm digressing a bit, because we are all human editors and not machines. And I think we need to acknowledge that on this page in order for us to work here as better Wikipedians. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to list "active editors"--it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, which anyone can edit; see WP:OWN. ??In an hour there could be 10 new "active editors" of this article who could greatly improve it. They have as much say as "active editors." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nevertheless, if you look above, only four editors have voted. No one else at this moment has expressed their position. So it's for us to come up with a consensus as to what is to be done, no? So what's your position on my other questions above? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What questions? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Can/Do we agree that the T stays, and therefore we can Archive or Collapse this extended discussion as user Shabazz has attempted to do? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, discussions such as this one are generally allowed to continue for several days. You're trying to close it less than 24 hours after it began. Please allow other editors to contribute if they choose to. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. (1) Three days ago the issue of the "t's" was resolved. Just look at the Archived section of this Page where the same issue was decided. (2) Besides, you've "voted" to Keep above. Have you forgotten? (3) I though you were into avoiding "disruption." But what you are propsing now is highly disruptive since it's inconsistent with your own position as well as the majority (concensus). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Three days ago the result of the discussion was no consensus. Please note that the previous proposal to change the article's name was open for 7 days. Also note that the header at the top of this page says that the discussion will continue to see if consensus to move the page emerges "after a few days".

I can't imagine see how allowing editors sufficient time to comment could be considered disruptive. I also don't understand what my opinion on the subject has to do with my feeling that we should adhere to Wikipedia process. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So 7 + 3 = 10. And after 10 days 3 say Oppose (name change) and 1 says says Support. So your dragging this issue out for 10 days after the concensus keep the T is disruptive. Look, Bauer wrote the text he title "The Jewish Question," and Marx wrote (Dialectically, a Marxist would say) about Bauer's book, not directly about the subject. Furthermore, my training in philosophy reminds me of this usage :"on 'The Jewish Question'," but that's awkward - so the Marxists adopted the capital "T." Let's move on. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

What comments? Where? What's your point? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I refer to what have been answered to me after I voted oppose : [31]. Ceedjee (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)