Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 2 March 2014

Jews and Communism

Jews and Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a "point of view fork" of Jewish Bolshevism. While Jewish Bolshevism is about the conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination, this article attempts to prove that. While there may be room for a neutral article about the relationship between Jews and Communism, it would be better to scrap this article and start again TFD (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Emphatic Delete. Unequivocal POV attack-page.--Galassi (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Though the invididuals mentioned may have been of Jewish ancestry, no evidence is offered that they were practicing Jews. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources specify them as Jews. I won't get into a "Who is a Jew?" discussion. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should, if you want to keep this article. The word is in the title. What does it mean? USchick (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This is in no way appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hot Stop 06:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not censored. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This article is about Jews and Communism. There is no mention of Jewish world domination via communism, at most it is said a "disproportionately important role" (historian Norman Cantor) was played by Jews in the movement. The allegation that this article attempts to "prove" the "conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination" is thus utter nonsense. The assertion that it's "better to scrap this article and start again" is poorly cloaked WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Cantor has no expertise on Jewish history and his writings on the subject were not published in the academic press. See the review of one of his books books on Jewish history by the Director of Publications for the American Jewish Committee. It says that he claims to correct the false Jewish history which is promoted by rich and powerful Jews, and anti-Semitism has been aroused by Jewish actions. TFD (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Cantor, who himself is a Jew, went to Princeton, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and taught at Columbia and other universities. The person you're citing on the other hand is the publications head of a lobby organization. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Thinly disguised anti-Semitic ranting that Jews pushed the Communist agenda. Nothing is lost by deleting it. 68.9.121.226 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Pov attack page by someone who failed to get their pov at Jewish Bolshevism. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with that assessment. Creating a new article was actually recommended on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. The information was rejected there solely on the grounds of it being outside the scope (which is the conspiracy theory). -- Director (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Misplaced Pages is not censored. This article is well-sourced and the sources support its content. This is a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23 editor (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. "Emphatically strong", even. This article is not a WP:POVFORK from Jewish Bolshevism, since that article, by consensus, concerns itself exclusively with the Nazi conspiracy theory . In fact, the information presented here was removed from that article on precisely those grounds, as promoted by TFD. Creating a new article was a suggested course of action on the talkpage. Now, TFD wishes to delete this article - because his apparent goal is simply to suppress this data from Misplaced Pages, no matter how convoluted the reasoning. He means to do it through distastefully implying some kind of anti-semitic bias. Constant accusations, implied or otherwise, regarding anti-semitism, Nazism, and the like - are a discernible pattern at this point with the user. PRODUCER is the fourth respectable Wikipedian I've seen against whom TFD has used such means to have his way on articles. If I were accused here of supporting an antisemitic Nazi conspiracy theory, TFD would already be explaining his reasoning on the relevant admin noticeboard.

This article, so far as I can gather, follows sources to the letter. Respectable, mainstream sources. I know this is a sensitive, ideologically-laden topic - but this is Misplaced Pages. If its sourced, if its notable - it can't be deleted. Or shouldn't be, at least, not without some kind of backing in policy. And in the end, even if you disagree with the content or tone of the text, take that to talk and change it up - what matters is that the topic is noteworthy. The nominator pretty much admits that. Strangely, though, he seems to advocate reworking the article - through first deleting it entirely, never mind that its sourced to the bone.. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Very well sourced, very well structured, article about a subject that can stand on its own. I don't see any issue here; it's not a fork, the Jewish Bolshevism article was not the suitable place for that content since it deals itself exclusively with the conspiracy (per this RFC which was initiated by the nominator of this AfD; Do I smell an WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). --CyberXRef 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Unequivocal POV attack-page. USchick (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah. More IDONTLIKEIT WP:VOTES. I had a look. Practically every single word and phrase is derived directly from sources. The authors being Jewish too more often than not. I think this is again the stupid mess of American politics seeping into Misplaced Pages. Apparently, in America, "Jews is commies!!" is a favorite antisemitic "line". Its not the mission of this project to "stick it" to the Republicans or whoever... -- Director (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to define "Jewish"? USchick (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why no, I wouldn't. See below. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, although this is a sensitive subject, but this article is well-sourced. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The title of the article is problematic. Jews can be just about anyone. The word has too many definitions to be meaningful. A person with a Jewish ancestor 5 times removed, who does not identify as being Jewish, was labeled as a "Jew" by a political rival, long after the person was dead and couldn't speak for himself, and then he ended up in this article and defined by Misplaced Pages editors. This is history revisionism. USchick (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not how we write this project. We don't e-mail Einstein and ask him if he considers himself Jewish, we see what scholarly sources say. If reliable scholarly sources say someone was Jewish - he's Jewish as far as this project is concerned. Further, as was pointed out on numerous occasions - this article is sourced very, very thoroughly. I hope you don't expect users to conclude what is or is not "historical revisionism" based on your personal opinion.. against prominent scholars? -- Director (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Prominent scholars" is also a problematic term. Some people call them "political terrorists." USchick (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to "some people"?

I guess we better petition Jimbo to shut down this site then. I know I at least will have more free time on my hands.. No look, if you consider the cited sources unreliable, or "political terrorists" for that matter, pls present some kind of support. By all means, if this article is sourced by David Irving or his ilk, it probably ought to be deleted. Is it sourced with historical revisionist scholars? -- Director (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think, for every "expert opinion" there's a different opinion on this subject. This article is not balanced. It's POV. USchick (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If its a subject of historical debate - then its a significant topic. And if its unbalanced - then it needs to be balanced, not deleted. Though I'm not necessarily convinced this is contentious data. Its sensitive, and needs to perhaps be handled with considerably more tact. But as far as rough first(!) drafts of articles go, its rather impressive. -- Director (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "communism" in the title is just as problematic. The information contained in the article has nothing to do with Communism. It talks about the Bolshevik Party, Bolshevik Revolution, different countries, lots of things, but not Communism. Putting two unrelated words together is Original Research. USchick (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, #1 "Jewish" is not problematic: we go by sources on this project. #2 "communism" is not problematic either: the people mentioned here were certainly communists. And I can't even wrap my mind around your above post its so completely detached from everything.. How is anything here "original research"?? If you have problems with terminology, take it up with the source. If you have problems with the title, propose a move to whatever. -- Director (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish is a word and Communism is a word, but the information in the article is not about Jewish Communism. To put those 2 words together is SYNTH and the sources don't support it. I'm not going to argue with you, because now it's just who screams the loudest. You can be the loudest. USchick (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh... no. There's no synth here. And I'm certainly glad we won't be arguing because frankly I still don't understand what you're still doing on these articles. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a valid article subject, and there is a scope to build a good quality article around it. However, the present article presents the subject in a the most sensationalistic way possible. There is also no real lead nor context presented. --Soman (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There was a similar article called "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood", which was renamed "Jews and Hollywood", during the AfD. Also "Jews and Money", which was retitled and deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. The problem is that if an article presents a POV and uses questionable sources or is a collection of cut and pastes from other articles, then it cannot be rescued. The best approach is to delete. If someone later wants to write the article according to policy, particularly neutrality, then presumably it would survive another AfD. There is nothing of value in the article to keep. TFD (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@TFD If this is a worthwhile topic, alleged bias is not a valid deletion rationale. POVFORK would be. But you're the one who vehemently argued that this topic is not included in Jewish Bolshevism, so I guess you're moving away from that rationale at this point? But let me spell that out again: you're the user who ejected this data from the Jewish Bolshevism article on grounds that its a separate topic , and have now posted an AfD on grounds that its a "POVFORK" of Jewish Bolshevism. In my book, that's shameless POV-pushing and borderline disruptive editing. "I think this article is biased and can't be rescued" is not a policy-relevant AfD rationale, its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you believe the sources are questionable etc., which so far as I can see is not the case - feel free to bring up your concerns on the article's talkpage. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While it could be a legitimate topic, it is written from a POV that cannot be corrected. It begins for example, The lead for example provides alleged examples where there were more Jews than non-Jews, but ignores other examples, such as China, where there were few Jews, or Stalin's purging of Jews in leadership positions, or that Jews in Russia were also "overrrepresented" in liberal parties, or that in Germany they were underrepresented. No mention that right-wing parties often did not allow Jews to join, or that these "Jews" were non-practicing. When the article begins by saying a "near majority" of Bolshevik ,leaders and the secret police were "most Jewish", there is no way to get back to neutrality. TFD (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead of this article could use work... clearly therefore the article must be deleted?? This is a first draft, TFD. And for a first draft its rather impressive, as they come. If this "could be a legitimate topic", and if its not in fact a POVFORK - then in reality we have nothing more to discuss on this deletion request. Take your concerns about the lead to talk, or better yet - rework the lead and whatever else you object to. I'm sure you're not actually nominating this article for deletion because you don't feel like editing? Btw, if you no longer contend this article is a "POVFORK", then you should probably strike that in the nomination. -- Director (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep A good solution to divide what is a conspiracy theory (Jewish Bolshevism) and what is Jewish history in the communist movements, indeed as long as both articles make the distinction very clearly. This article is well-sourced so there is no problem in that. It is an odd thing to say that "this article attempts to prove the conspiracy theory" although this article just states the referenced facts unlike the other article's scope. And for this article to be an attack page, communists would have to be bad people by definition, which I don't think is the case. The article should be expanded to cover the Soviet Union's later anti-Jewish attitudes (e.g. Doctors' plot) too. --Pudeo' 06:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that Soviet Union fell apart long before it achieved Communism. As a result, Jews and Communism are not any more related than Christians and Communism. WP:SYNTH. USchick (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake.. You don't have to actually achieve a perfect communist society to be a communist. -- Director (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• delete the article is unrepairable. There are issues of involvement of the Jews in Russian Revolution, but the article is heavily based on cherry-picked sources which leave an impression of antisemitic bias. The title is arbitrary juxtaposition. Why not Jews and social democracy, Jews and laborism, Jews and psychoanalysis, Jews and music? - Altenmann >t 07:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The juxtaposition is clearly not arbitrary, as, again - it is derived from sources, who make the same juxtaposition . Though perhaps the title might be changed into something more appropriate, the subject is certainly covered in sources to such a degree that it warrants an article (not so with other topics you mention). -- Director (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be about "Jewish Communism" canard. And the article covers the sources in a highly biased antisemitic point of view. For all claims there are known counter-arguments. So indeed, this article now is just a fork of "Jewish bolshevism". - Altenmann >t 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no need for separate article just to emphasize that "Jews played a "disproportionately important role" in Soviet and world Communism until the early 1950s". It can be done with one single sentence within articles on Communism and Jews. Having a separate article could mislead readers to believe that Communism is attributed to Jewish people which would be incorrect and wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates