Talk:Theodor Herzl

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Add a hyperlink for the seperate article on Stephen Norman to his name. 61.1.53.217 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Please remove this line:

Herzl is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence

and add this one:

Herzl is named in the Israeli Declaration of Independence

It's shorter and clearer; you can make a clear reference to someone without naming him, but not vice versa. ALSO Please fulfill the malformed request in the section above this one.

123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the statement is sourced and easily attributed to other sources. You are welcome to seek consensus for your proposed change.

References

M.Bitton (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Famous photo on a balcony in Basel

hey, was trying to find a good source for the date of the photo File:Herzl on a balcony 1901.jpg, and different sources give different dates.

• This one says "1898 DURING THE FIRST ZIONIST CONGRESS", but first congress was in 1897;
• this one says "1901 during the 5th Congress", but it's reliability is a question itself.
• this one says "1901, 1904";
• this one says "Fifth Zionist Congress in December 1901";
• this one says "Basle (1898)";
• this one gives "28 VII 1903" (though it's a photo on a postcard);
• this one says "First Zionist Congress in 1901" that is certainly wrong,
• this one says "August 1897",
• this one is just "Zionist Congress, early 1900s" (and they took photo from Commons), and, finally,
• wall street journal says "first Zionist Congress in 1897."

Any thoughts? Artem.G (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

pinging several editors who might be interested (no obligations, of course!) Onceinawhile, Dovidroth, Iskandar323. Artem.G (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Artem.G: This page you gave does not state a date for the photo. But more interestingly, at the bottom of the image it says "Beilage zu Nr. 28 'Die Welt'" (Supplement to Number 28, Die Welt). Die Welt was a Zionist newspaper published from 1897 to 1914. It is available here but is very hard to search exhaustively. There is no volume 28 but each of the 18 volumes has an issue 28. I first tried 1901 without success, also issue 28 was in August but the congress in that year was in December. I'll look at issue 28 in the other years next. Zero^talk 02:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it appears in issue 28 of volume 8 (1904) devoted to Herzl on his death. It is identical to this, including the caption "Dr. Theodor Herzl an der Rheinbrücke" (Dr. Theodor Herzl at the Rhine Bridge). It appears on a page by itself and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the text (though the archive has at least one page missing). Zero^talk 04:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the National Library of Israel holds a negative from the "Pritzker Family National Photography Collection". No date for the photograph is given, which probably means they don't know it. We can trust them that the photographer was A. M. Lilian though. Zero^talk 04:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

But maybe not the spelling... Die Welt v40, issue 30, page 14 says "Das Bild 'Herzl an der Rheinbrücke' in Basel ist nach einer Photographie angefertigt, die von E. M. Lilien nergestellt wurde." (The picture "Herzl at the Rhine Bridge" in Basel is from a photograph taken by E. M. Lilien.) (I'm guessing Lilien->Lilian is a German->Hebrew thing.) Still no date. There is also mention of a second photo of Herzl at the Rhine Bridge not the same as this one. Zero^talk 04:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

E. M. Lilien was Ephraim Moses Lilien, known better as an illustrator. There is a lot about him in this book, including on page 158: "Later, his 1901 photograph of Theodor Herzl looking from the Rhine Bridge in Basel became the motto of the Jewish National Fund (Berkowitz 1993, 138)." The cited book of Berkowitz is here and has the image but not a date on page 136 (I can't see p135, can anyone?). There is a reference though: Alfred Werner, 'The Tragedy of Ephraim Moses Lilien', Herzl Year Book, vol 2, p92. I don't have it. There is quite a lot of work on Lilien and surely something has a definitive statement. Lilien was a delegate at the 1901 Zionist Congress in Basel (but is not mentioned at all in the Protokolls of earlier Congresses), so 1901 is looking good. Zero^talk 04:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Here documentary evidence for 1901 is claimed. Zero^talk 04:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well done Zero, fantastic. Reading that last link shows it was a question that has puzzled many people. The summary is perfect: So there it is: chapter and verse. The most famous photograph of Theodor Herzl was taken sometime between December 26 and 30th - very pleasantly, he says in the letter to Lilien - at the Fifth Zionist Congress, in Basel, in 1901.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot for such detailed analysis! I'll go through your links, though I didn't expect it to be that obscure. The photo is really famous, they print it everywhere in Israel and elsewhere (e.g. I saw a mural in Vilnius, Lithuania just several months ago), but it looks like nobody even tried to date the photo correctly. Artem.G (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The letter of 30 Jan 1902 from Herzl to Lilien thanking Lilien for the "Rheinhintergrundsbild" (picture with Rhine background) and asking for an additional copy for his mother can be seen here in Ost und West, vol 4 (1904) page 639. The text beside it says that the letter refers to our image, which is reproduced on page 509. This is very good confirmation. Zero^talk 08:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A codicil to this photo is that several sources say Herzl is standing on the balcony of the hotel room he occupied during the 1st Zionist Congress (1897). I don't know a solid source for that, though it makes propaganda sense. Perhaps this explains why so many sources date the photo to 1897. Zero^talk 08:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

To editor Nishidani: If you zoom into the source you can see something between "hintergründ" and "bild". I thought it was "r" (and google didn't mind) but now I think it is either a meaningless pen wiggle or an "s". I don't know what German dialect Herzl wrote in, but "Rhein+Hintergründ+s+Bild" is a plausible reading, is it not? Zero^talk 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Stone the effen crows, you swine! Ya got me out for my usual refusal to squint. I should wear glasses because otherwise I would have picked up the error in spelling that with an umlaut, Hintergründ. I jus'saw 'r' which ain't on, and just corrected/normalised to Hintergrundbild, of which Hintergrundsbild is a poifectly acceptable variant. It's not a matter of dialect:Herzl wrote flawless German, though in his private letters to kinfolk etc., he wasn't beyond using Viennese and Yiddish idioms.

Must be winter over there, so be careful of thunderbolts. I think the tetragrammaton is getting pissed off at your rival omniscience, and might be tempted to do the rest of us on wiki a favour by zeroing in on the likes of you with a blitz of a bolt even from the cerulean heights, of the kind that put the wind up James Joyce in his nomadic life from Oireland to Trieste. In the meantime I'm cleaning up my new keyboard from the mess my visceral reaction to your meticulous corrective note of doubt, and hiking to the local pharmacy to get some vaseline. Being caught by the short and curlies for sheer laziness does affect a chap that way, ya know. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have learned that "u" with a little curve or circle above it is not a weird way to write "ü" but just a way to distinguish "u" from other letters that can look similar in hand-writing. Also a speculative suggestion that the irregular placement of that "s" might be the author's way to indicate that it is not a picture of the background but of himself with that background, basically "Rheinhintergrund-Bild" rather than "Rhein-Hintergrundbild". Zero^talk 03:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the sort of orthographo-semantic quibble one would associate with his great adversary Karl Kraus, whose finicky precisian's heated insistence on the different implications instinct in such stylistic variants was so lovingly maniacal that he concluded at life's end that the world's woes were created by carelessness in news reporters' prose in the failure to attend to such minutiae. A Germanist will clarify of course, but if he thought such a nuance was critical, it would fit his well-known dandyesque narcissism (it was once quipped that the clothes he ripped metaphorically in expressing distress over the impoverished plight of the Ostjuden were cut to measure by the finest tailors in Vienna). I mean, with that Mosaic beard's eyecatching prominence would any normal chap need to clarify that the pic was of him, not the river, rather as of Leonardo da Vinci felt it necessary to underline that his most famous portrait was of Lisa Gherardini and not of the Arno river with its Romito di Laterina bridge in the background. Now that I still haven't woken up and am still struggling with the oneiric pressures that induce me to pompous blowhardery, one could note that he grew that beard, admirably, as a personal signature, to declare in the face of the rising antisemitism in Vienna that he too, though sharing nothing culturally or even somatically with the Ostjuden whose 'ugly' influx into the city was deplored by the usual racists, was Jewish. It was perhaps the one sensible gesture that lethal dreamer made in his feverishly rhetorical, theatrical, scribbler's life.Nishidani (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Typo in "Family" Section

I think there's a small typo in the fourth paragraph of the "Family" section in the article. Currently, it reads "Hanz Herzl voluntarily had himself circumcised 29 May 1905". However, everywhere else in this section, the article spells the name of Theodor Herzl's son as "Hans" rather than "Hanz". Ariel Don (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Zero^talk 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the supererogatory 'voluntarily' doing there? Hans was a deeply disturbed adolescent at the time (and for all of his life) as everyone knows, and Amos Elon for one states he 'underwent circumcision apparently at the urging of Herzl's disciples.' Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Change "Pinkser" to "Pinsker" in the last paragraph of section "World Jewish Congress" of this article. I assume based on context that "Pinkser" refers to Leon Pinsker. Ariel Don (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ariel Don:  Done. GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Atheism

There is an archived discussion about whether he was an atheist or not. I don’t know the answer. But I do know it’s strange for this article to have three separate categories at the bottom saying he was an atheist, while the rest of this article doesn’t address the question at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently he was 2601:40F:600:32E0:4C28:4161:785F:11F4 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide reliable sources about it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Zionist forefather Theodor Herzl was an atheist, as was his close colleague Max Nordau.[1] found on an LSE blog, not suitable for the article. imilarly, political Zionism’s founder, Theodor Herzl, was a secular agnostic and perhaps even an atheist. Israel’s founding generation was anti-religion and convinced that Judaism as a faith was on the verge of dying, as the veteran peace activist Uri Avnery recalls [2] seems to be a thesis of some kind. I think "secular" is probably a better description, since it's not clear if he was agnostic, atheist, or simply not religious. Andre🚐 02:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a difficult question without a clear answer. I've seen sources going both ways. In Herzl's diaries there are many statements invoking God in terms that a theist would use, but there are also things like this:

When I say “God” I do not mean to offend the free-thinkers. As far as I am concerned, they can use “World Spirit” or some other term in place of this dear old wonderful abbreviation by means of which I get across to the simple intelligences. In our academic battle of words, we still mean one and the same thing. In fact, in belief as well as in doubt we mean the very same thing: that it is inexplicable! (June 12, 1895)

I incidentally mentioned my views on the Deity. I want to bring up my children with a belief in what might be called the historical God. To me, “God” is a beautiful, dear old word which I want to retain. It is a wonderful abbreviation for conceptions that might be beyond the grasp of a childlike or limited intellect. By “God” I understand the Will to Goodl The omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent, eternal Will to Good, which does not immediately prevail everywhere but is always victorious in the end. For which Evil, too, is but a means. How and why, for example, does the Will to Good permit epidemics to exist? Because epidemics cause musty old cities to be torn down and new, bright, healthful cities to come into being, with inhabitants who draw a freer breath.

Thus, anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the divine Will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.

My conception of God, is, after all, Spinozistic and also resembles the natural philosophy of the Monists. But I think of Spinoza’s “substance” as something inert, so to speak, and that incomprehensible universal ether of the Monists seems too intangible and too vague to me. But I can conceive of an omnipresent will, for I see it at work in the physical world. I see it as I can see the functioning of a muscle. The world is the body and God is the functioning of it. The ultimate purpose I do not and need not know; for me it is enough that it is something higher than our present condition. This I can again express with old words, and I gladly do so. Eritis sicut dei, scientes bonum et malum [Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil]. (August 18, 1895)

These quotations from "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl", ed. Patai, trans. Zohn, Volume 1, are of course unusable without secondary source support. Zero^talk 06:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

In this phrase:

On 2 July 1946, Norman wrote

please remove 1946, since two sentences earlier there's a reference to "29 June 1946". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024 (2)

In this phrase:

Mission in Washington, D.C., In late August

please remove the second comma, since there are two separate sentences here. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Herzl's one-time dream to convert Jews to Christianity

It's INSANE that nothing of this is mentioned on the most consulted edition of Wikipedia. This is thoroughly covered on the Hebrew edition. In Israel, Haredim have delighted themselves for decades with sending around VHS tapes detailing this (YouTube now allows automatic subtitling from Hebrew, fyi)

I don't have much time right now to write that stuff, and you people might do a better job at this than me anyway. I found his complete translated diaries here, and the original German can be found around here. Happy learning. Synotia (moan) 15:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The OCR'd diaries are here, even easier for Ctrl+F'ing. Synotia (moan) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)