Talk:Karla Poewe

Vanity article

Anyone who checks the history of this article will see that the following points have been addressed. The truth is that I did make a mistake in editing a page devoted to my wife's work. But, since then at least three third parties, with no COI, have completely re-written the page as the history section demonstrates. Irving Hexham (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanity article, whose creator, and only substantial editor, is her own husband.

I don't understand why this hasn't been deleted. If she is THAT notable someone else will write the article.Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to elaborate the point. Hexham's claim of "A COI was raised but, in fact, the factual nature of the article does not violate WP guidelines" notwithstanding, this article is exactly the sort of thing that WP:COI was designed to prevent:

• Because it is her husband selecting these "facts", we have no assurance that they provide WP:DUE weight to her critics' views of her work.
• The vast majority of these "facts" aren't cited so are not verifiable.
• Because it is her husband writing it, there is a good chance that some of it will be unpublished WP:OR.
• Most of what facts are cited are cited to Poewe's own autobiography and CV.

I am therefore restoring (and elaborating upon) the 'Articleissues' template on the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I deprodded it because the above are not accepted reasons for article deletion, and after researching her a bit, concluded she would probably pass an AfD. There were no glaring inconsistencies with what I found and the article. Deletion is a last resort, none of the issues seem very serious and should be resolved in normal editing.John Z (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of reliable independent sources is an "accepted reason", per WP:NOTE & WP:ACADEMIC. If such sources exist, I'd suggest that you cite them in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Added sources that prove notability. Thanks for looking out for this kind of stuff Hrafn. Otherwise, people like myself would not have noticed the articles to expand on them and fix the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to add my thanks also, to Ottava, for sparing me work, and to Hrafn for reasons similar to the above, though we have often been on opposing sides of the wiki-dialectic.John Z (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Religions and the Nazis

The statement: "An important discovery made during research for this book was the unexpected and close relationship between Protestant Liberal Christianity and the ideology of Nationl Socialism. Consequently, Poewe's recent work has important implications for Christian Apologetics and debates concerning the religious nature of Nazismand its relationship to Christianity." is cited to three sources:

• Paul Jackson, “The Journal for the Study of Radicalism”, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2007;
• John Conway, “The Association of Contemporary Church Historians Newsletter”, April 2006, Vol XII, No. 4; and
• Lee Duigon, “Calcedon Foundation Book Review,” February 21, 2006

I couldn't find any trace of the second two online, but found the first here. It does not make any mention of "Protestant Liberal Christianity" or "important implications for Christian Apologetics". In fact it rather ties Nazism to "German pagan faiths", and the goal of "the creation of 'genuinely German (Nordic) faith-based political community, a community of one Volk that would privilege . . . the almost lost Germanic and Nordic culture and ancestry' ". None of this appears to place it within the mainstream of Liberal Christianity, and although an argument could be made that LC opened the door for such 'reinterpretation', it would appear to be a stretch to apply the term to such syncretism with clearly non-Christian sources (would we likewise consider Voudoun to be "Liberal Christianity"?). I will therefore be placing a 'request quote' and a 'disputed' tag on this statement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Farahday: it would appear that you were the one who added these citations (in this edit). Could you please provide quotations demonstrating how they support the above statement, and an explanation of why the citation to Jackson, which does not appear to support this material, was included? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Chalcedon Foundation citation

First I would like to point out that the Chalcedon Foundation would appear to be a unreliable extremist source. Second its claims on this issue appear to be incoherent:

It is not possible, Poewe says, to find a hard numerical measurement for the neo-pagan groups’ membership (p. 97). Hauer claimed his German Faith had at least 200,000 members (p. 97), and Nazi authorities estimated that 2.5 million Germans belonged to the whole neo-pagan movement (p. 180). There is no way, Poewe says, to estimate how many Germans were influenced by neo-pagan rallies, books, flyers, lectures, and sermons delivered by neo-pagan fellow-travelers from the pulpits of Germany’s churches.

Perhaps the author’s most controversial claim is that liberal Christianity led the Germans straight to National Socialism, along the highway of neo-paganism: “their path to National Socialism went through the door of liberal theology” (p. 25), and “[t]here is no break between Hauer’s defense of liberalism and National Socialism. The former flowed quite naturally into the latter” (p.50).

Having just placed Hauer's German Faith movement within the umbrella of "neo-pagan groups", how does "Hauer’s defense of liberalism" (a defence not mentioned in his article, Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, incidentally) connect to "liberal Christianity"?

Can you point to the RS noticeboard section in which community consensus declared the above as an extremist or fringe source? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After checking on the Chalcedon Foundation it seems that Hrafn has made a valid point. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily invalidate the citation which simply shows that the issue of Liberal Christianity and Nazism has been taken up by at least one reviewer. Further, ample documentation for this connection is provided in the book itself: Karla Poewe, "New Religions and the Nazis," Oxford, Routledge, 2006, pp. 21-22, 29, and 178. Finally, even if the source is regarded as "extremist" it is widely regarded as very influential. For example, Newsweek, Feb. 2, 1981, described it as the "Think Tank" of the "Christian Right" in America. Therefore, in context, the fact that someone cited the review is not inappropriate.(talk) 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Given that the Chalcedon Foundation's opinion of Liberal Christianity is probably somewhat below their opinion of the bubonic plague, it is hardly surprising that they happily grab any weapon that comes to hand to beat LC up (and probably wouldn't look too closely at how solidly built it is). But given that (i) they are 'extremely' partisan (advocating Christian Reconstructionism which is the polar opposite to LC) and (ii) they give a garbled rationale for this connection, they are unacceptable as a source for this connection. No, I don't have a WP:RS/N determination on this, but will seek one if anybody really thinks that this issue is borderline.
2. Sourcing the statement directly to Poewe is acceptable. But regardless of how this is sourced, it should be explicitly attributed as Poewe's opinion rather than fact, unless and until it can be shown that this connection has gained widespread acceptance within the academic community.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair comment. So why not do a minor edit and remove the passage. Then remove the Template since all your concerns will have been met. Irving Hexham (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]On closer examination, Poewe herself only explicitly mentions "liberal Christianity" once:

As a result, [Hauer's] religious development moved away from even the free form of a radical liberal Christianity, to an Indo-Germanic and, later, to a German Faith.

This does not appear to support any strong connection between LC & Nazism, and seems to be in direct contradiction to the Chalcedon Foundation's claims.

Poewe makes more frequent mention of 'liberal theology', but appears to do so generally more as a 'gateway' to less restrictive theological interpretation, rather than a justification of any particular radical viewpoint. As such, it could be argued that 'liberal theology' led to any view that differs from the previous orthodoxy, potentially including diametrically opposed views. However to draw any direct relationship between liberal theology and this constellation of views would appear to be unfounded (and given the potential contradictions between these various viewpoints) incoherent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - but this is not the place to debate Poewe's academic work. What is in question is the Wikipedia article about her which has been re-edited by a third parties so that there is no longer a conflict of interest. Therefore, I request that you made the edit you see as necessary to the Liberal Theology passage and then remove the Template which is no longer necessary. This seems a fair request in the spirit of improving Wikipeadia. Irving Hexham (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, but it is the place to debate whether a claim cited to her is in fact explicitly made in her book, or is even directly derivable from that book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Citations for Poewe page

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn -- Irving Hexham please cease continuously leaving messages there that are more appropriately discussed here (or other article talk pages). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ]

I did not realize that I was spamming User Hrafn's Talk Page and will not do it again. I apologize for this. Irving Hexham (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC). Here is what I wanted to say:

If I am permitted, and it is not seen as COI, then I can easily add the relevant citations that User Hrafn wants to see. Third party biographical accounts, that confirm the details given in Karla's books Reflections of a Woman Anthropologist (1982) and Childhood in Germany(1988), are found in:

Pettit, Jayne, A Time to Fight Back, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co, 1996, chapter three "City in Flames, The Story of Karla Poewe," pp. 39-57; and Wengle, John L., Ethnographers in the Field, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988, chapter six, "Death and Rebirth in Fieldwork: An Archetypal Case," pp. 130-150.

A complete list of her publications on a Third Party Website are to be found at:

http://cmss.ucalgary.ca/fellows/poewe

If I am not permitted to add these references then perhaps User Hrafn, or User Teapotgeorge, who also raised the COI issue, will be kind enough to add them. Irving Hexham (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted the third-party citations requested. Is it possible now for an editor to remove the template that calls for such sources? I must say I am surprised at the insinuations that Dr. Poewe is anything other than an established, highly-regarded scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farahday (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Liberal Theology

In this and other places User Hrafn has asked for confirmation that the link Karla Poewe makes between Protestant Liberal Theology and Nazism is justifiable and accepted by other academics. Therefore, although I do not intend this to be an edit to the Poewe page, I think it worth clarifying this issue.

Various writers have commented on the role of Liberal Theologians in the years leading up to and during the Third Reich. This can be confirmed from the following works:

Weinreich, Max, Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish People, New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946.

Zabel, James A., Nazism and the Pastors, Missoula, The Scholars Press, 1976.

Ericksen, Robert P., Theologians Under Hitler, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Davis, Alan, Infected Christianity: A Study of Modern Racism, Kingston and Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press, 1988.

All of these deal with "theologians" rather than "theology" or "liberalism" as an ideology. What Poewe does, as I read her, is identify "liberal theology" and key ideas in Continental Liberalism as the driving force behind the acceptance of the Nazi worldview by many German theologians. This is implicit in the entire discussion found in New Religions and the Nazis. She also discussed it at length in her article:

“Liberalism, German Missionaries, and National Socialism: Diedrich Westermannm, Martin Jäckel, and Jakob Wilhelm Hauer.” Karla Poewe. In Ulrich van der Heyden, ed. Mission und Macht im Wandel politischer Orientierungen: Europäische Missionsgesellschaften in politischen Spannungsfeldern, in Afrika und Asien zwischen 1800 und 1945. Franz Steiner Verlag, Volume 10, 2005, pp. 633-662.

Now in a new book to be published in October, 2008, the well known Jewish scholars Susannah Herschel is apparently making a very similar case to that developed by Poewe. The details for her book are:

Heschel, Susannah, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Irving Hexham (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that there is a very large difference between "comment[ing] on the role of Liberal Theologians in the years leading up to and during the Third Reich" and stating a "close relationship between Protestant Liberal Christianity and the ideology of Nationl[sic] Socialism". I would note that nobody, as yet, has actually quoted where Poewe articulates this "close relationship" in her book. I would further note that the original description called this relationship "unexpected", which heavily implies that this relationship hasn't been previously documented. None of this adds up to a coherent and verifiable picture. I would therefore request cited direct quotes from both Poewe herself, and any supporting scholars, articulating this postulated "close relationship". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, we have her husband and an expert here. I think you need to tone down your language considerably. You are acting more combative and not really trying to work with the authors in question. They know exactly what they are claiming, and it is Wikipedia policy to have summaries based on first hand accounts. You should take this into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: I hate to contradict you, but wikipedia is explicitly not a publisher of original research, even by experts. Material needs to be verifiable to published sources, and where a source is interpreted, this interpretation must likewise by verifiable to a reliable published secondary source (per WP:PSTS). Asking for quotes is standard practice, particularly on relatively inaccessible sources, which would definitely include ones published up to 60 years ago. Given that we have gotten (i) a garbled account of the linkage between Liberal Christianity and National Socialism (from the Chalcedon Foundation) and (ii) conflicting accounts as to the extent to which this thesis is "unexpected" or has a long history in the literature, I do not think a degree of healthy skepticism is being "combative". The claim of a ""close relationship between Protestant Liberal Christianity and the ideology of National Socialism" is potentially incendiary (hence the Chalcedon Foundation's interest in it), so needs absolute bullet-proof citation (I'd suggest a direct quote from the source in the footnote) and sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, an individual who writes a book and then summarizes a point in the book is not original research. This is primary sourcing. If you notice, most biographical pages have primary source accounts on various things. Work with him, not against him. He obviously owns a copy of his wife's book. Try to figure out how to describe it fairly. And remember, it doesn't matter if his wife's book is right or wrong, what matters is that we describe it correctly. You have the authors here. Thats a rare thing to have. Take advantage of it instead of scaring them off. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: this 'summary' is unpublished and thus WP:OR. There is no exception in that policy that privileges an author's own unpublished WP:SYNTH of their published material (even assuming (i) that it was Poewe herself writing the material and (ii) that her identity could be verified). If you believe that my interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, then take it up at WP:BLP/N (which would appear to be the most appropriate forum). If you believe that such an exception to WP:SYNTH should be introduced, then take it up at WT:OR. If you think you have a better way of teasing verifiable information out of Hexham & Poewe on this point, you are welcome to try. Such information hasn't been forthcoming to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"this 'summary' is unpublished and thus WP:OR" - summaries of books don't need sourcing. The book is assumed as the source. Unless you want to go out and buy the book, I think I would trust the husband of the author who also co-wrote two books with her. If you want page numbers, ask him for page numbers. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident> A 'summary' is not WP:OR only to the extent that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source". Putting it another way, the summarised source must "explicitly reach the same conclusion" as the 'summary' text -- and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask where the summarised source explicitly reaches this conclusion, to verify that it is not OR. And no, I will not go out and buy the book just to verify this information -- WP:V explicitly places the "burden of evidence" on the introducing editor -- a burden that can easily be met by providing a quote. Given that this is perfectly common procedure on wikipedia (to the extent that we have template:request quote to automate it), I really don't see what the problem is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so ask for page numbers and quotes while you have someone who can provide it, instead of going after them. Use your resources, don't destroy them. Come on Hrafn. You have a good source right here. Ask for page numbers. Ask for quotes. Then you would be following common procedure. Work with him, not against him. Thats all I am asking. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)