Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Potočnik (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 5 March 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:30, 5 March 2014 by Potočnik (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

Also, check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 14:29, 2 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)
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)
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)
You become a communist when your enemy labels you as a communist, so they can kill you. That's how you become Jewish also. USchick (talk) 18:07, 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)
  • Delete as POV fork. There is a valid topic buried in here somewhere but main contributor PRODUCER has demonstrated the inability to portray it in an encyclopedically neutral manner. The article should be purged (irony intended) of all current text and references, ideally by deletion and redirection to Jewish Bolshevism. If some more neutral editor were to approach the subject with objectivity I could see its revival. That editor should start with books PRODUCER does not cite such as Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism, The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, In the Shadows of the Holocaust and Communism: Czech and Slovak Jews Since 1945 and Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism, among many others. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Could you specify what this "inability" is? I've created numerous FA and GA articles and have gotten compliments from numerous users for just the first draft. Why the purging? This "I don't like it, purge plz" nonsense is irrelevant. Do those book titles irk you? Aside from the first source you mentioned, which is published by Oxford University Press, none of the rest you mentioned are in the article, but that wouldn't be an issue. All the works you choose to despise because of their names were written by scholars published by Stanford, Transaction, and Simon & Schuster. "Inability" would be too soft a term to leave the task of improving the article to someone who creates a absurd blanket judgement of sources simply based on naming aesthetics. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Binksternet is saying that those are the types of sources that should be used, rather than a discredited history of the Jews by an otherwise respected historian of feudalism. Why by the way do you think it is important to point out that Cantor is Jewish? But as it says in the intro to Dark Times, Dire Decisions, p. 8, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." That presents a serious obstacle to writing this article. TFD (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Then Binksternet can contribute sourced information from the books that's relevant even though I'm the "main contributor" of the article's long three day life. Are we not allowed to acknowledge that Cantor is a Jewish historian like many others? I did not use solely one source for the entire article and it was certainly not "discredited" by the publications head of a Jewish/Israeli lobby group. That's hilarious. Another user, Pudeo, said that the article simply "states the referenced facts", but how can that be the case if I'm trying prove a "conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement" as charged by TFD? You previously recommended a new article be created in order to remove similar information from Jewish Bolshevism and now have requested its removal a day after the article was created. It appears the information is simply too inconvenient and disliked by some, and as such it must be deleted en masse. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Your behavior in this matter is odious, TFD. I was the user who pointed out that such an article as this might be a POVFORK . To which you replied - that it would be a (quote) "separate topic" , followed by your RfC whereby you pushed the same notion.

"The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics." --TFD, 11 September 2013

Be advised that if this article is indeed deleted per your nom for being a "POVFORK" of Jewish Bolshevism, I myself will re-introduce it there. Then you can post another RfC about how its outside the scope. I do believe you should be reported and sanctioned for instigating this whole farce, not to speak of all these "antisemitism" accusations. Frankly its quite clear you are simply out to suppress this data from the project, by any means necessary. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
PRODUCER. why do you think it is important that Cantor was Jewish? TFD (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
A provocation disguised as an (irrelevant) question, intended to imply antisemitic bias. The kind you used to ask me as well. I must say, it doesn't take very long to discern these sort of rhetorical habits.
If I might venture a guess, I imagine its because you've accused him of (quote) "attempting to prove a Nazi conspiracy theory".. and are employing such underhanded methods to incite outrage to delete this article. Pointing out that the alleged antisemitic article is based on a scholar who happens to be Jewish - seems more than appropriate given your "tactics". But since we're asking personal questions, would you care to explain for all participants here your sudden 180 flip regarding what is or is not a POVFORK? Or will you ignore the question for a third time? -- Director (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Communism (not speaking Soviet Bolshevism) had a strong appeal to the Eastern European intellectual tradition including Jewish. Quite a few were jailed in Poland, where that intellectual community gained strength under duress. Of course, there were other groups to which communism appealed as well. It should be possible to discuss this topic in a scholarly manner outside "Jewish Bolshevism" and its primary role as an anti-Semitic meme. That makes this topic completely separate. That said, it should be more than a compendium of (non-practicing) Jews who played a historical role in communism. It would be helpful also to compare and contrast with other ethnically/culturally identifiable groups which also played a similar role. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I concur with you that the subject of Jews and Communism is valid, but the article, as it stands, is irreparable confusion. - Altenmann >t 04:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • On a related note, by the way, since the Polish communist administration is one of the subjects of this article. I asked one of my friends at the University of Łódź for his opinion: he said that this topic was mentioned by a history professor on a lecture as well, telling many of these names and that it is well-known in Poland but there is nothing too controversial about it. His criticism for this article was that it starts like a leaflet. I agree, the lede is not very good at the moment and words like "dominated" sound a bit sensational. But as said, that should be improved - not a reason to delete the article. --Pudeo' 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The Polish Communist administration, which had few if any Jewish members, is not mentioned in this article. The vast majority of Polish Jews were murdered during the Holocaust and the vast majority of the survivors emigrated. The article mentions the Polish Communist Party, which was a tiny organization in the interwar period (it got 0.4% of the vote in 1930), but fails to mention that its membership was purged and the party disbanded before the establishment of Communist rule in Poland under the "Polish United Workers' Party", which had no signficant Jewish membership. There is however a perception among some that the Jews were behind the regime, which is properly covered in articles about anti-Semitism. But where is the source that tells us why most of the few hundred members of this party were Jewish while few if any of the millions of members of the Communist Party of China were? Without sources, it requires original research to provide the comparison. TFD (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, it seems it only concerns the pre-war movement, but it could be expanded as what you say is not true. A number of Jews returned to Poland after World War II – and for example Stalin's right-hand in Poland Jakub Berman was Jewish. He led the secret police, the Ministry of Public Security (Poland). The secret police's organization of 1944-1954 was 37.9 % Jewish (referenced in that article, Szwagrzyk 2005). But the Jews were even more strongly represented after World War II in Hungary: the first two state leaders were Jewish: Rákosi and Gerő despite Jews being a 2 % minority. So it is a well-known fact people of Jewish descent had a lot of powerful positions post-war communist countries until Stalin started to express anti-Semitic attitudes. A notable historical development that easily fits the scope of this article, so there is room for expansion. --Pudeo' 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please don't confuse Stalinism with Communism or Socialism. USchick (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide any source that compares the number of Jewish Communists in Poland and China? Such a source is necessary in order for us to connect the two by putting both into one article. Otherwise all the information about Communism and Jews in Poland can remain in the articles about Polish Jews and Polish Communism. And since most Polish Communists were from Catholic backgrounds, why is it only notable that some of them were Jewish? TFD (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is only the first draft of the article. I will say it again: simply because you don't like the style and content of the article as it stands now - does not mean it should be deleted. It means it should be edited, and fixed. That's not a valid, policy-derived reason for deletion. If we all agree that the topic and scope of the article are noteworthy, the discussion ends there. A lazy attitude by which the (reliably-sourced) data in this article is to be deleted, rather than worked on, is imo unbecoming a serious Wikipedian.
In fact, it seems nothing more than an attempt by TFD to delete said data through various underhanded means, as an alternative to challenging it fairly on the talkpage. Which, I think, is the difficult option considering the careful sourcing. And thus we have this AfD and the previous RfC on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. First its not part of the scope of Jewish Bolshevism, and now its a POVFORK of Jewish Bolshevism... If its restored to Jewish Bolshevism it'll be outside its scope again, no doubt. Anything to get rid of it. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you not put it into articles about the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc. since the sources are about specific Communist parties or Jews of specific nations? TFD (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. This topic does not merit a separate article just because TFD once said its separate topics from Jewish Bolshevism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, certainly not. The problem is that TFD can't seem to decide whether this is or is not a separate topic. On this page he's says it isn't one, on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism he says it is. As the circumstances warrant, I imagine. I said this topic might be a POVFORK , and that it may not warrant a separate article. TFD went to great lengths to establish a consensus to the contrary... now he's done a 180 degree flip and says its a POVFORK (see nomination, Antid).
Thing is that, TFD has established said consensus, which everyone respects (or rather respected). This topic, by TFD's own consensus - is not a part of the Jewish Bolshevism article. Of course, if its deleted per this nom on grounds of being a part of the JB article, said consensus will obviously be void because so many oppose the notion - not least its main proponent. I certainly look forward to the rhetorical acrobatics that will ensue in such a scenario. -- Director (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This topic does not merit a separate article just because TFD once (correctly) stated it is a topic separate from Jewish Bolshevism. TFD clarified that it can be moved into "the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So the article is not, in fact a fork of Jewish Bolshevism and the entire nomination is fraudulent? But no. See the nom: "there may be room for a neutral article about the relationship between Jews and Communism", and see above comments. That's the further weird thing about this nomination: everybody seems to agree its a WP:NOTABLE topic for an article. Its just that TFD wants to delete this text from the project. -- Director (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. This topic does not merit a separate article. Regardless of what "TFD wants...", of "TFD's own consensus..." and what TFD promotes, what TFD decides, what TFD established, what TFD this and TFD that. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. I tend to disagree, alongside the majority of participants here. -- Director (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed unrelated information from the article to see what was left. My edits were reverted. If anyone else is interested in the article, please go revert back to what I had, and see if the remaining information warrants an article. USchick (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ok USchick. I for one will certainly create a separate Jews and Marxism article, because Marxism is not to be confused with communism... Right? -- Director (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you haven't done it already. USchick (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I just might do it to give TFD more work :). But no: Marxism is a form of Communism. Its like apples and fruit. Like travelling between California and Pasadena. -- Director (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
USchick, those movements were communist and the countries were led by communist parties: it is another political debate on how far they achieved communist goals (in comparision some people refute criticism of capitalism because "no truly free market systems have been achieved"). Both arguments are of 'no true scotsman' type. But we have reliable sources which discuss communism and the Soviet Union, so please don't remove information on the basis that communism has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. --Pudeo' 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Bah.. another IDONTLIKEIT WP:VOTE. -- Director (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article is completely based on reliable sources and notable events. Some points maybe controversial, but that is not a valid reason to delete. Noteswork (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I'm sceptical about the value of "X and Y" or "The relationship between X and Y"-type articles, which you can invent about more or less any combination, as noted, there is an arguably valid topic here, which has been the topic of genuine dispassionate academic inquiry – and one which is distinct from the Jewish Bolshevism topic, which is specifically about the conspiracy theory and therefore it need not be a fork. However, as also noted, this page is currently written as if intended to "prove" that conspiracy theory and hence is not only a fork in practice but is a grossly offensive one. It simply lists a whole load of cherry-picked statistics, assertions and quotes which zero in on showing how many Jews were communists and vice versa. Even in the lead, for example, it used phrases such as "counter to the denial of American Jewish publicists". I guess it could be rewritten but there are really serious issues here. N-HH (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This article needs a lot of work, particularly in explaining why Jewish people, as an oppressed minority, were drawn by the appeal of communist movements - and we do need it explicitly stated that it had nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy. It is a comparatively brief article, though. I'd be fixing it up right now if I knew it'd be worthwhile. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article probably needs tweaking for more viewpoints and sources (like those provided above) and some more politically correct language. Facts are the best way to confound bloated conspiracy theories. Removing it just reinforces idea Misplaced Pages is censored. Jews and the slave trade is probably a more controversial historical topic and that has never even been AfD'd. Jewish left is another one you might as well AfD if you are going after this one. And then there are those dozens of articles about historical facts about members of other religions we can start AfDing. When does it stop? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: It seems to be well-sourced and meaningful. Saying it's anti-semetic seems misplaced. I suppose it depends on how you feel about communism. Some cultures disproportionately contribute to certatin movements. Whether they should be blamed or credited is in th eye of the beholder. The criticisms smack of false accusations of anti-semetism, serving as a thin varnish on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Completely non-encyclopedic article and it contains major POV violations in just about every section. Just because there are verifiable facts in the article does not make it appropriate. This is essentially an essay, devoid of any context or neutral thrust, masked by a copious amount of sources. The topic may belong, but at this point, it badly needs to be blown up. mikeman67 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. While the topic suggested by the title would make for a perfectly valid Misplaced Pages article, the text as it stand now is just an original synthesis of cherry-picked facts of the type often found on antisemitic websites. Unless there's a major rewrite (basically a new article is created under the same title), this article has no place in encyclopaedia that seeks to be neutral.Anonimu (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. First of all, why has this debate been included again in the list of Austria/Germany/Hungary/Romania/Poland/Ukraine/US related deletion discussions? Only Judaism, politics (and maybe Russia) should be listed, and they are already have been . I've reverted DIREKTOR once again now.
As explained above, this is a non-encyclopedic antisemitic POV-attack article, and in addition it clearly violates the no original research policy. Just because it's claimed in multiple sources that there was a high percentage of Jews during the "Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years" doesn't mean there should be an article about it. By PRODUCER's logic there might as well be articles titled "African Americans and crime", "Mexicans and illegal drugs", "Muslims and child abuse", Jews and Wall Street and so on. So while user "Director" keeps accusing everyone who think this article should be deleted of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is in fact no legitimate policy based argument for keeping it.
I'd like to suggest a new proposal: The content of this article is already found in many related pages. So the article, or or parts of it, should simply be merged with Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism, particularly in the section Jewish Bolshevism#Jews in the Bolshevik party, as the creator of the article attempted to do not long ago. - Yambaram (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. The nominator already stated that this text can be moved into "the relevant articles, Communism in Poland, Polish Jews etc".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please acquaint yourself with WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:RUBBISH as it addresses most of your post. It's a "clear WP:CANVASS attempt" and also "clearly" violates the WP:OR policy? The historically significant events being discussed in the article take place in those countries. Of course the delsort was entirely appropriate as there was no "mass", "biased", "partisan", or "secret" posting. Where's this information in the article "for which no reliable, published sources exist"? Your vague groundless complaints do not even remotely resemble being "clear". The "Jews and the slave trade" article also apparently exists under "PRODUCER's logic" and, as another user pointed out, it "has never even been AfD'd" though you're certainly welcome to try. Really this is just a vapid post merging and parroting all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT posts above wrapped in a anti-semitism accusation for good measure. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, perhaps a way forward could be to work on a new draft for an article on this title. The present article is highly problematic, and the "x, y, z were Jews" arguments, if not directly antisemitic, abets an antisemitic narrative. The interesting aspect is not to list who was and wasn't Jewish in the communist movement, rather it would be of interest having an article dealing with the issue of 'why?'. It would be commentary on the situation of Jews in 19th Europe, the appeal of secular movement to a minority, the appeal of revolutionary opposition against Czarism, etc., and how this fascination gradually waned (not the least as Zionism and Communism became increasingly incompatible in the Cold War era). There are two other aspects, which would require some attention; 1) seemingly 'Jewish sections' were set up in several communist parties during the Comintern years (such as Yevsektsia, Central Jewish Bureau, Communist Party of Poland, etc., but have also found mentions of such sections in Austria, Argentina, etc.). Was this a consistent policy with Comintern backing? I haven't found anything to back that up, but it would be typical that these sections would have been part of a larger policy of the international. 2) The appeal of communism towards Jewish intellectuals and workers in the first half of the 20th century was not an exclusively Western phenomenon. In the early phases of the communist movement, Jews were disproportionately represented in the leaderships of communist parties in the Arab world, Latin America, South Africa, etc.. In fact only in Eastern, South-Eastern and Southern Asia was this a non-issue. --Soman (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • See my response to your earlier comment. It is much easier to just delete and if someone wants to recreate these articles following NPOV, then there is nothing to stop them. But who wants a misleading article? TFD (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your concern of ease. Yes, actually putting in the effort to contribute reliably referenced information that you feel is lacking rather than commanding others "recreate" articles can take some effort. If you are looking for a first draft of any article on Misplaced Pages that's completely definitive then you won't find it, but of course this article is being held to that standard. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Soman, you say it's "directly antisemitic" or "abets an antisemitic narrative" because it mentions who were Jewish communists in a article regarding "Jews and Communism"? What am I reading, honestly? It's apparent historians find it a very "interesting aspect", especially Yuri Slezkine who "lists who was and wasn't Jewish in the communist movement" for numerous pages. Is Slezkine's book "directly antisemitic"? Does it "abet an antisemitic narrative"? Also since when do we cater articles based on personal sensitives? I've seen at least half a dozen of such empty anti-semitism accusations being thrown around liberally and the article being called "offensive" or "inappropriate" for simply existing. Such "arguments" are not rooted in Misplaced Pages policy. If reliable sources exist for the claims you've made then by all means they should be added to the article. The "why?" aspect should certainly be discussed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to History of communism because as this title stands now it is basically a crude attempt to smear the Jews and not much else. There is a subtle very fine line between presenting facts objectively in NPOV fashion versus using facts in a tendentious manner to paint an obviously derogatory picture of an ethnic group that has had many characteristics attached to it by its enemies, thus violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX in the process with unwanted tones of a favorite slander thrown at "Jews" when, note, the truth about Jews (look up the term) is that they are an ethnicity but overlooks the fact that when connected to Judaism it opposes secular atheist ideologies which is what Communism is. Thus those Jews who were part of it were more accurately RENEGADE Jews, which this title does nothing to make clear. No normal person would post about Germans and Nazism since objectively no fair person would want to slander the German people as a whole to associate all of them with the implication of being Nazis, unlike this article which implicates all Jews willy-nilly, by not having any qualifiers of any kind at any point! Likewise no normal person would write up an article of Italians and Fascism or Italians and the Mafia because that would obviously DEFAME all Italians by association implying that Italians have a predilection for Fascism or the Mafia. While many Jews were part of Communism's early history and founding, it should be part of the history of communism and not mis-represented as being a "by-product" of Jews (always worrisome when articles like this pop up), no more or less than no normal person would write a blanket article implying that German's are somehow or other the only prime motivators for the rise of Nazism, or implicating Italians as having some kind of monopoly over the causes promoting the rise of Fascism or the birth of the Mafia. Take heed, this is a slippery slope... IZAK (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories: