Talk:Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism

Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism

This has just been changed to Herzl's Mauschel by a newbie with just 600+ edits. The reason given is editorializing, - a curious accusation which confuses a simple use of standard term defining the topic range with a POV-pushing divagation- without so much as a courtesy note on the talk page justifying the change. By altering the topic title in this way, drastic shortening, the move effectively sets up a risk that some editors might charge in and gut most of the content which contextualizes the article in its period and gives the backdrop and consequences for such a piece of writing, without which Mauschel would remain just a queer stand-alone tirade lacking any rationale. The article is not about Mauschel but about Mauschel in the context of early Zionist antisemitism. An expression like Zionist antisemitism is not 'editorializing for the simple fact that it is a widely discussed topic, and Mauschel is the foundational text for discussing it. One cannot be discussed without the other. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As the move was contested I’ve moved it back. If somebody would like to move it they should follow the process at RM. nableezy - 15:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

How can "Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism" be the subject of an article if Mauschel itself is not the subject of an article, and this work isn't discussed once in Theodore Herzl's article? Walt Yoder (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

hysteron proteron. (b) A very large number of things in all of Herzl's biographies are not discussed or mentioned in that article. No article is a benchmark. (a) the objection is incomprehensible. You seem to have misunderstood the sentence 'The article' is not about Mauschel' by stopping there, and not reading to the end 'Mauschel in the context of early Zionist antisemitism'.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If your contention is that we need a long WP:POVFORK article on how Herzl is antisemitic despite none of that content being in his biography, I will send this to AFD. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I make no such contention. But of course you will urge it be deleted whatever I say. It's a free world, at least within wikipedia so far.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly discussing with you here is pointless. AFD is now live. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean 'stillborn'.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh?

This article links to de:Moses Schnirer; that is surely wrong? Huldra (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed [[de:Moses Schnirer|Moses Schnirer]], Huldra (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the same man, I just misspelt it. Misprints are my hall/hellmark recently.

(ab 1893 Obmann des Verbandes Zion der österreichischen Kolonisationsvereine). 1889–1893 war er Präsident des Wiener Palästina-Kolonisationsvereins Admath Jeschurun.

At the station this morning I was a bit upset by Schnirer, the president of the Vienna Zionist Association' (1960 p.405)

It's true that there is no Moses qualifier but Falk added it on p.271. or is it just late here and I have misunderstood sumfen?Nishidani (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the latter, my old friend. You missed out the colon before the "de:", then a bot wrongly assumed that you wanted to link the de:wp article to the whole page. The bot needs fixing, not you! Apologies, I didn't look at this talk page last night, but it was getting late. However, all is well now. --NSH001 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Duh. I can never get used to colon-ization;) Thank the wee sheila for her emergency fixes. Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Neil, can your petite sweetheart do some Sadsacking on that glaringly ugly in line rift of sources I can't manage to subordinate, after a half an hour of disciplined sweating, to an efn footnote, after theatrical staging? Much appreciated in geriatric anticipation of a clean-up.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at it now, this is the time of day I'm least likely to get an edit conflict. I really, really don't want a repeat of yesterday's huge edit conflict that forced me to stay up many hours past my normal bedtime. --NSH001 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I woke up having dreamt vividly of building metaphors. My father's voice (hoarsened by my formative reading of Plato). I.e. 'Rome wasn't built in a day' I'm terribly sorry to have inadvertently caused you to lose some sleep over my fumbling inadequacies. Rome, by the way, is actually unbuilt and rebilked every day. Consider, in the future, my requests as having no urgent time-limit (well, I'd appreciate it if fixes could be done before I croak it, say within a few months or a year or so. Senile narcissism) Thanks Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK?

Shouldn't this be nominated for DYK? Huldra (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but it appears to be past the 7-day time limit since creation? Is there any allowance for an intervening AfD? --NSH001 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, User:Onceinawhile hopefully knows? Huldra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be up to the DYK admins - pinging BorgQueen. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to GA first, and if the article passes the hurdle, it'll be eligible for DYK. BorgQueen (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no experience with the GA-process, and I don't think anyone else here has, either? Please correct me if I'm wrong), Huldra (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. That being said, there were late in the process proposals for an alternate title or a split, neither of which gained any traction here (both comments being over a week old and having 0 responses), but of course could be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism → Herzl's Mauschel – After several months, no argument for why the phrase "Zionist antisemitism" needs to be in the title has emerged. In general, "X and Y" constructions are discouraged in article titles. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim that no argument has emerged is false, as one appears right on this talk page. The article is not about a single opinion piece written by Herzl, but about Zionist antisemitism in Herzl's time. All of the many sources I am aware of on that topic treat Mauschel as a centerpiece of their discussion. Thus the current title is a reasonable match to the sources used in the article and the proposed new title is not. Zero^talk 02:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mind pointing out some of the strongest sources regarding this that you're aware of?

So far the Boyarin book seems strongest to me, but I may be missing stronger ones I haven't viewed yet. Most cited sources I've checked so far don't seem to support the current title, and I didn't see arguments linked to specific sources in the AfD or above, so I'm hoping to assess whether there are sources that make this an open-and-shut case. Thanks, Freelance-frank (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the sources in the article treat Mauschel either as an example or an entry point into a wider discussion, and that's what our article does. Restricting the title to only Mauschel would severely limit the scope, making the article much less useful. Zero^talk 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - largely per Zero. This is about a specific subtopic of Herzl's Mauschel and the impact it had. nableezy - 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: As it stands, the article far exceeds the scope of just discussing the article "Mauschel". Something like Theodor Herzl and antisemitism would be more accurate.  Ploni^💬  19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know about a move but I wouldn't be opposed to a split into Mauschel and Theodor Herzl and antisemitism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

essay tag

Ploni you need to justify tags placed on articles in the talk page. From what I see this is reflecting the viewpoints of the reliable sources that have written about this, not a Wikipedia editor's own personal feelings. Please specify where in the article it does so. nableezy - 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The result of the AfD discussion was keep, but the concerns raised there should still be addressed. A tag other than WP:NOTESSAY might be better though, perhaps WP:NOR or WP:Cleanup?  Ploni^💬  19:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What specifically is your concern? nableezy - 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The main concern is improper editorial synthesis (of which there appears to be plenty). I hardly have time to go through all 74 sources right now though, so I'll remove the tag for the time being.  Ploni^💬  20:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

POV, No original research, essay tags

This article has WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:ESSAY concerns as brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism and by users Ploni, Walt Yoder. Along the lines of what I wrote before, impressive academic undertaking here but textbook violation of Wikipedia:No original research and WP:ESSAY. The sources presented here do not even explicitly address "Zionist antisemitism", making it synth WP:POV. Loksmythe (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. Like any article, this arose from repeated encounters in the formidable academic literature with focused refrerences to Herzl's article. There is no synth. There is no content containing 'advice or opinions of one or more editors.' Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No sources I've reviewed link Herzl's Mauschel and any concept of 'Zionist antisemitism'. Therefore you've added your own POV SYNTH spin. Loksmythe (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not going to waste time on this, spoiling my retirement. You haven't read the sources, and there is no evidence of what sources 'you reviewed'. One I didn't mention is Herzl's own words about a type, the'antisemite of Jewish origin' among assimilated Jews in his Der Judenstaat (1896) 1920 p.13.

Es ist ein heimlicher Jammer der Assimilierten, der sich in „wohltätigen** Unternehmungen Luft macht. Sie gründen Auswanderungsvereine für zureisende Juden. Diese Erscheinung enthält einen Gegensinn, den man komisch finden könnte, wenn es sich nicht um leidende Menschen handelte.Einzelne dieser Unterstützungsvereine sind nicht für, sondern gegen die verfolgten Juden da. Die Ärmsten sollen nur recht schnell, recht weit weggeschafft werden. Und so entdeckt man bei aufmerksamer Betrachtung, daß mancher scheinbare Judenfreund nur ein als Wohltäter verkleideter Antisemit jüdischen Ursprungs ist. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Herzl in founding Zionism, identified in several texts, Jews who opposed him/Zionism as 'antisemites', and thereby authorized the 'Zionist antisemitism' documented throughout this article.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Errr, retirement... from what??? And yes, thanks for confirming 'Zionist antisemitism' in the context of the Wikipedia article as your own SYNTH creation. Loksmythe (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It does feel more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article in several places, and I strongly think the title should be changed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Would simply "Hertzl's Mauschel" or "Mauschel (Hertzl)" be better titles ? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not, because it is not just about one newspaper article. Zero^talk 00:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Having re-read I’m expanding my comment. While obviously well-researched, I think the article is not written as a comprehensive intro to an actual topic (Herzl’s article or Herzl’s attitude to eastern Jews) but uses this as the starting point to make an argument or thesis (about “Zionist antisemitism”), which is not how WP articles should work. Hence, for example, it includes interpretations as established facts in wiki voice, it emphasises minor passing comments in the literature to make its points, etc. I think it needs a tight focus on Herzl’s use of this concept, and trim away the digressions and editorialising. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your vague impressions, Bob. But the article doesn't do anything other than sum up the many excellent sources used. How on earth you got the impression Herzl's frequent antisemitic remarks were directed at Ostjuden is beyond me.

About original research

How can this be a bad thing? Would think original research would be less biased than anything else. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a common confusion between original research, which means essentially drawing conclusions or inferences that are not in the sources, and (b) simply reading up on a topic covered by multiple sources and writing up what those sources statre about it, which is what we have here. So WP:OR has no relevance to this article.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

if the conclusions are literally what a person is said how can it be bad? Also i don't know what you mean by WP:OR, sorry. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)