Jump to content

Talk:List of Czech and Slovak Jews/Archive 1

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

Adolf Loos, Rudolf Weigl, Otto Wichterle and Joseph Schumpeter are almost certainly not Jewish. Udzu

Ditto Carl Cori, Karl Renner, Ralph Benatzky [1]. Udzu
And Rainer Maria Rilke [2]. Udzu
Probably not Oskar Kokoschka or Paul Leppin either. Udzu

--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 14:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

or Jewish?

--Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)

Novy

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)

Czech/Austrian

Only a fragment of those you are calling "Austrians" spent a significant part of their lifes in what is now Austria: Alfred Grünfeld, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Gustav Mahler, Ignaz Moscheles, Rudolf Serkin, Karl Kraus, Leopold Kompert, Ignaz Kuranda, Heinrich Landesmann, Franz Werfel, Victor Adler, Theodor Gomperz, Isaak Löw Hofmann, Norbert Jokl, Karl Kautsky, Joseph von Sonnenfels, Wilhelm Steinitz, and only a fragment of these can be labeled simply "Austrians": Alfred Grünfeld, Karl Kraus, Victor Adler or Karl Kautsky. The others might be called Bohemian(Czech)-Austrians or Bohemian(Czech)-born Austrians, but this is already mentioned behind their names in the list (e.g. Viktor Adler, Austrian politician). In short, your division is almost completely wrong and misleading and above all totally useless. Qertis 13:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that in your personal opinion ethnic Austrians can somehow be called Czechs when they spend significant time in German-speaking cities in Bohemia, but in real life they have absolutely no cultural or linguistic ties to Czech people. They only share geography. There's truly nothing wrong with the division. 72.144.68.89 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This is easily settled. If a source calls a person Czech, we can put them on the list. If not, we can't. Mad Jack 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mad Jack, that would solve the problem. If this is to be a list of "Czech" Jews, then they should be Czechs, not Bohemian-born Austrians as many here are. 72.144.68.89 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
These people are not primarily "ethnic Austrians" or "ethnic Czechs" but rather ethnic Jews, aren't they?
  • No, a good portion of them are a mix of several ethnicities, including Jewish. 70.146.75.162

All these "Jewish" lists are primarily based on their place of birth or residence, not on their ethnicity, which is ipso facto Jewish.

  • Not true. Take a look at any Jewish list and you'll find a good 30% of the people weren't even born in that country but had an ethnic affliation or parentage from it. 70.146.75.162

The word "Czech" in the title doesn't mean they considered themselves to be Czechs or they spoke Czech, it only means they were born or spent a significant part of their life in the Czech state, which was once called Kingdom of Bohemia (or Bohemian Crown) and is now known as the Czech Republic.

  • You don't find the title misleading to any novice searching this page?70.146.75.162

This state was historically multiethnic; until the 1940s about 1/3 of its population spoke German and several hundreds of thousand were Jews (both Czech- and German-speaking).

The single fact that these people were German-speakers, however, doesnt make them Austrian, as you probably think. They were just German-speaking Bohemians, German Bohemians (Deutschböhme), Bohemian Germans (Böhmerdeutsche) etc.

  • Good luck passing German-Bohemian as an "ethnicity" for the history books. We're not here to argue liberal-minded semantics. 70.146.75.162

It seems to me you are quite unfamiliar with the history of Central Europe, otherwise you cannot write about ethnic Austrians when Austrian ethnicity evolved gradually and slowly only after the WWI.

  • Well, I could say you apparently lack the knowledge of the history of Central Europe since Middle Ages. Otherwise you would have known that Austria has been a historically separate land from mainland Germany for centuries upon centuries. Even though they are of the same ethnicity, an Austrian is still different from a German culturally and geographically (most Austrians were from Bavarian stock). Bohemia and Moravia were crowns under the AUSTRIAN empire, and the only basis on which to separate a German from an Austrian back then was on national allegiance. Hence, anyone who was German-speaking and separate from the Czech community in Bohemia and Moravia, but yet lived in that territory was a German under the Austrian crown - hence an Austrian (unless explicitly told to have originally been of national German birth or parentage). 70.146.75.162
1) Bohemia was under the Austrian Crown for only a little more than a century (1804-1918) 2)Your assumption that Bohemians who speake German are eo ipso Austrians is simply illogical, ahistorical and ludicrous; my only advice to you is read more about that regions history before ridicule yourself in here. Qertis 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote before, only a handful of people in the list has anything in common with Austria. Why are e.g. Petr Ginz (1928-1944) or Herbert Lom (born 1917) Austrians, when they were/are both Czech-speakers and never lived in Austria, is a complete mystery to me.

When you consider any of these people to be Austrians, feel free to add them into the "List of Austrian Jews", but do not remove them from the list they definitely belong to according to their birthplace or place of residence, which is the only thing that really matters here. Qertis 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nobody looks up people like Gustav Mahler and Franz Werfel based on their place of birth. The list is practically useless unless it has some division explaining what cultural division these people belonged to. You cannot pile together people into a list purely based on territorial birth especially under this title. 70.146.75.162

Determining who was "Czech" and who was "Austrian" may be very hard to do. Where do you put someone like Franz Kafka, a bilingual Jew with a Czech-speaking dad and German-speaking mom who lived in pre-WWI Austria-Hungry and post-WWI Czechoslovakia? Why not just move the article to List of Jews from the Czech lands and be done with it? -- Mwalcoff 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kafka spoke Czech and had a Czech surname but that hardly makes him Czech. A huge population of Czechs today can speak German as a second language and have German last names. This makes them as much German as Czech? Kafka was clearly an Austrian. I would agree with the move to List of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia but the list would be pretty much meaningless anyway - at that point we'd be making a list of all famous people from Bohemia and Moravia. More than half of anyone who uses this enyclopedia for research isn't knowledgeable enough to know all these famous people were born in Bohemia and Moravia anyway. 70.146.75.162
Isn't one of the functions of an encyclopaedia to tell people things they don't know?--20.138.246.89 14:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
To a limit. You would never find any of these article on Encyclopedia Britannica for example. You want it to mention that Beethoven had irritable bowel syndrome too? Its the same logic - we're keeping people informed. 68.215.52.222

The solution is pretty simple, and Mad Jack noted it above. If we're going to have a list of Czech Jews, they should speak the Czech language and participate in Czech culture, not simply live in the same area. Almost over half of the Austrians or "German speaking Bohemians" - whatever term you want to utilize - are represented in List of German Jews and List of Austrian Jews. It would take the minimal effort of transferring the others. 68.215.52.222

That "solution" is pretty goofy, unless Swiss Jews are supposed to speak "Swiss" and American Jews "American". What do you know about Czech culture? Where did you get, that German-, Polish-, Romany- or Slovak-speaking Bohemians/Czechs are not part of it? I personally expect, that Austrian Jews have anything to do with Austria, they were born there, they have lived there, etc. Why should List of Austrian Jews contain people from other countries, people who have NOTHING to do with that Alpine republic and at the same time the List of Czech Jews should not cover the people who were born and lived in the Czech state is just beyond my mental capacity. Qertis 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Swiss and American aren't ethnicities last time I checked. Most of the people born in Czech lands DID live in Austria. It's a fact that as just so happens the majority of Austrian Jews had their birthplace in Bohemia of Moravia - Gustav Mahler, Franz Kafka, Sigmund Freud. This doesn't make them any less Austrian.

If you feel someone was left off the Czech list who qualifies. Please add them. Thank you. 72.144.71.124 10:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1)This is not a list of ethnic Czechs, this is a list of Jews from the Czech state. 2)Most of the people born in the Czech state NEVER lived in Austria, where did you get it?!? Yes, it was quite common, when Vienna was capital of the Habsburg/Austrian Empire and Bohemia was part of it, that many Bohemians, including Jews, moved there and made their career in the empire's capital. However, this doesn't make them any less Bohemian or at least Bohemian-born. From Gustav Mahler article: "Alma Mahler quotes Mahler as saying "I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout the world. Everywhere an intruder, never welcomed."" Franz Kafka an Austrian? He lived almost all his life in Bohemia, why in the hell you supposed him to be an Austrian? 3)List of Czechs should certainly be completed, there are many Czechs/Bohemians missing, including Mahler or Freud. 4)All Your POV is based on a basic misunderstanding, that all German-speaking inhabitants of the former Habsburg/Austrian Empire are Austrians, and when someone is Austrian in this sense, he cannot be Bohemian or Hungarian any more. This is terribly ahistorical, chauvinistic approach revealing your ignorance in this field. 5)Yes, some of those listed here are both Bohemians/Czechs and Austrians. They can be easily double-listed, just like Einstein is listed both among German and Swiss Jews. Qertis 11:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1) No this is a list of anyone who has Jewish ancestry, meaning many of these people are ethnic Czechs as well as Jews. 2) Yes, you can take a look at their wikipedia articles. Many of the people on this list did spend a portion of their lives in Austria. 3) I'm sorry but "Bohemian-German" is not a linguistic of ethnic group, hence it does not have the qualifications you give it. Right in your quote Mahler reveals he is an Austrian - what more do you need? Kafka is German-speaking therefore he is either a Germany German or an Austrian German. Bohemia counts as a part of the Austrian empire and so all German-speakers who lived at that time were Austrians unless their lineage is directly from the nation of Germany. 4) If all German-speakers in the Austrian lands aren't Austrian? Then what are they exactly? "Bohemian" does not exist as anything more than a regional affliation. You made that up per your own point of view. 5) This is a list of CZECHS who are Jews and so shall be kept that way. For any German-speakers born in Bohemia, their place fits perfectly in List of Austrian Jews as that list is as inclusive as its father list List of Austrians. If it just so happens the German speakers were from Germany, then those people are in List of German Jews. It is not a complicated procedure. 6) List of Czechs and List of Czech Jews are now parallels of eachother. Everything is as organized as it should be without any POV-pushing suggesting that people like Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler are Czechs. 72.144.71.124 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also if you want to continue with you POV then you can easily make List of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia. Though I'd be apt in saying that such a list would sooner of later be deleted for superfluidity. 72.144.71.124

1)and 2) Please, read more carefully before answering, you are completely missing the point. 3) You only repeat your crucial mistake. So again: Bohemia was multiethnic or multilanguage state, where about 1/3 of its population spoke German. Just like in Switzerland, where 64% speake German, 20% French and 7% Italian. According to your "logic", 27% of Swiss people are either French or Italian, but not Swiss. They cannot be Swiss, because they dont speake German, right? Thats really a historical revelation, congrats!!! 4) Only German-spakers (and perhaps also Slovenian-spekers (?)) from Austria are Austrians, of course. Why should German-speakers from Bohemia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia etc. be Austrians? Because they were inhabitants of the Habsburg/Austrian empire? Well, then also all the Czech-, Hungarian-, Slovak-, Polish- or Romanian-speaking inhabitants of that multiethnic monarchy are Austrians, because they lived in that empire ruled by an Austrian emperor. Is Antonín Dvořák Austrian? Is Lájos Kossuth Austrian? Yes, in a sense, within a specific historical context, but they are also Bohemians/Czechs or Hungarians/Magyars and you have no right to deny this identity. The key fact you are ignoring is that present-day meaning of the word "Austrian" is completely different from that in the past. 5) No, this is a list of Czech JEWS (are you kidding or what?) The inclusivness of the list of Austrians is a problem of this list, include there any Bohemian-Austrian, Austrian-Bohemian, Austrian-born Bohemian or Bohemian-born Austrian you want, but do not remove them from here. 6) Be prepared that as you made List of Austrians all-inclusive, I have the same right to do that with the List of Czechs. Qertis 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Czech" is not only a nationality as you purely assume but mainly an ethno-linguistic body, while "Swiss" is only a nationality. If you feel you must POV-push, do so with a List of Bohemians. Austrian Empire encompassed all the lands of Slovenia, Croatia, Czechia and parts of Poland, but only the ethnic Germans of the Austrian Empire are considered "Austrians" (unless they had immediate ancestry from Germany). I didn't make List of Austrians all-inclusive of Germans born outside present-day Austria, thats how it was because thats the intelligent standard that arose. Gustav Mahler and Sigmund Freud have no relation to the Czech people or language and hence they will not be considered "Czechs" no matter how hard you wish it. They were born in Czech lands, that is all. Numerous people are born abroad but that doesn't change their linguistic and ethnic ancestry. Like I said, you can POV-push on List of Bohemians and List of Bohemian Jews all you want. Leave this list and List of Czechs alone. 72.144.71.124 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While "Czech"/"Bohemian" division exists in some languages, namely Germanic and Romance including English and German, in other languages, most notably in Czech, Polish, Slovak or Hungarian there is only one term designating the Czech/Bohemian state/nation, derived from the original "state language" which has been Czech (or rather West-Slavic). I can see your problem with the word "Czech", which probably sounds more ethnic than "Bohemian" does to you, but this is a mere linguistic issue. The word Bohemian is obsolete now, the country once called Kingdom of Bohemia or Bohemian Crown is now known as the Czech Republic, and with this change has also the meaning of the word "Czech" in English become more universal, encompassing not only the ethnic "Czechness", for which it was used in the 19th century when the Czech nation was just an ethnic group within the multiethnic empire, but the state/nation as a whole. In short, the word Czech doesnt mean Czech-speaking only any more. Your statement that Mahler or Freud have no relation to the Czech people should perhaps stay without any comment. Just for example: Freud was growin up in the entirely Czech-speaking city of Příbor and had a Czech-spaking nanny from whom he learned several Czech words. As for your understanding of the word "Austrian", I can only repeat what I have already said: you are completely missing the point. Either are both Kafka and Dvořák Austrians, since they were citizens of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, or they are not, since none of them lived in Austria. The language issue is completely irrelevant here. Qertis 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Eduard Hanslick

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)

No we can't, because he seems to be German via his father and Jewish via his mother if the article is interpreted correctly. That's a complication in the organization of this list. He's nicely represented in List of German Jews. 68.215.52.222

Placement

Austrians born in Czech lands

Artists

Writers

Other

Evidence for Division

It seems part of the problem may be that people don't know exactly what "Austrian" means. User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg for example seems to think that it can only refer to present-day inhabitants of Austria which is generally untrue. For a broad definition, we can visit the following source right on wikipedia:

From Austrians (taken off German wikipedia, supposedly from a public encyclopedia) it dictates that in a historical context (and considering all the people on this list ARE historical, it should be the one to use) "..the term refers to a native German-speaker of the one-time Habsburg empire..." That means Bohemian German-speakers as well. A quick outside reference can be found here: [www2.ku.edu/~germanic/lakgdhomepage/about.htm] 72.144.158.201

Well, this sounds like an extremely biased and ahistorical concept of which I have never heard of. Austrians simply could not be defined on language, since at that times German-speaking Austrians were considered ethnic Germans (see any sources about the ethnic distribution within the monarchy) and the word "Austrian" labeled the inhabitant of that monarchy regardless of his/her ethnicity. Qertis 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Austrians are considered ethnic Germans today as well. Back then, they were still considered ethnic Germans. Only their German-language, history under the Austrian empire, and association with the culture of Austria (rather than say, Prussia) defined them as Austrian (technically you could also say their "Southern German" sub-ethnic background, but thats getting too much into genetics). That's why someone like Mozart is considered Austrian instead of German, and that's why Gregor Mendel is considered Austrian although he was born in Bohemia, or Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach is considered Austrian although she was also born in Bohemia. 72.144.136.240 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I clearly understand why you and many others consider Mendel to be an Austrian, but you should understand, why by analogy I and many others consider Mendel to be a Bohemian/Czech. He was born in the Czech/Bohemian state, not in what is generally and historically known as Austria. He was German-speaker, but many German-speakers lived in Bohemia already in the 13th century when no one could anticipated that centuries later there will be some Austrian Empire. They were Bohemians, German-speaking Bohemians. Qertis 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do see some worth in your argument, but Czechs have never been defined as German-speakers in Bohemia. For that reason, we can continue such discussions on Mendel's, Freud's, and Mahler's Bohemianishness on List of Bohemians etc.. Qertis, leave me a message on User talk:The Jujugoe. I'll use it as a talk page, but unfortunately can't edit from it :-/. 72.144.191.31 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A Czech is defined as the following: members of a Western Slavic ethnic group who speak the Czech language.

Concerning an Austrian Jew, we find evidence that Bohemian-born German-speaking Jews qualify in List of Austrians directly on Jewish secular culture. I quote: "...Josef Dessauer, Karl Goldmark and Gustav Mahler from Bohemia (most Austrian Jews during this time were native not to what is today Austria but rather the outer provinces of the Empire)..."

Therefore, it is rather a simple to conclude that "List of Czech Jews" can only include Czech-speaking or Czech-ethnic people of Jewish ancestry.

On the other hand, if we go via birth-place (meaning Bohemia and Moravia) one can create List of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia. It's unnecessary, but whatever you want. 72.144.71.77 05:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, this is not about ethnic Czechs, but Czech Jews, i.e. Jews who were born or lived in the Czech state. You should finally realized, that this country has been inhabited not only by Czech-speakers, and that you cannot separate two people from the same street in Prague and place one of them into the List of Austrian Jews and the second one into the List of Czech Jews just because one called his mother mutti and the other mami. This sort of ethnic cleansing is totally unacceptable to me. Qertis 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's equivalent to saying we can't separate German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and African-Americans because they all live in New York City. There is a big distinction between a Czech-speaking, Czech-ethnic Jew and an Austrian Empire German-speaking Jew who has no relation to Czech except by city dwelling. 72.144.71.103 23:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
But all those German-, Jewish- or African-Americans are Americans and thats what you are denying when speaking about Czechs. How can you separate Czech Jews according to their language when thousands of them were bilingual? Its just plain nonsense. Qertis 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The word American is defined as a citizen of America (specifically, USA). The word Czech refers to an ethnic group. A Czech Jew is a Jew who is ethnically Czech by descent or Czech-speaking, as thats what defines him. I'm not simply separating them by their language. It's a separation by culture and ethnic descent too (Milos Forman is Jewish AND Czech ethnically - hence, a Czech Jew). see secular Jewish culture as stated above for evidence that most Austrian Jews lived outsidse mainland Austria. 72.144.198.231 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is your dispute with whether or not the people I say are Austrian are Austrian? If so, I can provide a source for each. Just tell me. Because I'm beginning to not understand your dispute whatsoever. Most of the Jews of Bohemia were German-speaking. Whether or not they happened to know Czech, French, English as a second or third language is irrelevant. 72.144.198.231 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond. I am not comprehending what this dispute is about. I can understand if you dispute that German-speaking Bohemians are Austrians. I will gladly provide proof, but if this dispute is just some attempt to make Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler "Czechs" because they were born in modern-day Czech lands, then there's nothing to discuss. Most of Southern Europe as once part of Rome. So now they're all Romans? 72.144.183.2 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on vacation last week. You only repeat your initial mistake. The word Czech refers to much more than just an ethnic group, it refers also to the state, the Czech state which is over 11 centuries old (i. e. much older than Austria). The word Austrian also has several different meanings and the one you are promoting here is simply at least as much controversial. You are suggesting that there was a sharp dividing line between Czech and Austrian culture based on the language, but that is just another of your mistakes. German speaking Praguer (according to you an "ethnic" (sic!) Austrian) has much closer cultural ties to his felllow Czech speaking Praguer than to any German speaking Tyrolese. Many German-speakers from Bohemia have had ethnic Czech descent simply because German was lingua franca of the Central Europe, the language of the Habsburg family. And also many Czech-speakers are of ethnic German descent because of the long process of assimilation.
I have already showed you that your initial ideas about Austrian identity of German-speaking Bohemians/Czechs was wrong and I am not going to repeat it. Freud and Mahler were born in the centuries old Czech state, not in the "modern-day Czech lands" and in this respect they are Czechs/Bohemians. I dont say its their prevailing, dominant identity, but you cannot rid them of it. Your Roman "analogy" is simply ridiculous.
Finally, this list is part of the List of Jews by country series, not List of Jews by language or ethnicity. Qertis 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

An amazing turn-round

(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)

I do. It is silly to divide purely by linguistic division, as you have done with List of Czech-speaking Jews. That's why we don't do it on here. 72.144.198.206 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah - agreement reached

"Unless someone is explicitly called a Czech by a reliable biography, they do not belong on any list of Czechs" says anon editor.

Exactly! You finally understood. Now please show me where Gustav Mahler[4], Sigmund Freud [5], and Franz Werfel[6] are called Czech!

That's exactly the point all the other editors have been making. All these people were born in Czech lands, so they re Czech;

Maybe you should look up the definition of a Czechs here on wikipedia. 72.144.198.206 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What language they chose to speak is irrelevant, just as it is for Belgian, Swiss or indeed Israeli Jews (many of the latter speaking Yiddish or Ladino as their first language).--Newport 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're pretty much incorrect again. The language you speak is not irrelevant (you're telling Belgian Walloons they're the same as Flemish Belgians: try getting past that one in Belgium) but its also not worth making a separate list about. That's why I disagree with your random attempt at moderating this dispute by making List of Czech-speaking Jews. If you would have bothered to read anything I :had stated in this talk page you'd notice the part where I said:
"The word Czech refers to an ethnic group. A Czech Jew is a Jew who is ethnically Czech by descent or Czech-speaking, as thats what defines him. I'm not simply separating them by their language. It's a separation by culture and ethnic descent too (Milos Forman is Jewish AND Czech ethnically - hence, a Czech Jew). see secular Jewish culture as stated above for evidence that most Austrian Jews lived outsidse mainland Austria."
By suggesting there is no difference between Austrian culture and Czech culture you are denying an ethnic group their identity and combining two distinctly different peoples into one list. If you wish to make a list by REGION (as that is what you are doing), then you can research the territories in which these people were born and make List of Bohemian, Moravian, Silesian, Sudetenland-born Jews. Or you could simply ask me to prove that my moves were completely valid. I expect a good response, in order to take any of your edits seriously anymore. 72.144.198.206 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews are not normally ethnic Czechs or ethnic Austrians; they are merely born in Czechoslovakia or Austria.

Oh my bad. You're right. Milos Forman isn't Czech at all. Here's merely a Jew born in Czechoslovakia. And Freud and Mahler aren't Austrian either, they're just Jews born the the Austrian Empire. With this revelation, we might as well get started renaming all the lists associated with Jews [insert country here]-born Jews and reshaping all headers on Mahler, Freud, Kafka to say Austrian Empire-born Jewish (composer, playwright, psychologist). 72.144.68.91 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Walloons are nor Flemings, but they are both Belgian.

That's because Belgian is a nationality, like Swiss. The word equally refers to "Flemings" and "Walloons". It refers to the land they live on, not their ethnicities. On the other hand Czech does not refer to the land at all, it refers to the people. The land is Bohemia, or Moravia, or Silesia (sometimes).

Try editing a list of Belgians to remove all Walloons on the grounds that they're French-speaking, or Flemings on the grrounds that they're Dutch-speaking and see what the reaction is.

I agree. There's no need for separation there. I'm not sure why you supported the creation of List of Czech-speaking Jews if you feel the same way. 72.144.68.91 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Country of birth is the sensible criterion unless, in individual cases, there are very good reasons.--Brownlee 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If country of birth is the most sensible criterion then why is List of French Jews and List of British Jews full of people born in other countries? and why are X-American-Jews listed in "List of X Jews"? Didn't you just say Jews aren't defined by any other ethnicity except Jewish? "Jews are not normally ethnic Czechs or ethnic Austrians" You probably didn't mean that but it certainly comes off that way. We define Jews CORRECTLY on wikipedia by their ethnic, cultural, and linguistic associations.

If you wish to go by birthplace, feel free to make List of Bohemian and Moravian-born Jews or List of Jews born in Czechoslovakia (which would predominantely consist of the people I have on the list now). Please note that Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Austrian Empire when most of these Bohemian-Germans were born. 72.144.68.91 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has now become incomprehensible as Anon has inserted numerous unsigned comments in the middle of Brownlee's and mine, without even indenting them. He is wrong to attribute the List of Czech-speaking Jews to Brownlee. As the history shows, I created it. I did so because I hoped that, as it addressed Anon's concerns that the list included Czech-born Jews who somehow weren't sufficiently Czech (because they tended to speak another language), it would satisfy him. You can't blame me for trying. This is, and always has been, intended to be a list of Jews associated with the Czech lands, not with the Czech language, just as the List of British Jews is of Jews associated with Britain, not with the English language.--Newport 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to go by birthplace, feel free to make List of Bohemian and Moravian-born Jews or List of Jews born in Czechoslovakia (which would predominantely consist of the people I have on the list now anyway). Please note that Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Austrian Empire when most of these Bohemian-Germans were born. I've defined using references who qualifies as a "Czech Jew" about three times now. Nobody has bothered to provide sources stating all these Austrian-Bohemian Jews are Czechs, and thus I believe you finally understood my argument. There's nothing further to say. 72.144.139.153 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing more - people who were born in Czech lands are obviously Czech unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Anything else is racist.--20.138.246.89 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mahler and Werfel

We have sources that say that these men were Czech. They were born Czech. To pretend that they don't count as Czech because of some subjective criterion about "secular culture" is original research.--Newport 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

subjective criterion about "secular culture"? I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. All I asked you to do is look at what was written on secular Jewish culture about Mahler. I quote:

most Austrian Jews during this time were native not to what is today Austria but rather the outer provinces of the Empire..

We have sources that say that these men were Czech

We do?!?! Calling somebody "Czech-born" is not equivalent to "born an ethnic and linguistic Czech." Many Poles who were born in the 19th century were "Russian-born" because as we're well aware, Poland was partioned between several different countries.. a huge chunk going to Russia. So now by your accounts, they're all Russians. The American actor Martin Lawrence was born in Frankfurt, Germany to American military parents. So by your accounts, he's now German. Millions of people, due to historical territory changes, were born in nations that don't reflect who they are culturally and ethnically. To give you a final example, which I hope will clarify everything, Oskar Schindler was born and lived with his family in what eventually became Czechoslovakia. By all accounts he's Czech-born and since he didn't live in Austria by your accounts he should be called Czech, nonetheless he is dubbed an "Austrian industrialist" for the same reasons we apply here. 72.144.150.18 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you really so biased you dont see the analogy between short-lived Austrian Empire and almost equally long Russian occupation of Poland? So Poles born in partitioned Poland are Poles, not Russians, but Bohemians/Czechs born in by the Austrian emperor ruled Bohemia are Austrians, not Bohemians/Czechs. Your logic is incredible. Qertis 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Czechs who were born between the period of the Austrian Empire (which wasn't that short-lived) are still Czech, and Bohemians who were born under the Austrian Empire are still Bohemian. And Austrians were born under the Austrian Empire are still Austrian. That's EXACTLY my point. Where did I say Czechs born under the Austrian Empire are Austrians? You finally understand the point. 72.144.183.169 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Success! YOU finally understand the point! Bohemians/Czechs are Bohemians/Czechs even under the rule of the Austrian emperor (1804-1918). So please stop removing Bohemian/Czech Jews from this list. Qertis 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Short-lived Austrian Empire? Bohemia was under Austrian control from 1526 to 1918. Beyond this, "Bohemian" does not mean the same thing as "Czech" in English. The former is geographical, indicating where someone is born. The latter is ethnic, or at least, was until 1918 or 1945. john k 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not confuse the words "Austrian" and "Habsburg". Austrian Empire (Keiserreich Österreich) was established in 1804, until then there was no "Austrian" rule over Bohemia, Austria was just a tiny archduchy in present-day republic of Austria where was the seat of the ruling dynasty. And the words Czech and Bohemian really diverged in their meaning in the past (I remind you that the word Bohemian was utterly dominant in the past and indicated ethnicity as well), but since the Czech state is officially called Czech Republic in English today (and Bohemian Kingdom is increasingly called Czech Kingdom in popular texts) and the word Bohemian became obsolete, there is no other way how to translate the word "český" other than "Czech". Qertis 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There was no such thing as the "Kaiserreich Österreichs", it was very distinctly the "Kaisertum Österreichs," which translated literally more as "Emperorship of Austria" than "Empire of Austria." The name was not a reference to Austria as a place, but the "House of Austria," i.e., the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, and as a geographical term, "Austria" before 1918 always meant either A) the provinces of Upper and Lower Austria; or B) the lands ruled by the House of Austria as a whole. There was no change in Bohemia's constitutional status in 1804, and "Austria" was used both before and after 1804 to refer to the lands of the (Austrian branch of the) house of Habsburg, as it had been since the 14th century. There was never a formal geographic "Empire of Austria," and the Kaisertum Österreichs certainly did not create one. I have never seen a text in English which refers to the Bohemian kingdom as the "Czech kingdom," and "Bohemian," not "Czech," is the appropriate adjective to refer to it by. Bohemian is not obsolete, and is still the principal term used in historical contexts to refer to this area, because of the ethnic connotations of "Czech." And the word "Bohemian" certainly did not indicate ethnicity in the 19th century, when there were both Czechs and Bohemian Germans, who referred to themselves as such, as well as a Bohemian nobility which did not consider itself either Czech or German. john k 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is to say, that the word "Austria" precisely means "Habsburg", and always did until 1918, the only other meaning being Upper and Lower Austria, proper. The Austrian half of Austria-Hungary was officially called "the lands and kingdoms represented in the Reichrat". Kaiser von Österreich basically meant "Emperor of the House of Austria" not "Emperor of the Empire of Austria." Etc. Bohemia was one of the "lands and kingdoms represented in the Reichsrat, but it was never part of any geographical entity officially called "Austria." Another point is that your definitions from Czech are deeply inappropriate, given that Bohemia was a bilingual country before 1945 (and certainly before 1918), and that the German language, which is the one that Jewish (and German, and high aristocratic) people in Bohemia normally spoke, clearly distinguishes between the words "Bohemian" (böhmisch) and "Czech" (tschechisch) and between "A Bohemian" (ein Böhme) and "A Czech" (ein Tscheche). john k 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The term Czech-born should more precisely be "Bohemian-born" or "Moravian-born" which a lot of other sources say more correctly, but it essentially means "born in what is now Czech lands".

72.144.150.18 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a fellow Anon I can explain to 72.144.150.18 where others cannot. This is a list of Czech Jews. That's what the title and the intro say. The title is not "Czech-speaking Jews" (someone tried that but Anon didn't like it for some reason) or "Jews who are ethnic Czechs". We have references that Mahler and Werfel were Czech-born, i.e. they were Czech when they were born. Guessing their ethnicity is original research; we just go by what the sources say. Probably hardly anyone on this list is an ethnic Czech. To take a simple analogy, many Jews have been born in Britain who were not of British ethnicity and did not grow up in an English-speaking home; their parents spoke German or Yiddish at home. As they were born here, would it not be unreasonable to deny that they were British? The only way out of this quagmire is to stick to Wikipedia policy; if a reputable source says something, we report what the source says.

The Martin Lawrence analogy is scarcely relevant; Mahler's and Werfel's parents weren't visiting Americans but were themselves natives of that part of the world.

If anyone wants a List of Jews who are ethnic and linguistic Czechs, please create one. This is a list of Jews who were Czech by birth.
--20.138.246.89 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What does "Czech by birth" mean? It means anyone born in Bohemia? That simply not how we use the term in English. john k 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi fellow anon. Some of what you said is true, and yet you're not following what you're saying. In order to add Mahler and Werfel we need a reliable source that calls them "Czech Jews" because like you said that is the title of the of list. You're right its not "Czech-speaking Jews" or "ethnic Czech Jews" or "Czech-born Jew" - it just so happens that by definition a "Czech Jew" is usually an linguistic/ethnic-by-identity Czech also (there may be some circumstances in which they don't have to be). "i.e. they were Czech when they were born" Really? I had no idea people can more cultural and genetic identity like that! Your analogy is helpful. We can review it:
many Jews have been born in Britain who were not of British ethnicity and did not grow up in an English-speaking home; their parents spoke German or Yiddish at home. As they were born here, would it not be unreasonable to deny that they were British?
I'm pretty sure you're well aware that there is no such thing as the "British ethnicity," so I don't know why you mentioned it. The Welsh, Scottish, and English people are all ethnicities, and yet they're all "British". "British" is a nationality analogous to "Canadian" and "Australian" (though usually British refers to those three ethnicities as the nationality). So yes, it's ok to say they're British, much in the same way that it's ok to say someone who moved to America is "American". However, your analogy ends up not being an anology at all.
The Martin Lawrence analogy is scarcely relevant; Mahler's and Werfel's parents weren't visiting Americans but were themselves natives of that part of the world.
They were natives of that part of the world, and it just so happens that part of the world was at that point in history inhabited by "Austrians". 70.146.75.24 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, of course most of these were not "ethnic Czechs" (i.e. those not of mixed ancestry). They were ethnic Ashkenazi Jews, quite a different thing. Mad Jack 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A large chunk of the people are not purely of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, so many can still qualify as partly ethnically Czech (like Milos Forman or Alfred Radok) or if they have two Jewish parents they could still identify with the Czech ethnicity. 70.146.75.24 03:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the people have two Jewish parents, and we can't really speculate on what the ancestry was 300 years ago (and certainly not on whether that ancestry was Czech or not). It is simply impossible and illogical to have a list of Czech Jews meaning - list of people who are mixed Czech and Jewish by ancestry. Anyway, I am just saying that "ethnically Czech" is a grossly misleading and inaccurate term, and you certainly can't use it in an argument here. (I'm not saying I disagree that "Czech-born" is not the same as "Czech", i.e. your position, I'm just noting the "ethnic" thing for the record.) Mad Jack 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's really about whether they identify with that ethnicity - for example, on the Czech census. Many Polish Jews were called "assimilated" which would mean that they would identify with the Polish ethnicity rather than a distinct Jewish one. 70.146.75.24 03:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As to your change above - what does identifying with the Czech "ethnicity" have to do with anything? I mean with your argument, which was about people described as "Czech-born" (who, of course, could also identify with the Czech ethnicity :) ) Mad Jack 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing with the argument really, except that it is likely a Czech-Jew would identify with the Czech ethnicity as opposed to an Austrian one (like Mahler and Werfel). 70.146.75.24 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as an Austrian ethnicity, or at least there wasn't before 1945. There was an Austrian nationality, perhaps, in that people had Austrian citizenship, or were subjects of the Emperor of Austria. But there's no "Austrian people." Jews in Austria-Hungary considered themselves Austrian Jews, with emphasis on the Jew part. Austria-Hungary was a country of many ethnicities, and Bohemia, which included a Czech majority, a large German minority, a German-speaking aristocracy with Czech names, and a large Jewish community, was one of the more multi-ethnic parts. One's ethnicity was generally not determined by one's location, but by language and such, and the Jews were considered their own ethnicity (which is one reason why Jews tended to be more supportive of the entire multiethnic state than the other groups, since they weren't the majority anywhere). Referring to "Czech Jews" in the 19th century is a misnomer. john k 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Before 1918, "Czech" is solely an ethnicity, and it makes no sense to refer to German-speaking Jews born in Bohemia or Moravia in this period as "Czech Jews," anymore than we call Sudeten Germans "Czech Germans". People who were born since 1918, or born before that but who self-identify as Czech, would seem appropriate. The problem is that "Czech" is not an appropriate adjective to mean "from Bohemia and Moravia" until after 1918 at earliest, and really not until after 1945. Certainly under Austrian rule, Franz Kafka was no more considered "Czech" than Ottokar Graf Czernin or Konrad Henlein would have been. The former was a German-speaking Bohemian Jew, and the second was a member of the Bohemian high aristocracy, of Czech origins, perhaps, but German-speaking and certainly not considering themselves Czech, and the last was a Bohemian German. If we changed the list to List of Czech and Bohemian Jews, it would be acceptable to include these people. john k 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi John. You're totally right about there not being an Austrian ethnicity, but I didn't want to confuse the users further. Essentially, by definition an Austrian is a German-speaking inhabitant of Austrian lands. I totally agree with what you said about how we shouldn't call "German-speaking Jews in Bohemia" Czech Jews. This is one of the points trying to be made. 72.144.183.250 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think we should refer to German-speaking Austrians as such, or as "German-Austrians," before 1918, to avoid the implication of Austrian nationhood. john k 19:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a language issue here. As I understand it, in Czech, the word for the whole state is "Cesko," and the adjective from that could be either ethnic or geographical. However, in English, people before 1918 (or maybe 1945) are generally not considered Czech unless they, at the very least, speak Czech as their principal language. john k 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

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)

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)
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)

Everybody settle down!

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)

The problem here has nothing to do with sourcing. It's a category problem, in that the people here don't agree on what "Czech" means. Does it mean "born in the area of the current Czech Republic" or does it mean "ethnically/linguistically Czech"? Currently, the article uses the former definition, which is patently inappropriate before 1918, when "Czech" was an ethnic, but not a national or geographic, moniker. In the 1918-1945 period, I still think it's wrong. "Czechoslovakian Jews" would make sense, because the nationality is Czechoslovakian, not Czech, and many of the people in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia were not ethnically Czech, and would have called themselves Czechs, but rather Germans, Jews, or Poles. john k 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Well it's fairly obvious that we only use reliable sources. Mad Jack 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But your comments provide no actual guidance. It's all just a big tautology. john k 13:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Definition

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

"You go up to Mahler and Werfel and ask the same question "Czech" isn't going to come out their mouths." Do you have a source for this? If not, it's a violation of WP:NOR.--Newport 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Epistemology

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:

  1. a paragraph at the front of the article describing what the list is, plus
  2. notes on the borderline cases, mentioning them with appropriate qualifications rather than either
    1. including them without explanation until the next editor who was not involved in the discussion comes along and removes them again or
    2. 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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

Joe - what a "Czech Jew" is has to be dependent on the meaning of what a "Czech" is. Today, and at least since 1945, anybody born within the current territory of the Czech Republic could be considered a "Czech." In addition, anybody throughout history whose principal language is Czech, or who identifies themselves as a Czech should be considered a Czech. Between 1918 and 1945, the situation is debatable. There was a large non-Czech (mostly German) community in in the Czech part of Czechoslovakia who did not consider themselves to be Czech. The Jews are particularly complicated here, because, while they were largely German-speaking, they did not live in the areas where most of the Germans lived, and probably did not consider themselves Germans. I think in this context, though, it would also be appropriate to refer to Czech Jews.

Prior to 1918, however, "Czech" pretty clearly only applies to the ethnicity. Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia were three provinces of Austria-Hungary which could loosely be joined together and referred to as "Bohemia" or the "Lands of the Bohemian crown." This was a multi-ethnic area, which included Germans, Czechs, Jews, some Poles in Silesia, and a cosmopolitan aristocracy of Czech origin who spoke German and didn't consider themselves Czech. It is entirely inappropriate to refer to German speaking Jews in Bohemia under Habsburg rule as "Czech." Either this page should confine itself to a discussion of the post-1918 period, or it should be moved to List of Bohemian and Czech Jews or List of Czech and Bohemian Jews. The latter might make more sense, as it becomes complicated to distinguish otherwise, especially for people at around the dividing line. john k 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Authoritative definition

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)

Merriam-Webster says "a native or inhabitant of western Czechoslovakia including Bohemia and Moravia" so we need to include Moravia too. [7].--20.138.246.89 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
O boy another history lecture. Mad Jack 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Besides, look what dictionary.com says: [8].

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)

Glad that Anon in his latest manifestation is joining the consensus - "a native of inhabitant", not someone who can speak Czech.--Brownlee 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Latest reversion

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)

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." [9] 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. [10] [11] Are you saying they're all wrong and, in fact, Werfel was a Czech? 72.153.53.100 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A title change?

If anyone feels it necessary to make a title change, lets make suggestions on which would be the best before moving to a randomly selected one. 72.144.139.128 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. What alternative title would be better? I heartily endorse the new title and urge everyone to stop bickering and get on with improving Wikipedia. If you like, let's have a vote.--Brownlee 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense? If a title change is at all called for it should be one that would be sensical. Right now we have a list that's almost like something from a Frankenstein movie. List of Scottish, Caledonian, Orkney Islander Jews, List of German, Pomeranian, Bavarian, Prussian, and Alsaccian Jews. It's silly. But what could qualify as a rather inclusive list, one that doesn't end up being redundant or qualifying some people as part of a nationality that they aren't, could be List of Jews from Czechoslovakia.
Not only would List of Jews from Czechoslovakia include every Jew who identified with a Czech identity (the new "Czech" term that rose after its formation), but it would also include Jews from Slovakia and Rusyn lands! We wouldn't even need to make separate sections for them. The list would end up dropping Kafka and Moscheles, who were barely identifiable with "Czech"ness, and who already reside on other lists anyway, but it would add a group of names from List of East European Jews and others who were born in the territory.
If we do switch names, the only way we don't get caught with our pants down on whos a Czech and whos not is if we make the term apply to post-1918 eras. So I would be for a List of Jews from Czechoslovakia. No more disputes on whos who and relatively easy source-checking. But thats of course if anyone really wants to move the list anyway. 72.144.183.39 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This title is rather awkward. I'd add that the inclusion of "Slovak Jews" is also problematic, as I'm not sure what this means. Surely Jews living in Slovak areas before 1918 are Hungarian Jews? So does this mean only such people after 1918? Why add Slovaks to the mix, when it only makes things more confusing? john k 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we omitted Slovaks, it would cause endless problems with people who lived in Czechoslovakia, because it might be argued that although they were from that country they were Slovak and not Czech. If we have a source that they were born in Slovakia, ven before 1918, they belong here. If we have a source that they were Hungarian, they belong in the appropriate article. And if they end up on two lists, so be it.--Newport 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There was no such thing as Slovakia before 1918. What became Slovakia was simply the northern counties of Hungary. john k 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we have a source that someone is Slovakian, they belong here; if there are no such sources, the problem won't arise.--20.138.246.89 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia wasn't created in 1918. There is an article about Slovakia in the Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1904. Obviously, all the Slovakian Jews mentioned in that article are eligible for this list.

Page title

I've been asked to move this page to List of Jews from Czechoslovakia, would that be OK with everyone? Mad Jack 06:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's 100% clear that it refers to the territory covered by Czechoslovakia, so that people before its creation or after its break-up aren't excluded.--20.138.246.89 09:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I see that Joseph H. Hertz has just been added. He was born in Slovakia, but lived in London from 1913, so never lived in Czechoslovakia.--Newport 21:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be a far better title. I must, however, agree with the above caveats.--Brownlee 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The entire purpose of moving the list from List of Czech Jews was so it would be more inclusive of people who, in fact, were Czechs (and Slovaks) and who weren't Czech but still lived in Czechoslovakia (just like an Austrian born in Austria but moved to Britain would still be from Britain). List of Jews from Czechoslovakia means they would have to LIVE IN or BE BORN in Czechoslovakia. Mahler and Kafka would thus appropriately be listed only as Austrian Jews. What purpose would moving the list from List of Czech Jews have had if we went right back to the problem in the first place? People before its creation or after its break-up aren't excluded unless they died before its creation. For example, Viktor Ullmann wasn't Czech by definition but since he lived in Czechoslovakia, he's still included.
All that matters is if they were born in Czechoslovakia (not Bohemia, or Hungary or Austria) or lived in it. Therefore we won't have a debate about who's a Czech. 72.144.172.186 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If 72.144.172.186 or whatever IP he wants to use today has that attitude, the name change must be reverted.--20.138.246.89 10:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why does someone with a stable IP and still no username criticize another IP user unless they have the same issue? Do you have the same issue? If not, why not get a username? 72.144.172.186 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree again. My agreement was on the understanding that it refers to the territory covered by Czechoslovakia. That is a clear and logical criterion. I am happy to go back to the previous title if necessary.--Newport 11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't make up definitions for what "from Czechoslovakia" means. It's pretty clear-cut. You can't say "Yes, I agree with the title List of Germans only if we exclude people from the territory formely known as Prussia." If you don't agree with it, then we'll just go back to the version that reflects the sources, as you're implying there was absolutely no reason to change the title in the first place. 72.144.172.186 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

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)
  1. ^ [12] "Jewish poets like Hieronymus Lorm (Heinrich Landesmann)"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Czech_and_Slovak_Jews/Archive_1&oldid=1145922132"