Talk:L. L. Zamenhof

Missing link

Jun 04, 2006 - Missing link! The link http://www.um.bialystok.pl/kultura/pomniki/zamenhof/index.html at the end of this article is a deadlock - Error 404

Removal

I removed the following sentence "He was also known as Dr. Esperanto, a pseudonym he used, meaning in the soon-to-be so-named language 'one who hopes', when publishing his work Lingvo Internacia, his first description of the language." because it says the same information that is already mentioned in the final paragraph "In 1887, the book titled as "D-ro Esperanto. Lingvo internacia. Antaŭparolo kaj plena lernolibro" (Dr. Hopeful. International Language. Foreword And Complete Textbook) was published." We don't need to repeat this fact twice. --Chuck SMITH

Place of his death

I have changed the flag icon for the place of his death. At that point, as someone has noted, Bialystok was part of the Regency Kingdom of Poland, but it was not an independent country yet. It was a satellite state of the German Empire. The flag used here was called Kongresowka which was a flag of the Congress Poland which ceased to exist in 1915. I have changed it to the flag of the German Empire.

Norum 25 Jan 2007.

Ethnicity in lead

Hi Guys, I removed "Jewish" from the lead sentence. I am in NO way married to this change. It was more done to show my class how Wikipedia works and we were having a discussion about languages and constructed languages and I noticed this. Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I repeated this edit per WP:MOSETHNICITY. I'll note I'm note sure Polish is correct either (given the geopolitical entities involved in the late 19th century and early 20th century) - though one could claim (as we presently do in the article) he died in the short-lived puppet state of the Kingdom of Poland (1917–1918) which predated the Second Polish Republic. However, that's a much more complex discussion. Removing Jewish, however, is rather clear per MOSETHNICITY - Zamenhof's notability does not rise from being Jewish. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Russian Wikipedia considers him Polish also and it was debated among Russians. In addition, Encyclopedia Britannica confirms Polish nationality. It's also noteworthy what the chief Rabbi said at Zamenhof's funeral which clearly showed his allegiance to Poland (stated in the article). Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Polish (or Russian subject?) in Congress Poland probably requires some project-wide consensus (and somewhere else than WikiProject Poland) - I'm not sure I have a very strong opinion either way (except that we should be somewhat consistent). Zamenhof specifically did speak Polish (and Yiddish) and lived in Warsaw (Białystok being much more complex in this regard) for much of his life - so it isn't that Polish is far off the mark (and furthermore some sources do support Polish). Removing Jewish from the lede is rather clear however per WP:MOSETHNICITY. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Consensus is not clear for removal of "Jewish", with support generally shaky even among those few here recently favoring it. I have been closely involved with Esperanto, even professionally, for nearly forty years, and there is certainly a consensus in the Esperanto world that Zamenhof was not Polish – at least not in the primary sense that the revision implies. I understand the rationale on the basis of WP:MOSETHNICITY, but in fact Zamenhof's being Jewish was quite relevant to his notability, as those familiar with his life and work are aware. Not being "far off the mark" doesn't justify the change, nor does the fact that "some sources do support Polish" since other sources don't. –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: - three editors are against you here. Furthermore, WP:MOSETHNICITY is a project guideline - and carries weight beyond any local consensus. Zamenhof being Jewish was not related to his profession in life or to his notability (which is tied to Esperanto - and not to anything related to Judaism). You can mention that he was Jewish in the body - but our guidelines for the lede of biographies are quite clear - and exclude religion or ethnicity in most cases (e.g. exceptions being perhaps clergymen or other such roles where religion is closely tied to the notability of the person). Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Your claiming three editors against one is somewhat stretching it, with Malerooster being overtly noncommittal and Oliszydlowski having previously accepted the "Polish-Jewish" description and having stated his agreement with it.[1] You don't seem to be aware of such things as Zamenhof's hilelismo (later homaranismo), or his stating that he would never have created Esperanto if he hadn't been Jewish. You allow for exceptions to the guideline in cases of religious ties, and this seems to be such a case. It would be possible to simply omit "Polish"/"Polish-Jewish" entirely, along with "ophthalmologist" (hardly Zamenhof's claim to fame), and leave it "was the inventor of the international language Esperanto". It might then be desired to mention Białystok and Warsaw with the dates of birth and death as in the Esperanto version of the article, however, and then to get rid of the Old Style dates (which might be a good idea anyway). I don't think such tinkering is necessary or advisable, and my present inclination is simply to leave the paragraph the way it is. I'm sorry to have been drawn into this and hope not to have to deal with it further. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well - I was unaware of Oliszydlowski's post on your talk page (perhaps Oliszydlowski would clarify his position on whether we should state Zamenhof as Jewish in the lede). I am afraid you shall have to deal with this further - as WP:MOSETHNICITY overrides any local consensus (and we don't have a local consensus here in any event). If Zamenhof's Jewishness is relevant for Esperanto - perhaps that should be mentioned in the lede over there, however in this biographical article - we follow MOS for biographies. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As I previously stated I do not personally mind placing the term "Jewish" in the lede. However, it is true that per WP:MOSETHNICITY "Jewish" is classified as a religion or religious/cultural identity and not nationality. If you do look at articles about notable American Jews, you do not find the word "Jewish" in the lead section at all. Perhaps the term "Jewish" is most suitable for religious leaders such as Rabbis, Rebbes, spiritual leaders etc. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be granted that there is a difference between stating that Zamenhof was Jewish and stating that he was Polish-Jewish. There is a difference, and I don't think the unusual and complex nature of this case should be disregarded in deference to a general guideline. I have certainly noted more opposition to the notion that Zamenhof was Polish than to that he was Polish-Jewish, and I doubt this opposition is going to disappear. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not complex nor unusual. Millions of Jews lived in the pale of settlement (the majority self identifying as Polish Jews, and living in what was to become the Second Polish Poland in 1918) - Zamenhof is not particularly different from any other Jewish figure from the period in the region. We simply don't state the religion/ethnicity of bio subjects in the lede. E.g. look at Albert Einstein - the sole mention of being Jewish in the lede is his decision not to return to Germany in 1933 (he was visiting in the US) after Hitler came to power. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. It's interesting, however, that you speak of a majority of Jews identifying themselves as Polish Jews while you want to change that designation, and that you speak of Zamenhof as a Jewish rather than Polish figure. He may be said to be both, and that's what the present text does. The guideline aside, "Polish" is less accurate and even misleading, given the existence of a Polish ethnic group to which Zamenhof did not belong As I suppose you know, even his Polish nationality is often contested, though it may also be maintained. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I have to agree with Roy McCoy here, this is an ongoing problem with MOS:Ethnicity interpreted in wrong way, ethnicity can be mentioned in the lede according to it. As Icewhiz stated above the identity was "Polish-Jews", so naming such figures solely as Polish or Russian is certainly misleading.Also, contrary to what Oliszydowski states, we do have figure on Wikipedia that are for example described as American-Jewish.Personally I support naming him(like many other figures from this religious-ethnic group) Polish-Jewish which actually is in line with MOS:Ethnicity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS is very clear - "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.". Unless you have a clear policy based rationale to not follow "generally not" - it is out. And - let me get this straight - @MyMoloboaccount: - are you suggesting a policy exception here specific to Polish Jews?Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, my position was explained here [2].Your interpretation would be very inadequate in relation to complicated issues in history of Central and Eastern Europe in relation to numerous inhabitants and various representatives of different ethnic groups, not only in relation to Polish Jews.Furthermore Polish-Jewish is not a ethnic or religious identity but a wider cultural one, that can be mentioned(not all Polish Jews were religious, and Polish identity isn't restricted to ethnic Polish identity)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY is very clear on this; there's no reason to mention "Jewish" in the lede, and certainly not in the first sentence. Being Jewish is in no way "relevant to the subject's notability"; Zamenhoff was not notable because he was Jewish. The complicated histories of various ethnic or religious or cultural identities in Central and Eastern Europe are irrelevant to that; Zamenhof was born in Białystok, lived in Poland, and died in Warsaw. I've had to take previous obsessions with putting "Jewish" in the first sentence of articles on Poles to WP:AN/I; I wouldn't want to have to do it again, but also wouldn't hesitate to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, Can the term "Jewish" be also removed from the lede section in the article Esperanto? Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast guideline there AFAICT (though marking people by religion/ethnicity/nationality has been problematic in other contexts) - however I would argue that Zamenhof's religion and nationality (complex as it was) is not due for the lede of Esperanto - what's relevant there is Zamenhof - e.g. see General relativity - "General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics." - which doesn't go into Einstein's nationality or religion. Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: I see no reason for the lede of Esperanto to mention that Zamenhoff was Jewish; it's a very odd insertion. If people want to know that detail they can certainly click on the link to his article, which makes it very clear that he had Jewish parents, spoke Yiddish, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I contest that the "insertion" is "very odd". Indeed, the deletion is more dubious, but I couldn't contest the guideline (though believing that a possible exception was in order) and didn't want to get into an edit war. If the other people who are (or should be) watching this article are willing to leave Zamenhof oddly described as "Polish", so be it. I find it questionable, however, that Jayjg apparently can't even spell Zamenhof's name and yet insists on determining how he should be designated. I'm still tempted to delete "Polish"/"Polish-Jewish" in the lede altogether and have it simply say that he was the creator of Esperanto, and I may do this at some point. –Roy McCoy (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: What I find "dubious" is objecting to an application of policy based on an alternate spelling/common typo; a cursory Google search will show that it is spelled both ways, and indeed, I also spelled it both ways in my comments, though I'm happy to stick to "Zamenhof" from now on, as it is more correct. More to the point, though, is that it's entirely irrelevant to policy. Regarding whether or not it this article should say "Polish", MOS:OPENPARABIO is also clear; please review item 3 from the list there. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear. It is propaganda by consensus. ~2026-20670-33 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)