Talk:Opera and Drama

removal of the term nationalist in regard to Constantin Frantz

Constantin Frantz was not a nationalist. Though he is often mentioned by later authors in relation to the pan-german movement, this derives mostly from abusive quotations by German nationalists after Worldwar I. Frantz represented the idea of a Central European federation, including a restored Poland. He dispised nationalism as in contradiction to christian values. For further information take a look into his work "Die Weltpolitik unter besonderer Bezugnahme auf Deutschland" (1882).--Christophmahler (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst, like 99.9% of the world's population, I do not have to hand a copy of Frantz's "Die Weltpolitik unter besonderer Bezugnahme auf Deutschland"(2882), as Christophmahler recommends, we all have acess to the following documents:

1) The Wikipedia article Nationalism, which makes it clear the the term does not apply exclusively to those advocating centralised political states based on nationalities. Frantz could undoubtedly be placed, in his time, as a liberal nationalist, although his ideas don't seem too liberal today (see below).

and

2) The German Wikipedia article on Frantz, de:Constantin Frantz. This makes it clear that amongst Frantz's interests were:

a federation of German states, bound to each other
the need to place Poland under German control
the need to defend German interests against those of other countries, notably Russia
a violent antagonism to Jews

This places him rather closer to the ideas of Nazism than those of the European Union (though of course some might argue that the EU is German control of Europe by other means :-} ). But setting that aside, to deny that Frantz was a Nationalist is either WP:OR or WP:NPOV or both.

I therefore have no compunction in reverting Christophmahler's edit.--Smerus (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Smerus, but I will revert Your decision due to Your ignorance toward following facts:

the mentioned primary source clearly contradicts the claim 'Frantz is a nationalist'. If You have trouble to find and read primary sources, You simply do not qualify to make a judgement in this case.

the federalist Frantz cannot be called a nationalist in the sense of nationalliberalism - which is obvious by definition.

the German Wikipedia article is disputed for reasons of point of view and a lack of references.

Generally, to cite Wikipedia articles as a reference for other Wikipedia articles is not reliable. Only primary sources and authors can be used as reliable references.

a federation is not a nationstate.

Your point, that parts of a federation have common borders is not valid. The same can be said of the participation of different ethnic elements - it does not follow conclusively, that domination is exercised within a federation, it depends on the way common decissions are processed. At the time Frantz developed his concepts, there was no German nationstate - to speak of 'German interests' then appears to me as a vagueness on the subject. A defensive stance towards the empire of Russia was not only in the interest of german speaking princepalities, but also in the interest of the population of Eastern Europe. I understand, that You are not familiar with the Prussian tradition of a cordial relation with the tsarist Russia. The criticism by Frantz towards jewish nationalism was not violent. If You disagree on this, simply check the sources for Yourself.--Christophmahler (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christophmahler -

First, please take the trouble to read WP:Civility. It may be, because English is not your first language, that you are not aware of the impression you create. But on English Wikipedia we do not accuse each other of ignorance, or say that 'they do not qualify to comment'. We try to deal in discussions of and about facts, not personal opinion.

Second, please note that the citation of one reference, or set of references, which you prefer, does not necessarily mean you can knock down other materials with them. You obviously have strong opinions about Frantz - I don't, and nor do most people. It is therefore necessary, as Wikipedia is for the use of non-specialists, to take a cool view of all the relevant information. We seem to be straying a long way here into discussions of Nazism and anti-Semitism which are really not relevant to this article. The issue you contest is whether Frantz can be described as a nationalist. Nothing you have said here, or in the materials you have posted on my talk page, would seem to invalidate the description of Frantz as a nationalist, save as a matter of opinion. Clearly there are many authorities - although you disagree with them - who definitely consider Frantz a nationalist. I am therefore reinstating, for the time being , the description of Frantz as a nationalist, and I am referring this issue also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Towards SMERUS,

I am well aware of the impression I might create and if You read my first statement again, You will not find any accusations.

I simply stated the facts: citing WIKIPEDIA articles is unreliable and relying completely on such articles does not qualify to do more than formal editing. This is not my personal opinion, it is part of WIKIPEDIA standards.

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.(...)

An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings.(Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest)

My interest is to improve the qualitiy of an encyclopedia - even when I am interested in the subject of an article.

Statements in articles, especially if they are likely to be challenged, need references - preferably to secondary sources. If academic authors contradict each other, this can be mentioned in order to inform about the actual state of research.

When I explained to You, why Frantz cannot be described as a nationalist and named You a source, why are You reverting the change in the text, without bothering to check Your knowledge on the matter? Are You straying into discussions of Nazism and anti-semitism? Is Your point of view on Constantin Frantz neutral? Have You remained calm, when I challenged the text?

If You cannot see, that the detailed material I offered You on Your talk page gives no hint to nationalism, then You seem to have difficulty to interprete it, especially the part, that needs translation into english. If You could just provide a distinct statement from the material, You think includes the possibility that Frantz was a nationalist I may be able to help You.

You claim, that there are many authorities, who share Your opinion.

It would have been a sign of good will and ability to name just one and to suggest to add a reference to the article for the time being - just as I suggested on Your talk page. The practice of just reverting the challenged part, without delivering a single valid argument or improvement to the article appears like an edit-war to me. To refer to WP:Civility does not distract me from these facts.

As I don't see the good will to discuss the matter with me, I will set a marker for POV. If You remove it, without settling the issue with me I will look for mediation.--Christophmahler (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a lot English language sources refer to him either as a "political writer" or a "federalist" or both. This source and this one, refer to him as a "nationalist", but they seem to be in the minority. If the article must give him an "ism" (and I'm not sure that's necessary), "federalist" might be more apt, although his was a highly particularized notion of federalism. Maybe someone should write an article on Constantin Frantz and let the link do the talking. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with You.

Looking at the two examples, You have found, I see, that the first Cultural studies of modern Germany derives from studies within the Telos journal. If it is true, that it advances Marxism, then the reliability can be questioned - as Marxism is a political ideology.

The second source was first published in 1941, when a nationalistic Germany usurped the European continent - it is likely that this book serves a political motivation as well.

Though search engine statistics cannot replace academic sources.

When I manage to finish the article on Frantz in the German Wikipedia, I will try to translate it - but it will take time. It is also not a simple subject but disputed for over 80 years, when german nationalists began to use parts of his sources to advance their intentions. The Pan-European movement then built a strawman argument upon it.

I asked SMERUS, if calling Frantz a nationalist is necessary for the purpose of this article and he replies, that while having no strong opinion about Frantz, he will simply revert the neutral term political writer into nationalist. That means to me he wishes no discussion based on facts. For the moment, the only possible way to improve the article is to mark it for the reader with a POV box. I would welcome any further suggestions.--Christophmahler (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the sources mentioned, there are several relevant parts of Wikipedia policy and guidelines that can be applied here.

An alleged fact that is disputed should be referenced or removed.
NPOV requires that whatever description is used should reflect the dominant view among reliable academic sources or, if there is no one dominant view, it should reflect the range of significant views.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Secondary or tertiary sources are prferable to primary sources.
Arguing that because someone said X and Y he must be Z is original research or synthesis.

VcD's research can be used to indicate the best way to go on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these contributions; in the light of which I withdraw 'nationalist' and await the English article on Frantz.--Smerus (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]