Talk:List of Czech and Slovak Jews/Archive 1

message: Adolf Loos, Rudolf Weigl, Otto Wichterle and Joseph Schumpeter are almost certainly not Jewish. Udzu
: Ditto Carl Cori, Karl Renner, Ralph Benatzky . Udzu
:: And Rainer Maria Rilke . Udzu
::: Probably not Oskar Kokoschka or Paul Leppin either. Udzu
----
*Really not Jewish?
*Adolf Loos
*Rudolf Weigl
*Carl Cori
*Karl Renner
*Ralph Benatzky
--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 14:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Heinrich Landesmann was neither Czech, nor is there any ready information saying he's Jewish. Provide a source. 72.144.103.52 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikulov is large Jewish community and source of article is Jewish Encyclopedia, and please read article. And besides, Who are you?? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

message: The fact is, I met Milan Novy at a Passover seder in Prague. I know that doesn't count as a source for our purposes, so if you want to make an issue out of it, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you from deleting his name. -- Mwalcoff 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novy 

message: Odd that Eduard Hanslick "disappeared" during the split into Czech and Czech-born Austrian Jews. Whatever is decided about this split, can we ensure that he doesn't disappear again.--20.138.246.89 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eduard Hanslick 

message: (unprecendented. What's next? List of German-speaking South Africans?
So the anon editor agrees that it is silly to classify Jews by what language they speak as opposed to where they were born or live.  I'm glad that we're all in agreement now.--Newport 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An amazing turn-round 

message: Wikipedia editors may not come up with their own definitions of anything, including Czech Jews. You may only report what reputable sources say. Also, we have no more notes on who is Jewish under what definition. We just put in the people who have been reported as "Jewish" themselves in good sources, regardless what standard that source used, and regardless what the background of that person's mother or father was/is. Mad Jack 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we do what the anon editor has done on the list of Ukrainian Jews?  He says "This is a list of Jews who were born in or spent a significant amount of their professional life in the Ukraine."  If it's good enough for him on that list, why not here?--Brownlee 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha. Strangely enough, since I have edited that page before, I honestly didn't make that edit. Besides, it's kinda WP:POINTish. For one thing I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is much harder to find sources calling people "Ukrainian" insteead of "Russian" because Ukrainian is a very new sort of designation. Unlike Czech, the West was somewhat ignorant of the status of a Ukrainian ethnos under Soviet rule, so we're going to be very "hard-pressed" to find a lot of sources calling people "Ukrainian Jews" pre-1950ish. Nonetheless, they exist. If you want, that would be a good list to source up since its manageable. 72.144.183.169 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Ok, I am here now so we can fix this thing for good :) (JUST KIDDING IF YOU CAN'T TELL). I was asked to chime in so here goes...like alot of lists/categories/ect, we/you/I/them should only add people IF it can be SOURCED that the person in question is "xxx". This isn't about opinion or original research or deciding on our own "definition" of what counts for inclusion. Show/referrence that Jow Blow has been repeatidly "called" Czech and that his Jewishness has been established beyond ANY doubt by OTHER reliable sources. Then discuss it on the talk page and provide referrences ect. These lists and categories have been VERY problematic and VERY difficult to please everybody. My editing tries to remove agendas and be as NPOV as possible. If it ain't sourced up the zing yang, REMOVE it. I am equal opportunity editor and have tried to work on as many lists and categories as possible and haven't made the slightlest dent in here. From my previous dealings with MadJack, I have found him to be a voice of reason and VERY neutral, so I respect his imput. Again, my bigest point is, provide SOURCES that back up edits rather than feelings or original research, ect. Wiki should be, imho, an orginized gathering of ALREADY established indisputeable FACTS. Is this easy?? Lets see, 3 billion editors compiling ALL the know information to man??? I'd say not. Cheers! --Tom 15:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. You know technically Czech lands were once inhabited by Celtic tribes. According to Qertis, they're "Czech" too. 72.144.183.250 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi John, I guess you missed my point or I wasn't clear. It doesn't matter what people agree on. It's not our business to come up with a definition. Whatever the list is, you have to have OTHER sources that call that person whatever the list is called. period. That is why there shouldn't be ANY definition. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like an odd way of going about things.  I'm trying to explain why we shouldn't even be looking for sources that call Mahler a "Czech Jew."  I'm sure we could find a few.  But it doesn't matter, because it's based on a misconception about what "Czech" means.  I'd rather win an argument on the merits than through this silly technical mumbojumbo. john k 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty silly. "But it doesn't matter, because it's based on a misconception about what "Czech" means" is your opinion. We can't contradict a reputable source because a Wikipedia editor does not agree with it ! Mad Jack 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There won't be any reputable sources that say Mahler is a "Czech Jew" because any source that says that would like be Czech nationalist nonsense (or some sort of vile anti-semitic anti-Czech nonsense, possibly).  My point is that any reputable source will have an understanding of the adjective "Czech" which would cause them not to apply it to Mahler.  As such, we can remove Mahler without having to go through a fruitless search for "reliable sources" that call him a Czech Jew - there won't be any such sources, because he wasn't a Czech Jew, because the term "Czech" is not used to refer to non-Czech-speaking inhabitants of Bohemia during the Habsburg period.  Your argument about reliable sources is essentially an argument in favor of ignorance.  What you are actually saying is "I know absolutely nothing about this topic."  john k 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am actually saying that (and that is indeed the case). But maybe my self-admitted ignorance is for the better, because I'm unable to make judgments on who is or is not Czech. But yes, if there are no sources that call Mahler a Czech Jew, which is what you seem to be saying, then what's there to talk about? If there are no sources then he's not, for Wikipedia purposes, a Czech Jew. Mad Jack 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One might be able to find a source of some sort saying that he was.  Nationalist crazies are all over the internet saying nationalist nonsense.  The official website of Mahler's hometown seems to claim him as Czech, for instance (not even explicitly mentioning that he was Jewish, natch, and not particularly explaining why this supposedly "Czech" family has a German surname).  Presumably, on your standards, this would be sufficient evidence to call him Czech?  My point is to explain why he is generally not considered Czech, despite coming from what is now the Czech Republic.  Since this is a confusing issue about which people are bound to be confused, it's worth discussing at some length, and should probably be mentioned in the article. john k 01:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But your comments provide no actual guidance.  It's all just a big tautology. john k 13:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I don't even know what we're talking about right now. There seems to be little dispute here, except for two names that keep getting reverted back and forth, and apparently, over which all these paragraphs of words and words and words have been typed here, neatly replacing all the archived content. It seems we do not have sources that actually say either of the two people were "Czech", so I guess that case is closed. What could be simpler? Mad Jack 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Everybody settle down!

message: After I archived that long discussion, it's fairly irritating that it has come back! Anyway, as for the definition, we can not have a definition written by Wikipedia users on any article or list. If we want to include a definition beyond "This is a list of Czech Jews", we need to source that definition to reliable source i.e. look up the definition of "Czech Jew" somewhere and paraphrase it here. We certainly can't decide on our own definition. (And even when/if we have a definition, we can't go around picking out names that we think fit it, only names source have said fit it Mad Jack 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, here's a good idea. Why not have "List of Eastern European Jews" in place of all the Ukrainian/Czech/Russian ones? Kills off this problem. And why are people still discussing who is or is not Czech above? Who cares? If we have a source that they're Czech, they're Czech. If we don't, then I guess they are not until we do. Mad Jack 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The List of Eastern European Jews isn't a terrible idea but it won't be a popular one. Not to mention it does kinda throw them all in the same box, which isn't really fair. 72.144.183.250 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, among other things, a 19th century Jew from Prague is more like a 19th century Jew from Frankfurt or Vienna than they are like one from Kiev.  Prague was pretty clearly part of "Central Europe" in the 19th century, and not part of "Eastern Europe."  Prague is actually considerably to the west of Vienna!  In terms of who is or is not "Czech," the point is how to define the word "Czech."  Qertis can provide plenty of evidence that someone was born in Prague, or Pilsen, or whatever, and he can also prove that these areas are part of the Czech Republic.  But ha can't prove that anyone born there is "Czech" - he is applying a (imo flawed) definition of "Czech" to do so.  Unless applying definitions of words is somehow OR now, we have to argue about the definition. john k 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, applying the definitions of words is def. OR, and you may not do so - especially when the definition is disputed. This is why we can not list anyone here who has not been described as A. Czech and B. Jewish. Neither you nor me nor anyone else here has the right to decide who is Czech or Jewish based on their intrepretation of whatever definition. Only reliable sources can tell us, specifically on the person. Mad Jack 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it's disputed, sure, but if you take this too far you can't ever put anything into your own words. Beyond this, though, I think a basic issue is that Qertis is Czech, and that a lot of these people are going to be described as "Czech" in Czech, but not in English, where we use the distinct word "Bohemian." john k 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, a "Bohemian" is not synonymous with a "Czech." The whole issue here is how people identify. If we go up to Milos Forman and ask him what he is, he'd probably say "Czech." You go up to Mahler and Werfel and ask the same question "Czech" isn't going to come out their mouths. That's why we rely on a source telling us who identifies as a "Czech Jew" and who doesn't. 72.144.183.250 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, every single sturdy source on Mahler and Werfel that is found calls him an Austrian. 72.153.53.100 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Several people seem to me to be saying that they know exactly what a Czech Jew is, and that it is (apparently) something more or less than a Jew from the Czech lands, it is a Jew that has a certain… Czechness. The odd thing is that these are the people who are accusing others of imprecision. 
There is never going to be an absolutely clear criterion for a list like this. This is much like other lists in this respect, even something as seemingly self-evident as a list of Kings of France (does Louis XVII count? He never reigned. How about Napoleon I and Napoleon III? They were monarchs, but had the title of "Emperor" rather than "King") or a list of present-day countries in Europe (where does Europe end? Do Russia and Turkey belong on the list? The UK? Iceland?) The only solution I can think of in such cases other than endless edit wars (which I decline to consider a solution) is:
# a paragraph at the front of the article describing what the list is, plus 
# notes on the borderline cases, mentioning them with appropriate qualifications rather than either 
## including them without explanation until the next editor who was not involved in the discussion comes along and removes them again or 
## omitting them until the next editor who was not involved in the discussion comes along and adds them again.
This is what I tried to do earlier today. Apparently several people object, apparently on of the following grounds (I really cannot tell which from the above discussion, because the ground keeps shifting):
# That they can somehow detect a Czech Jew and that anyone who does not pass their smell test is not one. In my view, this sort of mysticism is bad epistemology.
# That there is a clearcut line as to what is a reliable source, and that one must find the phrase "Czech Jew" verbatim in that source. For example, being "a Jew born in Prague in 1955 who has never traveled outside of the city" would not be enough to qualify one as a "Czech Jew" unless that exact phrase can be cited; this strikes me as  much like saying that Wikipedia cannot say that of a town that citably has 15,000 Jews in a population of 100,000 "15% of its inhabitants are Jews" because "the source didn't say anything about percentages". In my view, this sort of excessive literalism is equally bad epistemology.
# That they really do have a definition, and one that could be rationally communicated in words. But rather than replace my definition with theirs in the article, they just chose to remove mine because…? Maybe they like to avoid clarifying the scope of a list because they think fighting over it is more fun. Maybe they are afraid that if they tried to put their definition in words they might find it is incoherent and they'd have to concede the point. Or maybe there is an entirely innocent explanation that completely escapes me at the moment. Please folks, if you have a definition of "Czech Jew" that could be rationally communicated in words and differs from mine, explain it clearly, either by a coherent alternative to (rather than mere deletion of) my proposed first paragraph or by an explanation here on the talk page. But repeatedly removing, without comprehensible explanation, material for which other editors can clearly make at least a prima facie case is really not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is all this discussion about? Some people are under the very incorrect impression that Wikipedia is some kind of debate forum. You can only reach "consensus" on stuff like AFD, administrators, etc. - things that do not involve reliable sources. You certainly may not "consense" on a definition of a Czech Jew and then run around adding people who you think fit that definition. IF you wish to have a definition of a "Czech Jew", you must report it from a good source. If you wish to include people on a list of Czech Jews, you must cite sources that call those people Czech Jews, or Czech and Jewish - you get the point. Articles don't run on discussion. They run on sources. Mad Jack 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, what if a source says the person was born and lived in Prague their entire life?  Does that make them Czech?  Surely in comparable instances (someone who lived in Paris their entire life) we would not quibble to call them a "French Jew," would we?  Your criterion is pointless and doesn't make any sense.  The whole issue hinges not on what "reliable sources" say, but on what it means to call someone "Czech."  Any attempt to find a resolution which ignores the latter is bound to be unsatisfactory. john k 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply don't understand I think, that you can't have your own definition and then look up people and say "A ha! They fit" and add them. You can only use reliable sources and add them based on that. No source is going to dance around and say "Person was born and live, etc." without saying that that person is Czech. It's just an extreme example that has no connection to reality. Thus far, this and other lists sourced this way are fairly satisfactory. Mad Jack 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so ridiculous.  Why are you involved in this page when you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and clearly don't even slightly care what you're talking about?  My whole point has been that there are plenty of people who could be born in Prague, or Pilsen, aod Budweis, and who are not Czech.  In later times, the issue is moot, because virtually everyone in the country is Czech.  But before 1945, and certainly before 1918, this is not the case.  The point is that there are people here who are arguing that someone being born within what is now the Czech Republic is sufficient for wikipedia to call them Czech.  For most countries, we would consider this sufficient - we would say someone born in Paris is "French," even if by some chance we couldn't find a source explicitly calling them French.  My only point has been that this should not apply to the territory of the current Czech Republic, because of complex historical factors.  You can feel free to think that repeating your "find sources" nonsense solves the problem, but it doesn't, and if you're not willing to actually engage in the substance, what the hell is the point of you being here? john k 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But not everyone will accept sources.  We have sources saying Mahler and Werfel are Czech-born and one editor is still saying that Czech-born doesn't mean Czech.  What do we do with that editor?--Newport 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually they should pay attention to what that user has to say. I've spent paragraphs and paragraphs detailing the difference between someone who is "Czech-born" and "Czech." "Czech" is not like "American." The Czechs are a distinct people, not a conglomeration under one nationalistic identity. I don't know how anyone can think that a person can change linguistic, ethnic, and cultural identity by simply being born in a certain territory. Besides, we finally have an explicit reference that says Mahler was not Czech: http://www.sfquiz.org.uk/wrong03.htm. 72.153.53.100 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: John, I for one don't have any problem with either of the approaches you suggest, and I think List of Czech and Bohemian Jews makes the most sense. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, that's me too. There's no problem with any title - as long as the content reflects the title (in fact, a page's title is something we can discuss/draw consensus on). "List of Czech and Bohemian Jews" sounds reasonable, but of course, the names should be sourced to sources that say they are Czech or Bohemian if those are disputed. Mad Jack 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What might be necessary is a List of Jews from Czechoslovakia rather. Most Bohemian Jews are already on other lists. A Post-1918 list would be contain nearly all of these names who were Czech and Jewish. In fact, I looked through the list and found that only Ignaz Moscheles and Franz Kafka be lost. I may have overlooked one. But it can't just be Bohemians because tons of Czechs are born in Moravia too. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the way the list is, but if a necessary move should be instated then it should be one that includes all people who are by sources "Czech" and not "Austrian" or "Hungarian" or "Polish." 72.144.158.14 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epistemology 

message: There is an authoritative definition of Czech; let's just stick to that.  It is "A native or inhabitant of Bohemia, the Czech Republic or (Hist.) Czechoslovakia" (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993). Nothing about what languages they could speak. This means that anyone who is or was a native or inhabitant of Bohemia or (1918-92) Czechoslovakia should be regarded as Czech. Of course, this makes a list of Czech and Bohemian Jews a tautology, and one of Bohemian Jews or jews from Czechoslovakia a nonsense. Can we agree?--Brownlee 13:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster says "a native or inhabitant of western Czechoslovakia including Bohemia and Moravia" so we need to include Moravia too. .--20.138.246.89 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, German-speaking inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia were not considered Czechs.  This is a definition which only works now that all the Germans have been kicked out, i.e. after 1945.  The definition is accurate for living people, but not for earlier times.  Note that the Merriam-Webster definition specifically notes Czechoslovakia.  Gustav Mahler was not an inhabitant of Czechoslovakia.  This definition is not designed for the nuances of historical usage.  Look, if you will, at the discussion in 1911 Britannica.  Clearly for them "Czech" refers only to the native Slavic peoples of Bohemia and Moravia (and also the Slovaks, whom they consider to be actually Czechs!), and not to the German inhabitants of the same.  For people who lived around the time the 1911 Britannica was written, it is not appropriate to refer to them as Czechs if they would not have considered themselves to be Czechs. Is it correct to refer to the Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor before 1923 as "Turks"? john k 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O boy another history lecture. Mad Jack 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't interested in the history of this, why on earth are you involving yourself in a discussion which revolves around an issue of historical definition? john k 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I'm making is that there need be no discussion. Wikipedia users can not define who is or is not a Czech Jew. It's really that simple. Sources, not words, is what is needed. Mad Jack 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, look what dictionary.com says: .
adj : of or relating to Czechoslovakia or its people or their language; "The Czech border"; "Czechoslovak nationalists"; "The Czechoslovakian population" [syn: Czech, Czechoslovakian] n 1: a native of inhabitant of the Czech Republic [syn: Czech] 2: a native or inhabitant of the former republic of Czechoslovakia [syn: Czechoslovakian, Czechoslovak, Czech] 3: the Slavic language of the Czech people [syn: Czech] 72.153.53.100 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, "a native of inhabitant of, guess what, the Czech Republic". 72.153.53.100 21:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative definition 

message: This alleged reference that Mahler was German (not Austrian, German!) in fact refers to the protagonist of "Death in Venice"!  Further, it says nothing about Werfel.--Brownlee 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to quote it for you? "Gustav Mahler was Austrian not Czech. He was born in Bohemia, the son of an Austrian Jew. All references works give his nationality as Austrian."  I'm not sure what you're reading. You're right, it does not say anything about Werfel, but we already know 100% he's Austrian. We have an infinite amount of such sources.   Are you saying they're all wrong and, in fact, Werfel was a Czech? 72.153.53.100 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest reversion 

message: Enormous thanks to Eugene van der Pijll for cleaning up the results of several cut-and-paste moves and getting the article and its history back together. I don't necessarily agree with List of Czech Jews as a title, versus the broader List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews, but at least now the edit history can be tracked, the talk page has the same name as the article, and there are no double redirects. Please, please, please, non-admins: don't try to move this one. If there is a consensus to move it, use Wikipedia:Requested moves, because with all of the redirects having histories of their own, you need administrative permissions to move it properly. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. The current title is just where the edit history ended up after I repaired the copy&paste move; I don't understand the issues well enough to choose an appropriate title, so I left it at that location. The other titles are now redirects without edit history, so anyone should be able to move the page. But it may be better to decide on the best title first. -- Eugène van der Pijll Eugène van der Pijll 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks