Talk:Joseph Samuel Bloch

Christsocial, not Christian Socialist

I think that the statements about Bloch's loss of a parliament seat in 1897 are based on misunderstandings, or outright wrong.

This part of the article is based on the article Josef Samuel Bloch in the Jewish Encyclopaedia from 1901-06. Our article more or less exactly copies the source here (which is OK, since that text now is free); whence the error rather should be theirs than ours. We have also included a link to Christian Socialism, which would have been reasonable, if the source were right, but actuallyis factually incorrect.

As far as I know, there was no Christian Socialism in Austria at that time. There was a "Christsocial" party, the Christlichsoziale Partei, or Christian Social Party, but this had nothing to do with "Christian Socialism". That party was outspokenly anti-socialist. Actually, our article about the latter explicitly warns for exactly this confusion. It states:

Christian socialism is not to be confused with certain parties with "Christian Social" in their names which are found in the German-speaking world, such as the contemporary Christian Social Union in Bavaria or the Christian Social Party in Austria-Hungary c. 1900. Such parties do not claim to be socialist, nor are they considered socialist by others. The term Christian Democrat is more appropriately applied to the contemporary parties.

Moreover, The Austrian Christian Social Party at this time contained a strong antisemitic element; which could be a reason for going against Bloch, who had stood upvery openly and efficiently against Austrian antisemitism. This might be a reason for them to go against Bloch, even in favour of another Jew.

However, I do not know any particulars about the opposition to Bloch. The source article must have been written less than 10 years after the events themselves; and thus it ought not for it to be possible to be as confused as it appears to be. It may be, that there were other well-known things going around in Austria then, to which the Jewish Encyclopaedia article refers, but of which I am ignorant and therefore do not understand. Besides, the dewp sister article, de:Joseph Samuel Bloch, gives another version; it claims that Bloch was an M.P. until 1895 (not 1897), and that he actually was a member of the Polish Club.

Taken together, I think it would be better if someone with expert knowledge tries to understand what this was all about, than me trying to guess the truth between this confusing text. JoergenB (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Samuel Bloch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311201651/http://www.christenundjuden.org/de/?item=117 to http://www.christenundjuden.org/de/?item=117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)