Talk:L. L. Zamenhof

message: א does not represent the sound "A" at all in Hebrew.  It is a silent letter, which can represent any vowel.  The sentance about Zamenhof's name in Hebrew is very confusing, and even gratuitous if it is modified to be correct.
:The article doesn't say that א represents the Hebrew sound [a], it says that א is the Hebrew letter A. I presume from the article that the signs are bilingual, with Hebrew א. זמנהוף transliterated as English A. Zamenhof. kwami 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I put it there was because there was a paragraph earlier about how Jerusalem street signs 'mistakenly' wrote A. Zamenhof, which is misleading/incorrect - this is not a mistake, it's intentional, and with the א/A I explained why. Feel free to re-word the sentence to explain it better, but the core idea should remain. -- Ynhockey 10:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew concept of letters is quite different to that of English. Many people mistakenly say that א is the Hebrew version of A. This is plainly wrong. Also, א is not a silent letter (although it is silent in certain circumstances, and although not all speakers are careful enough to always pronounce it even when it is not supposed to be silent): it represents a glottal stop. The writing A. Zamenhof is indeed a mistake - and it's not even remotely the worst one one can find on Zamenhof St. signs throughout Israel! 188.169.229.30 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A and א 

message: My little NON orginal research, throught wikipedia pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language#1980s-2000s
"The largest centre of Belarusian cultural activity, in the Belarusian language, outside Belarus is in the Polish province of Białystok (Беласток in Belarusian), which is home to a long-established Belarusian minority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_phonology#Orthography_and_pronunciation
"This inventory is rather similar to that of Polish, but is especially close to Belarusian, which was historically important to the creator of Esperanto.
The main innovations, compared to Belarusian, are,
the absence of palatalization in Esperanto, although this was present in Proto-Esperanto (nacjes, now nacioj "nations"; familje, now familio "family") and arguably survives marginally in the affectionate suffixes -njo and -ĉjo, and in the interjection tju!; 
the lack of a phonemic affricate /dz/, although again there are remnants in words such as edzo "a husband". "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet#Belarusian
ŭ = belorusian cyrillic ў
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._L._Zamenhof#Life
"Zamenhof was born on December 15, 1859 in the town of Białystok (in Poland, then part of the Russian Empire) to parents of Lithuanian Jewish descent. The town's population was made up of three major ethnic groups: Poles, Belarusians, and a large group of Yiddish-speaking Jews."
:You can't say that his biographers said that he spoke Belorussian just because it's reasonable to think he did. That's fraud. kwami (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belorusian Langue 

message: It seems the genus name Zamenhofia (named by Claude Roux) is now considered a junior synonym to Porina by the British Lichen Society., i.e. they use Porina instead of Zamenhofia. --Cam 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lichen

message: Read the following sentence (from the article) carefully:
"Apart from his parents' native languages Russian and Yiddish and his adopted language Polish, his lingustics attempts were also aided by his mastering of German, a good passive understanding of Latin, Hebrew and French, and a rather poor knowledge of Greek, English and Italian."
Now, do you think he was actually aided by a poor knowledge of Greek, English and Italian? I think not. It seems what someone is trying to say, is that he was aided by his knowledge of languages; and that his knowledge of these languages was poor in comparison to the others which he spoke well. I do not know, as I am not an expert on Esperanto, but many of the contributors seem to have done some good research, and someone who knows more would do well to re-word this. (Sbutler (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aided by a Poor Knowledge?

message: I just noticed we've had the odd spelling "Ludvic" at the top of the article for a year or so. Does anyone have a cite for that spelling? If not what should we change it to? --Cam (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. "Lazarus" is of course the English form, and AFAIK the most common English form for the other name is "Ludwig", so I changed it to that. The official form early on would've been Russian Ljud(o)vik, later on Polish Ludwik, and we could also use the German, so I think "translating" into English is not a bad idea. kwami (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool, thanks. I fixed the name over the photo, too. --Cam (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludvic

message: A user just removed Zamenhof's designation as a Zionist. While I'm not an expert on the subject, there's this article in Esperanto which may shed light on the issue. Does anyone here care to at least partially translate? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism 

message: Hi there, I've always read about the second name of Zamenhof being Lejzer, not Łazarz. I couldn't find an appropriate footnote (nor any discussion item in this page) which clarifies to me the reasons of this choice. Can anybody explain from where the spelling Łazarz was taken?
I would also support renaming the article to match the full name of Zamenhof, whichever it is. He used to call himself L. L., but he is equally famous with his full name, which for that reason (I think) is the most used in the other linguistic versions of Wikipedia. --WinstonSmith (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lejzer or Łazarz? 

message: The article in the Esperanto wikipedia puts it quite nicely at one point. Let me paraphrase what it says:
Zamenhof was ethnically Polish (he lived among (other) Poles, spoke mostly Polish, read and translated Polish literature, was friends with Poles - and, to add another thing, spoke Polish with his children); this does not prove that he was inwardly Polish. His perspective was almost completely cosmopolitan. Calling him a "Polish oculist" or a "Polish linguist" is very reductive, but not incorrect.
So far eo.wikipedia.org. This seems to be a much more nuanced (and non-nationalistic) discussion than the wrangling about labels that sometimes goes around in en.wikipedia. Perhaps we can take that as a starting point if the issue arises again?
Let me offer my own commentary on the above. The description of Zamenhof's life will do for the second half or last two thirds of his life; his initial environment was less Polish than the manner he lived his life in. Second, from all we can tell about his actual feelings on Polish matters, his national sentiments - in so far as, given that he was an internationalist, one can call his feelings something of the sort - were attached to Litwo, rather than to the notion of Poland that became dominant with time in the twentieth century. See, again, the article in the Esperanto wikipedia.
Litwo was the eastern part of pre-partition Poland (properly called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). It isn't just that an attachment to Litwo in particular was common in people born there - it is also a matter of two different conceptions of Poland. Here Zamenhof was not alone, but, rather, in line with a nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century strain of Polish(-Lithuanian) patriotism that was actually opposed to what most people would call Polish nationalism. Thus, the Polish national poem starts with the line "Lithuania! My fatherland!", and Piłsudski called himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture. Some English speakers should be familiar with Czesław Miłosz as a late representative of this strain of thought. Feketekave (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polishness redux 

message: The Polish version of VI High School - King Sigismund Augustus says that he attended that school whereas here it says Warsaw. Can it be confirmed or denied that he went here? Victuallers (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says the school was founded in 1915 so unless they are referring to a predecessor of the school it isn't possible. In a letter to Alfred Michaux in 1905, Zamenhof said he attended "la Bialistokan realan gimnazion" (the Bialystok Realschule) from 1869 until his family moved to Warsaw in 1873. --Cam (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found this page which explains that the old Realschule was in the building that is now High School VI, so it is true that Zamenhof attended school there. --Cam (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats brilliant ... there appear to be three dates I can find from 1805 to 1915 depending on the source. Unfortunately I don't speak Polish and the auto translations are ambiguous. I think that they say 1915, but the former school was here too and that started in 1805. However I'm much closer with your help
! Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  School? 

message: There seems to be a conflict between users User:Jacurek and User:Gilisa as to whether Zamenhof's should be said to have been born "to parents of Jewish descent" or "in a Jewish family". To judge from his comments to edits in this and other pages, it seems that User:Gilisa believes that a person cannot be said to be of Jewish descent unless he belongs to another religion.
This seems odd to me. It also seems to me that we shouldn't have a dispute about the opening sentence at all, given that his background is described in much more detail in the rest of the opening paragraph. The point is not that Zamenhof was not in many ways from some sort of archetypical X family (probably nobody ever was, for any value of X). The issue is that our principal aim should be to describe the subjects of our articles, not claim them for one category or the other. This principle alone, if clearly stated, could avoid many (edit) wars here and elsewhere. (Fortunately there is no war here yet.) Feketekave (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And user Feketekave  delete any mention to Zamenhof Jewish backgroud in the article-an action that was not taken by User: Jacurek, nor by me. As I was involved in several discussion on this matter I can tell for sure that to many editors the wording "Jewish descent" refers to one whose parents have converted from Judaism to some other religion. "Into a Jewish family" is farily neutral and correct here. In fact, in a discussion you had with Avi and John you was exposed to similar line of arguments, so I cant see why mine is "odd". Feketekave, you absolutely have no reason to revert this.--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gilisa has evidently not bothered to read what I or others have had to say. He should not have reverted while his behaviour was being reported and dealt with here . As is typical for him, he starts his paragraph with an untrue description of other people's edits. (No mention of Jewish background? What is Yiddish, then?) Feketekave (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre using dishonest tactic, and ad hominum attacks instead of dealing with the facts. Yiddish is not deirctly equal to being born to a Jewish family and I guess that it's common sense that when one live in a city that 30% of its people are Jews who speak Yiddish, he may at the least know  few words (or may if he is gifted as Zamanhof). You are letting yourself too much I must say, Implying that I'm no less than a liar -it won't work for you. Your behavior was reported as well, and if so you are not allowed to revert as well--Gilisa (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been reported as well; the fact that you answer charges with charges means nothing. The text as it stood and stands says: "[he] also spoke his mother's Yiddish natively". Not picked up from the neighbours, then. Feketekave (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feketekave, I realy don't care waht you report on. You are using other conflicts I had with other editors to make yourself "naturally right". I realy careless about your baseless accusations and I have no intention to be dragged to further fruitless discussions with you. If you want to start from the begininng than I've also no problem with that. How ever you may look on it Zamenhof was born into Jewish family, it doesn't mean that he was religious or even saw himself as Jewish (which he did) and it have strong relevance for his life and work. I realy get it hard to undersatnd what is that so bothring you with simple uninterpretated reference that he was born into Jewish family (it is a very common reference on most wikipedia articles) -if you give satisfying explenation than I will have no problem to revert it myself. Trust me on that.--Gilisa (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this discussion to be overly aggressive, I'm willing to start a disscussion. I don't think that your last edit was right but I'm willing to discuss it from the begininng, with clean hands and mind, just to give my cease fire offer validity.--Gilisa (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Dates here, are in the Julian calendar of Russia or the Gregorian calendar? --Error (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates are in the Gregorian calendar. He was born on 3 December in the Julian calendar (source: 1933-34 Enciklopedio de Esperanto). --Cam (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: Needs more in-line references, some grammar checking. Otherwise close to B-class. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class Review

message: The current version states: "His father was a teacher of German, and he also spoke that language fluently, though not as comfortably as Yiddish." (the statement is unsourced)
This is possibly dubious. The following is a discussion in the archives of a mailing list of what are apparently Yiddish enthusiasts or scholars:
http://mendele.commons.yale.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/TxtArchive/vol06/vol06081.txt
See, in particular, the second message, which implies that the situation is the exact opposite. A Yiddish speaker who had seen Zamenhof as a patient expressed surprise that Zamenhof had ever worked on a Yiddish grammar (as he indeed did, in his youth). The quotes from the patient say (note - I speak German but no Yiddish; I am however pretty confident that I am getting this right) that Zamenhof had spoken what he meant to be Yiddish to him (the patient spoke little Polish), but that he really spoke a "German" Yiddish; "not one time did he speak a really Yiddish word."
Other bibliographical details suggest some Yiddish spoken at home (by his mother), German learned in town and/or in school, and a constant contact with German literature. 
Thus, it would seem better to say simply "His father was a teacher of German, and he also spoke that language fluently." or even "His father was a teacher of German, and he also spoke that language fluently, to the extent that it may have affected his command of Yiddish as a separate linguistic variety. [source as above]".
(Note to people who have not spent too much time reading up on Central-European language issues: "Yiddish" is really one of several labels to cover a large spectrum of Germanic dialects spoken in the nineteenth century (and before, and partly after) mainly by traditional followers of the Jewish religion in Slavic countries. (Other common labels included what translates as "German" and, sadly, "jargon".) These dialects had some Slavic influences (sometimes significant) and, if I understand correctly, a few Hebrew words (with a much higher proportion in some registers). There were efforts to standardize it in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century, sometimes involving efforts to increase the distance from standard German or remove Slavic or Hebrew words (depending on the political inclination of the people involved).) Feketekave (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: With all due respect to everybody involved in identity politics in any form: it would be best if both the (uncommon) "Ethnicity" entry and the "Nationality" entry were removed. These are just too controversial, especially in this case, given the intersection of Polish, Russian, and (post)-"Jewish" categories. 
The issues are already partially dealt with in the article, in what is now approaching some level of objectivity. (As for the quotation marks above: Zamenhof does not seem to have been a supporter of the Jewish religion (proposing to replace it by something else, twice), and he stated that "the Jewish people" had long ceased to exist [].)
Once this article starts including more content, it would seem fair to have a section on his complex relation to Polish issues, just as there is now a section on his complex relation to Judaic issues. Zamenhof's Polishness (to the extent that such a thing exists) was perhaps not completely unambiguous, but the article now goes arguably too far by avoiding the issue entirely. Feketekave (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox entries 

message: There are quite a few details provided on the Zamenhof page:
:* Dr. L. L. Zamenhof, aka Ludvic Lazarus (Ludwik Lejzer, Ludwik Łazarz) Zamenhof (born , , , ; 1859, Białystok, Russian Poland - 1917, Warszawa), eye doctor, philologist, and the inventor of Esperanto
I think it would be good to incorporate them in this article as well! 188.169.229.30 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details about the name 

message: Well perhaps he did not, but he never stated that he was Russian. Don't call me a Pole doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't one. I do believe that he never acquired Polish nationality and you are right that he wasn't fully a Pole, but I will have to disagree with Russian nationality.
Oliszydlowski, talk 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:This article probably needs a nationality section, discussing this topic in detail with reliable references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually did say he was Russian:  he was, in his words, a ruslanda judo.  — kwami (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is certainly important enough to discuss in the article, but it doesn't mean it's the only applicable qualification. He was a Jew, too, for example. The currently unreferenced claim that "His parents were of Lithuanian Jewish descent" could make him a Litvak, specifically. Yet his identification as a Russian - did it mean a Russian Jew? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ruslanda judo" means 'Russian Jew', so yes, it means just that. --JorisvS (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

text: In what language is that? "Ruslanda judo" in Esperanto means "Ruslandia Jew" and "Ruslandia" was everywhere across occupied "landias" of the Russian Empire inhabited by peoples of a multitude of languages.  Poeticbent talk 19:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The English word is "Russian".  — kwami (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's "Russian land", obviously. Which would include all the territory of the Russian empire, including the non-Russian parts. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's "Russian".  English does not have separate words for rusa and ruslanda.  Both are "Russian".  If we want to make the distinction, we need to paraphrase, e.g. 'ethnic Russian' vs 'Russian citizen'. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

text: The difference is between what we define as territories occupied by an alien military force, versus their actual social fabric as well as democratic institutions in a time of peace. For example, ethnic Russians never lived en masse in Prague, Czechoslovakia, that's why we don't call Prague a Russian city. Poeticbent talk 14:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

text: In order to stop this edit war, I created a section called Nationality where all the information regarding his origin, identity, and historical context should be explained. I suggest not to address this issue in the introduction of the article, since it requires a longer explanation, and stating something like "he was a [nationality] ophthalmologist" in this section will always result in a biased edit from someone else. Thank you. this user 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for such a broad edit you need to either discuss it further or create an RfC vote/poll. This edit war is outdated and the previous version of the article was restored as you did not provide a substantial amount of references. Oliszydlowski, 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality issue

message: :
From what language was this sentence translated?  It seems to say that Z wrote the Hebrew Bible and someone else translated it to Esperanto!  More natural ways to say it in English:
: Among Zamenhof's many works is a translation into Esperanto of the Hebrew Bible.
: Zamenhof's many works include an Esperanta translation of the Hebrew Bible.
: Among many other works, Zamenhof translated the Hebrew Bible into Esperanto. (This, though, implies that he translated many other works; did he?)
—Tamfang (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew Bible is among the many works that Zamenhof translated into Esperanto. --Error (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  among his works are such diverse elements as 

message: Hi,
I see Z referenced as a Omoto deity, but no mention of this here on his page. Any info on this?
Ze Germans have it ("Die japanische Ōmoto-kyō-Religion sieht in Zamenhof einen Aspekt ihres Gottes."), but unreferenced.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omoto? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on L. L. Zamenhof. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719082100/http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/Revuoj/nlr/nlr35/cionistau.html to http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/Revuoj/nlr/nlr35/cionistau.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924060531/http://www.onb.ac.at/ev/collections/esperanto/Planned_languages_Ludwig_Lazar_Zamenhof.htm to http://www.onb.ac.at/ev/collections/esperanto/Planned_languages_Ludwig_Lazar_Zamenhof.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722014023/http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/bit/50lat/boznicze_zamenhof1.jpg to http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/bit/50lat/boznicze_zamenhof1.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220071153/http://en.lernu.net/biblioteko/pri_esperanto/zamenhof/index.php to http://en.lernu.net/biblioteko/pri_esperanto/zamenhof/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Guys, I removed "Jewish" from the lead sentence. I am in NO way married to this change. It was more done to show my class how Wikipedia works and we were having a discussion about languages and constructed languages and I noticed this. Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeated this edit per WP:MOSETHNICITY. I'll note I'm note sure Polish is correct either (given the geopolitical entities involved in the late 19th century and early 20th century) - though one could claim (as we presently do in the article) he died in the short-lived puppet state of the Kingdom of Poland (1917–1918) which predated the Second Polish Republic. However, that's a much more complex discussion. Removing Jewish, however, is rather clear per MOSETHNICITY - Zamenhof's notability does not rise from being Jewish. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Icewhiz, Russian Wikipedia considers him Polish also and it was debated among Russians. In addition, Encyclopedia Britannica confirms Polish nationality. It's also noteworthy what the chief Rabbi said at Zamenhof's funeral which clearly showed his allegiance to Poland (stated in the article). Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polish (or Russian subject?) in Congress Poland probably requires some project-wide consensus (and somewhere else than WikiProject Poland) - I'm not sure I have a very strong opinion either way (except that we should be somewhat consistent). Zamenhof specifically did speak Polish (and Yiddish) and lived in Warsaw (Białystok being much more complex in this regard) for much of his life - so it isn't that Polish is far off the mark (and furthermore some sources do support Polish). Removing Jewish from the lede is rather clear however per WP:MOSETHNICITY. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Consensus is not clear for removal of "Jewish", with support generally shaky even among those few here recently favoring it. I have been closely involved with Esperanto, even professionally, for nearly forty years, and there is certainly a consensus in the Esperanto world that Zamenhof was not Polish – at least not in the primary sense that the revision implies. I understand the rationale on the basis of WP:MOSETHNICITY, but in fact Zamenhof's being Jewish was quite relevant to his notability, as those familiar with his life and work are aware. Not being "far off the mark" doesn't justify the change, nor does the fact that "some sources do support Polish" since other sources don't. –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   - three editors are against you here. Furthermore, WP:MOSETHNICITY is a project guideline - and carries weight beyond any local consensus. Zamenhof being Jewish was not related to his profession in life or to his notability (which is tied to Esperanto - and not to anything related to Judaism). You can mention that he was Jewish in the body - but our guidelines for the lede of biographies are quite clear - and exclude religion or ethnicity in most cases (e.g. exceptions being perhaps clergymen or other such roles where religion is closely tied to the notability of the person). Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Your claiming three editors against one is somewhat stretching it, with Malerooster being overtly noncommittal and Oliszydlowski having previously accepted the "Polish-Jewish" description and having stated his agreement with it. You don't seem to be aware of such things as Zamenhof's hilelismo (later homaranismo), or his stating that he would never have created Esperanto if he hadn't been Jewish. You allow for exceptions to the guideline in cases of religious ties, and this seems to be such a case. It would be possible to simply omit "Polish"/"Polish-Jewish" entirely, along with "ophthalmologist" (hardly Zamenhof's claim to fame), and leave it "was the inventor of the international language Esperanto". It might then be desired to mention Białystok and Warsaw with the dates of birth and death as in the Esperanto version of the article, however, and then to get rid of the Old Style dates (which might be a good idea anyway). I don't think such tinkering is necessary or advisable, and my present inclination is simply to leave the paragraph the way it is. I'm sorry to have been drawn into this and hope not to have to deal with it further. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well - I was unaware of Oliszydlowski's post on your talk page (perhaps Oliszydlowski would clarify his position on whether we should state Zamenhof as Jewish in the lede). I am afraid you shall have to deal with this further - as WP:MOSETHNICITY overrides any local consensus (and we don't have a local consensus here in any event). If Zamenhof's Jewishness is relevant for Esperanto - perhaps that should be mentioned in the lede over there, however in this biographical article - we follow MOS for biographies. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I previously stated I do not personally mind placing the term "Jewish" in the lede. However, it is true that per WP:MOSETHNICITY "Jewish" is classified as a religion or religious/cultural identity and not nationality. If you do look at articles about notable American Jews, you do not find the word "Jewish" in the lead section at all. Perhaps the term "Jewish" is most suitable for religious leaders such as Rabbis, Rebbes, spiritual leaders etc. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could be granted that there is a difference between stating that Zamenhof was Jewish and stating that he was Polish-Jewish. There is a difference, and I don't think the unusual and complex nature of this case should be disregarded in deference to a general guideline. I have certainly noted more opposition to the notion that Zamenhof was Polish than to that he was Polish-Jewish, and I doubt this opposition is going to disappear. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not complex nor unusual. Millions of Jews lived in the pale of settlement (the majority self identifying as Polish Jews, and living in what was to become the Second Polish Poland in 1918) - Zamenhof is not particularly different from any other Jewish figure from the period in the region. We simply don't state the religion/ethnicity of bio subjects in the lede. E.g. look at Albert Einstein - the sole mention of being Jewish in the lede is his decision not to return to Germany in 1933 (he was visiting in the US) after Hitler came to power.  Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Polishness indeed could be contested (though that is a wider discussion - and is mostly unrelated to Jewishness - 19th century geopolitics). Zamenhof being Jewish is not (AFAICT) contested on a factual basis - it is just something we usually keep out of the lede (MOS:ETHNICITY).Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Roy McCoy here, this is an ongoing problem with MOS:Ethnicity interpreted in wrong way, ethnicity can be mentioned in the lede according to it. As Icewhiz stated above the identity was "Polish-Jews", so naming such figures solely as Polish or Russian is certainly misleading.Also, contrary to what Oliszydowski states, we do have figure on Wikipedia that are for example described as American-Jewish.Personally  I support naming him(like many other figures from this religious-ethnic group) Polish-Jewish which actually is in line with MOS:Ethnicity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  MOS is very clear - . Unless you have a clear policy based rationale to not follow "generally not" - it is out. And - let me get this straight -  - are you suggesting a policy exception here specific to Polish Jews?Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, my position was explained here .Your interpretation would be very inadequate in relation to complicated issues in history of Central and Eastern Europe in relation to numerous inhabitants and various representatives of different ethnic   groups, not only in relation to Polish Jews.Furthermore Polish-Jewish is not a ethnic or religious identity but a wider cultural one, that can be mentioned(not all Polish Jews were religious, and Polish identity isn't restricted to ethnic Polish identity)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:ETHNICITY is very clear on this; there's no reason to mention "Jewish" in the lede, and certainly not in the first sentence. Being Jewish is in no way "relevant to the subject's notability"; Zamenhoff was not notable because he was Jewish. The complicated histories of various ethnic or religious or cultural identities in Central and Eastern Europe are irrelevant to that; Zamenhof was born in Białystok, lived in Poland, and died in Warsaw. I've had to take previous obsessions with putting "Jewish" in the first sentence of articles on Poles to WP:AN/I; I wouldn't want to have to do it again, but also wouldn't hesitate to do so. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, Can the term "Jewish" be also removed from the lede section in the article Esperanto? Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no hard and fast guideline there AFAICT (though marking people by religion/ethnicity/nationality has been problematic in other contexts) - however I would argue that Zamenhof's religion and nationality (complex as it was) is not due for the lede of Esperanto - what's relevant there is Zamenhof - e.g. see General relativity -  - which doesn't go into Einstein's nationality or religion. Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text:  I see no reason for the lede of Esperanto to mention that Zamenhoff was Jewish; it's a very odd insertion. If people want to know that detail they can certainly click on the link to his article, which makes it very clear that he had Jewish parents, spoke Yiddish, etc. Jayjg (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I contest that the "insertion" is "very odd". Indeed, the deletion is more dubious, but I couldn't contest the guideline (though believing that a possible exception was in order) and didn't want to get into an edit war. If the other people who are (or should be) watching this article are willing to leave Zamenhof oddly described as "Polish", so be it. I find it questionable, however, that Jayjg apparently can't even spell Zamenhof's name and yet insists on determining how he should be designated. I'm still tempted to delete "Polish"/"Polish-Jewish" in the lede altogether and have it simply say that he was the creator of Esperanto, and I may do this at some point. –Roy McCoy (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I find "dubious" is objecting to an application of policy based on an alternate spelling/common typo; a cursory Google search will show that it is spelled both ways, and indeed, I also spelled it both ways in my comments, though I'm happy to stick to "Zamenhof" from now on, as it is more correct. More to the point, though, is that it's entirely irrelevant to policy. Regarding whether or not it this article should say "Polish", MOS:OPENPARABIO is also clear; please review item 3 from the list there. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity in lead 

message: Are the Old Style dates in this article really necessary? Do they actually serve any practical purpose? If so, why here rather than in the multitude of other Wikipedia articles in which they don't appear? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Style dates 

message: Would this be acceptable to everyone? >>> "Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof (; ; ) was an ophthalmologist born in Belostok in the Russian Empire (now Białystok in Poland). He is best known as the creator of Esperanto, the most widely used constructed international auxiliary language." Khiikiat (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be in brackets because it won't be visible in Google infobox when searching it in the Google engine. Also, if we mention birthplace, deathplace would also have to be mentioned in the lead. And that would be unencyclopedic. Birthplace does not dictate nationality or one's scope of work and residency (eg. Rudyard Kipling was born in India and spent early years there). Oliszydlowski (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think that that is a very suitable solution. Warsaw would not be necessary here, although it would be possible not to mention the birthplace but that he lived in Warsaw (most of his life). But I am happy with your proposal. Ziko (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think this is better: "Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof (; ; ) was an ophthalmologist who lived for most of his life in Warsaw. He is best known as the creator of Esperanto, the most widely used constructed international auxiliary language." Khiikiat (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but I still suggest to do an RfC so other users may express their opinion. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I find it a good proposal, Khiikiat. Ziko (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First two sentences 

message: Editors have been arguing about L. L. Zamenhof's nationality/ethnicity/citizenship for many years. Should we do the following?
*Change the first paragraph of the article to this: "L. L. Zamenhof (15 December 185914 April 1917) was an ophthalmologist who lived for most of his life in Warsaw. He is best known as the creator of Esperanto, the most widely used constructed international auxiliary language."
*Remove the nationality parameter from the infobox.
*Create a new section entitled Nationality (before the Name section), where different points of view regarding Zamenhof's nationality/ethnicity/citizenship can be set out with appropriate references.
A similar approach has been taken in relation to Nicolaus Copernicus and Al-Farabi. Khiikiat (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I think most of these ideas would probably solve the issue of nationality, but I would put the Nationality section after the Name section (or even make it a sub-section of Name), since it's not that important (and also ironic, given that his main goal was to overcome such petty quarrels). TucanHolmes (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment Is it not better to put both Russian and Polish in the nationality section of the infobox? (Didn't he hold both nationalities at different points in his life?) As for the rest, I concur with Khiikiat that a nationality section after "Name" would be best. As its a complex question, perhaps only his place of birth should be mentioned in the lead, something like "born in Białystok in present day Poland." Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - There is no evidence he held Russian "nationality", only citizenship of the multicultural Russian Empire. Not everybody in the Empire was "Russian", particularly not people residing in Congress Poland or the Grand Duchy of Finland unless otherwise specified. I'd personally prefer the terms "Polish-Jewish" or "Jewish-Polish", however, there is an issue with religious-based ethnicity per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationality as "held" is citizenship, though I see through looking at the template that wikipedia considers there to be a difference. In this case the obvious thing to do is remove the nationality category and replace it with a citizenship category, to quote the template guide "Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality. Rarely needed. See usage notes for |nationality=, above. Should only be used if citizenship differs from the value in |nationality= and cannot be inferred from the birthplace." This is surely what we are after here, no? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I don't think the RfC template was posted in here in the first place. Other users would be notified and join the discussion if it was. That's why there aren't as many opinions/votes as of now. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The template was posted. There was just very little interest. Khiikiat (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it posted here? I think it usually should be on the talk page too. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: A new approach to L. L. Zamenhof's nationality/ethnicity/citizenship 

message: @Khiikiat - Could you explain all these reverts?
 Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: GizzyCatBella and 118.209.243.187 are performing ethnic vandalism against the results of consensus in the RfC close above. --188.112.18.2 (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring reverts of the sourced material without indicating reasons 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion