Jump to content

Talk:Franz Kafka/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Problem with citation

Ref. 151 Harv error: link to #CITEREFEuropean_Graduate_School_Articles2012 doesn't point to any citation. Graham Colm (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the missing comma. Thank you for keeping an eye on the article. - I returned the latest long addition to the sandbox of the new user, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I starred at that for minutes and could not spot the bloody problem :-(, and moving the addition to the new user's sandbox was a very generous thing to do. Graham Colm (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Kafka and anarchists.

"He later stated, regarding the Czech anarchists: 'They all sought thanklessly to realize human happiness. I understood them. But ... I was unable to continue marching alongside them for long'"

This sentence is quoted by a french book, "Janouch, Gustav (1998) (in French). Conversations avec Kafka. Paris: Maurice Nadeau. ISBN 978-2-86231-111-1", so I reckon it's a translation. I have got another version of these conversations and I can not find any trace of this passage. I can't find anything searching in Google either. It seems there is something here and here. I can't explain it. I found this german source, but there is no trace about it.--EntroDipintaGabbia (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree if it's sourced to a French book, it's not a direct quote and if you can't find it, then it fails verification. Someone will have to remove the source and tag the section. Thanks for noticing and posting. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph in "Critical Interpretations" seems to be off.

It almost looks like some transitional text is missing. I would suggest that the part that I bolded should be deleted. I will wait until Monday to make sure there are no protests before doing so.

Attempts have been made to identify the influence of Kafka's legal background and the role of law in his fiction.[182][183] Most interpretations identify aspects of law and legality as important in his work,[184] in which the legal system is often oppressive.[185] The law in Kafka's works, rather than being representative of any particular legal or political entity, is usually interpreted to represent a collection of anonymous, incomprehensible forces. These are hidden from the individual but control the lives of the people, who are innocent victims of systems beyond their control.[184] It is sometimes used colloquially to mean "bug" —a very general term, unlike the scientific "insect". Kafka had no intention of labeling Gregor, the protagonist of the story, as any specific thing, but instead wanted to convey Gregor's disgust at his transformation.[128][129] Another example is Kafka's use of the German noun Verkehr in the final sentence of "Das Urteil". Literally, Verkehr means intercourse and, as in English, can have either a sexual or non-sexual meaning; in addition, it is used to mean transport or traffic. The sentence can be translated as: "At that moment an unending stream of traffic crossed over the bridge".[186] The double meaning of Verkehr is given added weight by Kafka's confession to Brod that when he wrote that final line, he was thinking of "a violent ejaculation".[126][187] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.11 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cited information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there was some careless editing a few days which hid some text. I fixed it. ColinClark (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Schizoid

I find the characterization "schizoid" offensive, pompous, dehumanizing, void of informational content, an excellent way of arguing that Kakfa is not worth the encounter and is better left to the psychiatric professionals of yesteryear. Or have I missed some important idea intended by this hollow and sad characterization?


Eliotistic (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New translations?

Moved from article pending source and discussion: (olive (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Most recently twenty three of Kafka's shorter stories including Before The Law, as well as The Metamorphosis have been re-translated with modern interpretations on these stories by Michael Major in his book "Kafka for our time - Journeys of discovery".

Kierkegaard ref

The reference which verifies Kierkegaard's influence on Kafka presently cites Influence and reception of Søren Kierkegaard #Kierkegaard and literature and that's really not acceptable as a reliable source. I tried to follow where the cited article sourced its information from but it points to "McGee 2006", which is not defined in the bibliography, nor was it in earlier version of that article. Checking the Søren Kierkegaard article, I eventually found:

from a 2010 version of that article. I'm not perfectly happy with it as a source as I don't know anything about that website, but perhaps others here might. I'm going to replace the wikipedia article cite with one to McGee 2006, but it might be worth others who know the sources well checking McGee's sources to see if one of those would be more clearly WP:RS. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship

Citizenship is a very varied and ambiguous term, and is not the same as saying "he lived here, people called him Czech". Kafka's "citizenship" is rather misleading and is quite likely completely unsourceable. Something of that nature should not appear in the infobox, which is meant to be a simple summary of the article content. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And you've hit 3 reverts in about 12 hours again. Your one-woman war on infoboxes and their content really needs to stop. As for this entry, he was a citizen of those places so please stop making flimsy extrapolations. This entry has been here for a long time and you and your infobox ware are being disruptive to stable articles and the community. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's confusing and should be nailed down and maybe even explained a bit more in the article. Gray (2005), [1], says he was a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian empire so prob best to use that as a source - but with Kafka, WWI, etc., it's pretty difficult to "box" that information. Gray, btw, looks like a fantastic source, I'm curious why it wasn't leaned on more here? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems so simple that he was born into the monarchy but died in the republic, - better to have that in the box than nothing, and the next IP changing him to "Czech writer", we had that already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Well now I'm confused: if a Czech citizen why isn't he a Czech writer? I think these should be left out - it's not really that simple to the average reader who doesn't know the history (monarchy became republic after a war) and isn't familiar w/ names of countries that no longer exist. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
TK-that's why we have summaries and details. I agree that the turbulent times make it a tad more complicated but the fact remains he was a citizen of those places so the entry is valid. Infoboxes exist for a summary; the body is for details. We can talk about the entries but for Nikki to run around all over wiki wantonly removing this stuff and edit warring repeatedly (she was recently blocked for it) is the total wrong approach. PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And TK, what this about? Nikki started this brouhaha, if anything it should be left in its long term stable form.PumpkinSky talk 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your charming personal comments, PSky, but could we stick to discussing the actual issue at hand here rather than getting into a kettle argument? This entry is more likely to be confusing or misleading to readers rather than enlightening, and per the tenets of MOS:INFOBOX it's best to keep infoboxes short and simple, but not overly reductive. As TK points out, it's better to omit this entry and explain it in the article (which at the moment really isn't happening at all, making the current entry iffy as far as sourcing). This was part of a much-needed effort to improve this infobox - if Gerda insists on citing it as a model, it should at least be a good model. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't remove my comments again. Just who do you think you are Nikki? PumpkinSky talk 13:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm someone who must have had an edit conflict, so sorry. Why are you being so hostile? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
EC? You don't see the big notice that screams out from the screen?PumpkinSky talk 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I did it because Gerda said he wasn't a Czech writer. If we can't agree on that, then no, I don't think those fields should be in the infobox, regardless of who brings it up or your opinion of that editor. It's a valid point: the source I linked above says he was a Austro-Hungarian citizen, the article says the same, but that he's of Czech ancestry. My view is that when things are this murky, it's worth discussing. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Gerda probably said that because he wrote in German. The entry is about citizenship, not language written in. PumpkinSky talk 13:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And how are you defining "citizenship"? Keep in mind that your answer needs to be sourceable and generally understood; it's not necessarily the same thing as "nationality" or "place of residence". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is uncool. Edit conflicts cause comments to be eaten - we all know that. As for your response - it makes even less sense and honestly something I've always wondered about: was he German or Czech? Gerda said he can't be a Czech writer (ie writer from the Czech republic), but he would have had to be if a citizen of that republic, no? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What's uncool is that highly experienced users can't see the notice that glares out on the screen, plus who edit war repeatedly over the same issuePumpkinSky talk 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've never seen this particular question raised but it's something I've wondered about. I've brought a source saying he was a citizen of Austro-Hungaria, now we need a source saying he was a Czech citizen, add it to the text, and it's all good. Btw - despite the ec notice, some comments are just eaten. It happens. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if it can be sourced and explained and discussed in the article, that's fine. At the moment there's nothing more than the infobox, and that just isn't good enough for the reader to understand what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure that it is any more complicated than for many people who lived through the First World War. Kafka was clearly born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in 1918 became a citizen of Czechoslovakia when it became independent of the Empire. I'm not sure we need sources to establish that Czech independence happened in 1918, but they wouldn't be difficult to find. Sayer's "Czech Republic history" should probably suffice to explain the general position. Put simply, I think we'd need a source that said something different if we were to doubt that Kafka's citizenship proceeded along those lines. For those of you who follow these things, Wikidata has an entry for Franz Kafka (http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q905) and two entries under 'country of citizenship' (defined as "the object is a country that recognizes the subject as its citizen"); those are Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And regarding this edit - where does wikidata get its information and how is it sourced? Or are they the god of data and hence it must be true? This btw is the reason that academics really dislike WP and it's a very very valid point brought forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It's likely pulled from here. Rex, you might not be aware of this, but there's currently an RfC to determine whether we should use Wikidata parameters in infoboxes - we probably shouldn't be doing that until that closes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I am aware and I have already been part of the debate for some time. Until somebody bans the use of Wikidata, I'm going to carry on boldly editing using the information there (and I'll respect those who revert and discuss, of course). Nevertheless the information on Wikidata is sourced from all of the Wikimedia projects and is edited in exactly the same way. If the knowledge that is there remains in place, then we must assume it has consensus broader that just one language Wikipedia. In that sense, yes it carries more weight than the local consensus on English Wikipedia - how's that for a novel, new situation? --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
--RexxS (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that kind of "silent consensus" is legitimate, but that's a conversation for another page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure either. A random sampling shows that the German WP doesn't even have an infobox nor does it mention citizenship. There's really no way of knowing where the data came from or whether it's cited to a source. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you need to become sure so that we all understand how each of us are going to be editing. Here's the flowchart from Wikipedia:Consensus - you can see what emerges from "Wait .. Was the article edited further? ... No": it's a "new consensus" and all the wikis work like that. If material is unchallenged, then it enjoys consensus. That's what WP:CON says clearly and it's the cornerstone of editing on a wiki. It's how we built Wikipedia in the first place: bold edits; if they stay, they have consensus unless and until they are challenged. That's what your "silent consensus" is and it's the legitimate way of working on wikis; none of this 'ownership' or 'deferring to the experts' or 'you can't edit unless you discuss first' bull. Now that I've got my rant out of the way, I ought to mention that Wikidata is ... a wiki! So there really is a "way of knowing where the data came from" if you can read a page history: http://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q905&action=history - does that answer your question? As for sources, there's space for them in Wikidata; it's just up to somebody to fill in those spaces. You or I could do that. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. Within a wiki, I think that flowchart makes sense. However, when you start mirroring content from other wikis, that becomes more of a problematic concept. No one added it locally to begin with, it may not be clear how to change it (an issue raised in several discussions about the topic), and a different project may have different policies/standards/principles. To give you an analogy, if an image used in a Wikipedia article is deleted on Commons, that doesn't mean there was consensus on Wikipedia for that image to be deleted - clearly we were actively using it, but it was changed (removed) off-project without attention paid (in this theoretical example) to our silent consensus to use the image. Does that make sense? (And the information in question here is not AFAICT sourced anywhere on en.wiki or Wikidata, so we shouldn't be using it until it is. RS/V is our standard, after all). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry RexxS, that's the sort of flowchart that makes my head spin, I'm better with words. Anyway, the issue is this: do we have a source saying Franz Kafka was a citizen of the Czech Republic? I checked the article and outside of the infobox can't find that assertion anywhere so it's also not cited by an RS. I checked the sources I have on Kafka (some I sent to PS) and so far am not finding anything definitive. I've checked a few online sources and haven't found anything definitive. I will continue to search - I think this is an important point and one that needs to be cleared up because if someone like myself who knows the subject fairly well is confused then the lay reader will be even more confused. If and when I find sources (or not), I'll report back. In the meantime please feel free to update the Austro-Hungarian claim on Wikidata with the source I posted above. My time to edit is very limited these days and I haven't time to add sources at yet another wiki. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
That's ok, TK, I share your enthusiasm for sources, but I don't think anybody will ever find a source that says Kafka was a citizen of the Czech Republic; he died in 1924 and the Czech Republic didn't come into existence until 1993. On the other hand, if Kafka wasn't a citizen of Czechoslovakia between 1918 an his death, then where was he a citizen of? I'm pretty sure I can find sources that say he was born and lived for most of his life in Prague or within about 40 miles of it. If he wasn't a citizen of Czechoslovakia post 1918 then I'd want to see some good sources for the extraordinary claim. The Czechs themselves seem pretty sure of it (http://www.czechtourism.com/n/kafka-year/). --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, I was using Gerda's terminology above re republic and was too lazy to write out the name (well to be honest it's not one I can spell). We do have sources saying he lived in Prague, but we have an infobox making a claim that we don't cite anywhere – and we should. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have replied to Nikki as well. If an image is deleted off Commons, it's still deleted, isn't it, even if we don't have en-wp consensus to do that? The project-wide consensus overrides our parochial views, as it should do. Anyone can edit Wikidata - if you challenge the information there, then edit it - if your edit sticks, it has consensus. Back to en-wp: I also think that WP:V applies and I'm a huge proponent of the requirements of MEDRS, which require even higher quality sources, so please don't doubt that I agree with the principle. In practice, of course, not every fact is challenged, and that's where common sense comes into play. I chuckled when your recent edit inadvertently left Kafka's description as "A young man with dark hair and eyes". I stopped myself from adding "and two ears and a nose"; it would have been unkind to a good faith edit. But there is a point: we don't source stuff that's obvious - you'll never find a source that says "Kafka had dark hair and eyes", but we can see that from any portrait. I accept that it is not as obvious, but I still don't think we need a source to tell us that somebody who lived all his life in Prague would become a citizen of Czechoslovakia after 1918. I accept you may disagree, but hopefully you can see that it might make sense to me - and perhaps to others? --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What often happens with an in-use but deleted Commons image is that it's uploaded locally and continues to be used, regardless of what Commons wants. I understand your argument re:Wikidata, but I have a fundamental problem with your assertion that it represents a "project-wide" consensus. English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata are three separate projects, each with their own principles and policies. We are all under the umbrella of WMF, but beyond that there's no such thing as a "project" higher than en-wiki. I think you'd have a very hard time convincing Wikipedians that consensuses (either silent or active) on Commons or Wikidata should "override" us. Anyways, this is a conversation for elsewhere. For Czechoslovakia, we agree that he lived there, but that's not really necessarily "citizenship" means - I think we do need a source that explicitly says that. (For the portrait, my intention was more along the lines of dark hair + dark eyes, not "he has eyes!"). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, of course, the intention with Wikidata is that the information can be overridden by local values, so we get our local consensus back. Nevertheless, I still think that the concept of a project-wide consensus is not only meaningful, but useful (most of the time), and I believe that the time will come when we think of our projects as part of a global endeavour. We're not going to deliver the sum of all human knowledge to every person on the planet if we restrict that delivery to just English. I have to say that I'd be just as happy for a fact about Kafka to be provided (and hopefully sourced) by someone working in Estonian or Mandarin or whatever instead. (I understand about the portrait - I was just teasing you, but there was a serious point beneath it.) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Late to this party, but the formal and legal definition of "citizenship" in the modern western world is not in the least an ambiguous concept, as RexxS stated, it is given by a nation. Kafka was born in the Empire, which ceased to be an empire during his live, then was Czechoslovakia, and he died before that nation split and morphed into the Czech republic. IF it is seriously neccessary to add footnotes into an infobox, that can be done, but here I think we have a WP:POPE situation, so long as the article body text outlines this somewhere (if it doesn't, best to add). As I have stated elsewhere, infoboxes are a critical for "one stop shopping" by the casual reader AND also useful for conveying some brief info for readers with expertise who are doing a "drive by" of multiple articles. The "citizenship" parameter exists in the infobox, thus it needs to be filled in as best practice where, as here, the information is readily obtainable. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this aside, I didn't jump in here on a whim or as a pile on but because it raises a real and valid concern I have that's much too long winded to explain at the moment. A small slice is recently I read something about Kafka referring to him as the German (as in nationality not the language in which he wrote) writer making me wonder b/c I thought he was Czech (forgive me for not writing it out). If citizenship is an easily verifiable fact, then needs to be clarified in the text and added to the infobox. Ideally the primary editors who brought it to FA would have access to sources and add the relevant clarifications. It's something I've done many time when asked to clarify a point about an article I've contributed to. Regardless, the citizenship must either be clearly explained and cited to reliable sources or deleted from the infobox. I'll make a trip to the library for a Kafka bio, but won't happen at least until mid-May - perhaps longer. In the meantime maybe someone else will find something. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Adding after ec: no, one stop shopping does not cut it on an FA for an author like this. I can give a long-winded reason but have had enough. There are primary contributors who should be stepping up to the plate and addressing the issue. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Montana, if you can source that he was given citizenship by Czechoslovakia, please do so. At the moment the body text does not discuss the issue at all. More broadly, the argument that any parameter for which information is obtainable should be filled is one that needs to be rejected as strongly as possible. As both MOS:INFOBOX and common sense would dictate, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose [to summarize key facts in the article], allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Maybe Wikidata would be a place for the philosophy you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Very late to the party, but this is kind of a bewildering thread. Can someone please explain what other state Kafka might have been a citizen of post-1918, if not Czechoslovakia? This seems like a matter of common sense to me, and I would agree that the burden of evidence is actually on those challenging the claim that FK had Czechoslovak citizenship. Sindinero (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Some comments

  • I've commented out a sentence that I couldn't find in the source cited, [2] so that should probably be sorted. It's not really a great source anyway for an FA, so best to find another.
  • As it happens was scanning the article looking for a mention that Prague, in the Austro-Hungarian empire when he was born, was not later in his life. I think that should be mentioned too for the lay reader (or the not-so-lay reader, because I'm not clear about this point). Victoria (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Do you mean, source the fact that the Austro-Hungarian empire ceased to exist in 1818 in every article of a person who lived in it at the time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    That does seem unreasonable. I think it can count as common knowledge that the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up at the end of WWI; this is not a particularly contentious or ambiguous fact. Sindinero (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    No, it's important for a number of reasons. 1., I don't think it is common knowledge - in fact didn't realize the separation happened in 1918 until Gerda wrote it above; 2., it's important to Kafka's identity. The Literary Encyclopedia (in the box on the left of the page) says he was born in the Czech Republic [3], unlike our article that says something else. Kafka a Guide to the Perplexed says he was born Austrian, a Jew, and ethnically Czech, [4]. These are two sources that are reliable and can be used, but the point should be clarified, and it's a simple fix. As for whether it should be added to all articles of persons living in Austro-Hungarian empire when it broke up, I'd say probably yes. Victoria (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Adding: page 14 of Kafka a Guide to the Perplexed says: "Part of Hermann Kafka's plan for social improvement was to minimize the family's Jewish and Czech affiliations and maximize its Germaness." Statements such as these are the reason, imo, this is an important point. He was brought up to identify with the German culture, though the parents were Czech, and then after 1918 he no longer lived in a "German" country. This had to have had an effect. Victoria (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. Respectfully, I do think it's common knowledge that the Hapsburg Empire broke up following WWI into a number of new nation-states: this is something one learns in middle school history class. 2. The Literary Encyclopedia is incorrect, or more likely, imprecise: Prague is now in the Czech Republic, but that state did not exist until 1993 when Czechoslovakia split up, so it's actually impossible for Kafka to have been born in the state of that name. 3. Kafka a Guide to the Perplexed is actually pointing to the complexity of the identity of German-speaking Jews in Prague in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A good deal of the confusion on this thread seems to stem from a confusion between nationality, ethnicity, and citizenship, and between nations, languages, and states. Kafka's identity as a German-speaking Jew with a partial Czech background was quite common in Central Europe, where especially larger cities were home to mixtures of Germans, Jews, and Slavs. But while identity may be a vexed issue, citizenship is not, and pertains to a state alone (rather than to linguistic, ethnic, religious, or national background). Kafka's citizenship after 1918 was unambiguously Czechoslovak (which, again, makes no comment whatsoever on his linguistic or ethnic identity). Sindinero (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Cute, but that's not policy, and when I say "with all due respect," I actually mean exactly that. And maybe I'm missing something, but do you think I'm opposed to the idea that everyone can edit or make comments? I'm sorry if you got that impression, and I'd be curious to hear more about what you mean. Sindinero (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Sorry, I can't take a source seriously that claims he was born in a Czech republic if such a thing didn't exist at the time, the same goes for "Austrian born" in today's sense, - the empire was not called Austria. I have no idea what "ethnically Czech" should mean, but he was no doubt a citizen of Czechoslovakia when he died. - I would rather recommend NOT to use such questionable sources for the purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Gerda the fact is that we follow sources on WP. That is a pillar. Whether you take it seriously or not is irrelevant - we also sometimes have to adhere to WP:NOTTRUTH as hard as it may be. Anyway, seriously leaving this discussion, but my suggestion is that it needs sorting. And also please do something about the substandard source used to verify a statement that it didn't contain. Victoria (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) In addition, Kafka a Guide to the Perplexed states on p. 12 that he was a Czech citizen after 1918 (they mean Czechoslovak, technically, for the reason I name above), which should solve this issue. And again, I see what you're saying about identifying with German culture etc., but this is why we need to tease apart identity, culture, and citizenship: the former two concepts are necessarily always ambiguous, while the latter is comparatively unambiguous. (Think, for example, of how many different cultures and identities may carry the same passport -- that's citizenship.) Sindinero (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New book out

Kafka: The Years of Insight by Reiner Stach and Shelley Frisch. Amazon says it came out June 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Importance of Jewishness

In the Hebrew language page, Kafka's jewishness is mentioned in the first sentence, but in the english language page it's not mentioned until the second paragraph. Considering the amount of discussion surrounding the point, it seems a fairly central issue, and should be moved up into the first paragraph. Put another way, though he worked as a german-language writer, his ethnic, cultural, and religious background wasn't "german-language writer" --79.181.123.153 04:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In English, it is first important that he wrote in the German language, not Czech. Language is not equal to culture. Everything said in the lead is important. Many people looked at the lead as it stands, it's a compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Kafka's atheism

I've notice that when I add the statement that Kakfa was a Jewish atheist, it has been removed twice in different areas in this article. I understand that the info box may not have been the right place to put this statement. However, (5 months ago) when I tried to put this statement under "Judaism and Zionism", it has also been rejected as well.

Here are the following sources, if your want more proof for this claim:

1.) "Through his consumption of such books Kafka rejected both capitalism and religion as a teenager - declaring himself to be a socialist and an atheist". Sander L. Gilman, Franz Kafka, page 31.

2.) "Undoubtedly, synagogue life appalled Kafka, but not because he was an atheist. It appalled him because, in his words, he was trying to “build his faith,” and the conventional forms were not adequate." June O. Leavitt, The Mystical Life of Franz Kafka: Theosophy, Cabala, and the Modern Spiritual Revival, page 8.

3.) "In time Kafka would become an atheist." Golgotha Press, The Life and Times of Franz Kafka.

4.) "Whilst Kafka had a brief interest in Kabbalah, mysticism, and Yiddish theatre, he rarely attended synagogue and considered himself an atheist." - Benjamin Lazarus, The Jewish Chronicle Online.

I can reference more sources if you wish.

I'm not saying that we should devote an entire paragraph to this point, however, I don't see any controversy in the inclusion of this statement, if his biographers support this claim. Ninmacer20 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources are good, no problem with that, but to summarize a complex matter it in a short infobox labeling seemed overly simple. It's a question how much detail we can devote to it, considering that we can't even cover his works in detail. Can you suggest a wording for the article here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is definitely out. As this is a featured article, new additions have to be carefully considered so as to not subject the article to a review and loss of that status. The question is, perhaps, how much (and where) to discuss his religious views, particularly as they were in flux during his life, and thus difficult to pin down without "devoting an entire paragraph" that explores the nuance. My suggestion in cases such as these is to propose your additions (noting sources) in a subsection here at talk, and let everyone involved determine first if they are within the range of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, then hammer out the details. With Kafka, it is as important not to oversimplify a complex issue as it is to avoid overdoing something to the point that there is undue weight given to it. So think over how you reconcile sources above saying both that he was and was not an atheist and propose the sentence or two you'd like to see added. Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we can include Kafka's religious views under the subsection, "Judaism and Zionism" (or we could rename the title as well). In regards to reconciling sources, would you like me to say that Kafka was a "reluctant atheist"? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "reconcile sources above saying both that he was and was not an atheist"? I haven't found anything that states that he was a religious person in later life. I understand, however, that Kafka was longing for spirituality. Would you like me to say, "While Kafka considered himself to be an atheist, he had an interest in religion and spirituality." After that, specify the religious symbolism in his novels? Or, would you like me to wait for other wikipedians for their response? Ninmacer20 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait for others; I don't have the access to the material. I'm just someone trying to help resolve a dispute. What you have listed so far concerns me for the following reasons. 1. Your statements may be WP:SYNTH, it seems you are taking random snippets to reach a conclusion that may or may not be the consensus of outside scholarship. 2. You aren't providing full citation of all of your sources, though if they are already cited in the article, let us know that. 3. Your sources #2 and #3 seem to contradict each other, or at least suggest he was more agnostic than atheist. 4. There is no doubt enough scholarship on Kafka that the definitive mainstream assessment of his spirituality exists: what is it and who says it? Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment - either somewhere up-page or in a discussion with PumpkinSky I mentioned these sources and that this material needs to be added for the article to be comprehensive - in particular the material from the Leavitt book is repeated in much of the Kafka literature. It's very well documented, the sources are good, and yes, somehow needs to be added. I wouldn't worry about undue, npov or synth: simply follow the sources. As is the article needs some work anyway, (I can't because the page won't load for me), so anything at this point is a boon. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you word the section here, without loading the page. I could copy it then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm going out on break and would need to read the sources - some of which I no longer have access to. Ninmacer20 seems to have a grasp and access so no reason not to let them add imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much of a consensus until I receive Montanabw's approval. On Montanbw's first point, the sources do says that Kafka was an atheist. If the sources were to say, "Kafka were to pass as an atheist", I can understand your point. On your second point, here are the full citations to the sources:

1.) Gilman, Sander (2005). Franz Kafka. London: Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-881872-64-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), page=31, "Through his consumption of such books Kafka rejected both capitalism and religion as a teenager - declaring himself to be a socialist and an atheist." - This source is listed under "Bibliography" in the Franz Kafka article.

2.) Leavitt, June (2011). The Mystical Life of Franz Kafka: Theosophy, Cabala, and the Modern Spiritual Revival. Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-19-982783-1. Undoubtedly, synagogue life appalled Kafka, but not because he was an atheist. It appalled him because, in his words, he was trying to "build his faith," and the conventional forms were not adequate.</ref>

3.) Golgotha Press (2012). The Life and Times of Franz Kafka. BookCaps Study Guides. ISBN 9781621071518. In time Kafka would become an atheist. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

4.) Benjamin Lazarus (July 16, 2012). "Israel must relinquish ownership over Kafka". The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 15 March 2013. Whilst Kafka had a brief interest in Kabbalah, mysticism, and Yiddish theatre, he rarely attended synagogue and considered himself an atheist.

5.) C.D. Merriman (2005). "Franz Kafka". Jalic Inc. Retrieved 15 March 2013. Kafka eventually declared himself a socialist atheist, Spinoza, Darwin and Nietzsche some of his influences.

I can see why sources #4 and #5 would be considered non-reliable, however, I think 3 reliable sources more than suffice.

On your third point, I don't see any contradiction between sources #2 and #3 when they both state that he was an atheist. Like I say before, Kafka had a longing for spirituality. Spirituality can have a number of forms. It certainly doesn't deny a person from being an atheist. God and spirituality are distinguishable (albeit relative). If source #3 wanted to use the word "agnostic", it would have imply that instead of saying he was "an atheist". Again, I'll wait for Montanabw's response before I'll do anything. However, I'd would like to see an another wikipedian editor to write about Kakfa's beliefs, since I don't claim to be an expert on Kafka's personal life. I just look at the sources. Even if I were to write something, I don't know whether to write one sentence or an entire sub-article on Kafka's religious views, since Kafka's personal views are considered complex. Ninmacer20 (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My question was the phrase you quoted above, " synagogue life appalled Kafka, but not because he was an atheist. It appalled him because..." This is out of context, but as quoted, suggests he was not an athiest...? If that is clarified and everyone agrees that the weight of scholarship agrees that "atheist" is the best term applied to his spiritual beliefs, then I'm happy. I don't have access to the source material, so I shall let the other editors comment on that. Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to you sooner. Anyway, I see your point. The quote you mention is rather ambiguous as it can be interpreted to say that he wasn't an atheist. However, based on the other citations, we could infer that Kafka was an atheist. However, it is up to the wikipedian editors to decide on this. If I could get approval from other commentators on this topic, then I (hopefully someone else as mentioned above) could write something. For now, I'll wait. Ninmacer20 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, I apologize for my rash edit. The reason why I included that statement/label to this article was due to the fact that there was no discussion of Kafka's views on religion or God for almost a month. I assumed that Wikipedian editors consented since there was no recent objections or questions to that label. I don't know how long I'll have to wait for this discussion to move along. The only statement that I added in this article was that Kafka declared himself to be an atheist in his adolescent years. Which is supported by sources like this one below:

1.) Sander L. Gilman (2005). Franz Kafka. Reaktion Books. p. 31. ISBN 9781861892546. "Through his consumption of such books Kafka rejected both capitalism and religion as a teenager - declaring himself to be a socialist and an atheist."

Note: This source is even listed under "Bibliography" of this article.

That statement doesn't explicitly mean that Kafka considered himself to be an atheist throughout his life, however, I haven't read a source that says the contrary.

Unless there other wikipedians that object or question it, I don't see any controversy over the inclusion of that statement/label. Ninmacer20 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been over two months since I last commented on this page. I assume that most Wikipedians here don't have a problem with this inclusion to this article. If any one doesn't have a problem, could you alert me on this section? Thanks! Ninmacer20 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to include? This thread is hard to follow. Drop a draft here with sources you want to use. I feel it warrants no more than 1-2 sentences. A paragraph would be UNDUE. PumpkinSky talk 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All I wanted to add was this sentence under "Judaism and Zionism": "In his adolescent years, Kafka had declared himself an atheist."

Source: "Through his consumption of such books Kafka rejected both capitalism and religion as a teenager - declaring himself to be a socialist and an atheist". Sander L. Gilman, Franz Kafka, page 31.

Note: This source is even listed under "Bibliography" of this article. Ninmacer20 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he was a non-practicing Jew and was an atheist to some degree. I remember reading about it when we were working to get this to FA level. There are several FA-level refs that talk about it, some based on people who knew Kafka. I've added this to the end of the first paragraph in that section. PumpkinSky talk 10:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll just add a couple of categories in this article. That will be all. Ninmacer20 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

[5] 768,586 hits
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed
WP:TOP25
YEE HAW PumpkinSky talk 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Doodle

I've added this to the legacy table, with a solid ref with a copy of the doodle (seems to be disagreement on whether to capitalize the first D in "Google Doodle"). Since wiki is a web site and Google is the top search engine and this is all internet culture, it only seems appropriate. This also no doubt had an affect on Kafka becoming the top TFA in page hits ever.PumpkinSky talk 13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Kafka Have An "Active Sex Life"?

This entry from Kafka's diary (6/7/1916), when he was 33 years suggests not.

"I have never been intimiate with a woman apart from that time in Zuckmantel. And again with that Swiss girl in Riva. The first was a woman and I was ignorant; the second a child, and I was utterly confused."

Now if Kafka visited brothels for most of his adult life it seems highly unlikely that he would describe these sexual experiences as ignorant and confused. Moreover, Kafka's personal diaries should trump some biography written 80 years after his death in regards to reliabilty. Flaviusvulso (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up here. Major hanges for any Featured article should be discussed first. I am not familiar with that part of the topic, so please wait for responses from other editors. I will probably disappoint you that typically the subject is not believed more than other sources, and anyway a well formatted source would be needed for his diary entry, probably a page number for an existing source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The Diaries were edited by Kafka's lifelong friend, Max Brod. This is the reference: Brod, Max "The Diaries Of Franz Kafka", Penguin Books, p. 365. Flaviusvulso (talk)

Duplicate references

Commemoration section, second para: Would just one reference suffice instead of repeating the same one three times? Same in the Literary and cultural influence section (second para) and bottom of the first para at the end (same section)? -- CassiantoTalk 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One would think but if we do that, there's no doubt someone will come along and say the paragraph doesn't have enough refs and/or something in that para is unref'd. I've been down this road far too many times. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I see OK. In that case, those editors could argue that the first para in the Commemoration section is lacking in refs as that only has one. Why would it not apply there? -- CassiantoTalk 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably because of different people reviewing at different times. The second para needs at least two: one for the quote--which needs one immediately afterwards, and one at the end for general purposes. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thought I'd ask. My second time reading it, and even more enjoyable. -- CassiantoTalk 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Charles-Ferdinand University

Please stop changing the name to the German name. On Wikipedia, we use English, which is a guideline here. The common English name of the university, is Charles-Ferdinand, just as the modern university is not called Univerzita Karlova, but Charles University. I don't understand your insistence on a name many English speakers won't understand, which violates Wikipedia guidelines. We don't title the page for Humboldt University of Berlin as Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. RGloucester — 📬 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's you who changed here. The name of the university, as given in German sources, was in German, there is a link and (in the body) a translation for those who do not understand. Kafka is one of more than fifty people on the English Wikipedia where the name is given in German. - See for example Technische Universität Darmstadt. A move request was not successful. See also: Hochschule für Musik und Theater München, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Please consider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for institutions which do not have a commonly known English name, we use the foreign name. That's what the guideline says. But in cases where we do have a commonly used English name, as with Charles-Ferdinand, we use that. I appreciate very much your very many contributions to this article, and elsewhere. Do not get me wrong. But I have feeling that you might a native German speaker, and here, we have a guideline to use English. The common English name, is Charles-Ferdinand, and it appears in works going back to the 19th century. I can cite them if you wish. Nevertheless, the English name should be used in this case. RGloucester — 📬 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The style and format in this article was cleared through the FAC process. It should not be altered without broad consensus. I see one person arguing that point here--RGloucester. That's not broad consensus. PumpkinSky talk 09:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Kafka should show the same university as Albert Einstein and many others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact the Einstein article has recently been changed to show Charles-Ferdinand university rather than Karl-Ferdinand, as per the above stated WP policy. MFlet1 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So? And that edit just happened to be yesterday and by the person that started this thread and has been part of this slow edit war. Very interesting that you made the next edit. Hmm.... You'll have to do way better than that. This entire article uses and passed FAC with German focus where it could be used because it's the language he wrote in and went to school in. The article has been stable for over a year in that regard. PumpkinSky talk 02:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It's true that I made the next edit but that was nothing to do with this issue, so I don't quite get why you think that's "interesting". MFlet1 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Kafka/Archive_3&oldid=1089874139"