Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism

A second nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Oy vey, what a mess. The first thing I had to do here was slash and burn my way through the mess of ad-hominem attacks, accusations of sock puppetry, use of obscenities, and violations of WP:CIVIL to find the actual policy-based arguments. What this boils down to is (in rough order of popularity):

Arguments for keep:

• well sourced
• topic meets WP:N
• not a POV fork
• controversy is not a reason to delete

Arguments for delete:

• POV fork (by far the most common argument)
• Attack page (anti-semetic)
• Not written from NPOV (and unrepairably so)
• Fails WP:OR and/or WP:SYN

I don't think anybody would claim that the article is not well sourced, or that the topic is not notable. I think there's a fair argument that the article does fail WP:NPOV, but (even assuming that's correct) that's something to be solved by editing, not by deleting. So, what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism? I don't see a clear enough consensus in the arguments presented to answer that one way or the other, so I'm going to have to call this no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Urgently. -Yambaram (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to remove or strike your baseless sockpuppet accusation. Without any evidence whatsoever to back the accusation and the fact that a checkuser was already conducted [1] it appears to be a bad faith personal attack and an attempt undermine a user's reputation. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, where do you see any accusation made by Galassi here? Why does candidly asking to "check the PRODUCER and the DIREKTOR for sockpuppetry" mean "baseless sockpuppet accusation" to you? Also, should merely agreeing with such a concern/request be considered a form of 'accusation' or 'bad faith'? No. Yambaram (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Though the invididuals mentioned may have been of Jewish ancestry, no evidence is offered that they were practicing Jews. Cullen³²⁸ 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)
  • Wikipedia 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.[2] 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 Wikipedia 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 [3]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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)

• • DIREKTOR: You are making some serious mistakes, and I will just point out a few from your own words, you state "This article...follows sources to the letter" but you fail to realize that there are many layers of meaning to words and when one invokes the word Jews it then automatically means a whole multi-layered set of possibilities. What does the article therefore want to accomplish? Does it want to just list Jews who were communists? In that case communists come from every region and race not just Jews. Does the article want to blame the Jews for Communism? Make that part of the History of communism and put it into perspective with the total picture not just say group XYZ is to blame for everything that happened which is what this article as it stands now implies. Remember, Jews have been blamed for every ill under the sun. They have been the christ-killers, the bringers of plagues, arch-capitalists, arch-communists, just read Mein Kampf and one can see how to blame the Jews for everything except one's own failings. One can find sources for all that also, but it would not make it a worthwhile NPOV encyclopedia. Or perhaps someone here wants to dwell on the categorizations ad nauseum WP doesn't like that either, see WP:OC#EGRS. You state: they are "Respectable, mainstream sources" but yet again you fail to realize that combining the faulty wording of the title/topic with good sources does not make it "kosher for WP" it's like saying if a pig is slaughtered in a kosher manner it is therefore "kosher" when the truth is it is a pig no matter how it is slaughtered. Likewise if the wording of the title, the tone of the article and it's cherry-picking of data is biased then no matter how many good sources are dredged up, it is not an intellectually honest article. You admit that "I know this is a sensitive, ideologically-laden topic" no one is afraid to broach any topic provided that headings, titles and topics are clearly written so that NO confusion should occur, while the way this topic is phrased would be regarded as offensive or as showing bigotry to a particular nationality/ethnicity/people/group (intended or unintended). "- but this is Wikipedia" obviously, and that is why we are having this AfD and User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) the creator of this article [4] is in overdrive to defend it, the verdict will be in once it's over. You state: "If its sourced, if its notable - it can't be deleted" but if it turns out that this article violates WP:SOAPBOX (to preach against the Jews), WP:POINT (to prove that Jews are no good) and is just a cover for a WP:ATTACK page (against the Jews) it will be deleted. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 5 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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.[5] Also "Jews and Money", which was retitled and deleted at Wikipedia: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 [6], 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)

• 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 [7]. 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)

• Jews and music would be a sensible topic as this was the subject of coverage just recently, on account of a new BBC series. And look, we already have Jewish music, list of Jewish musicians and more. Andrew (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bad example. Communism is not Jewish, unlike Jewish music or Jewish musicians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 4 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 [8]. 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)

User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) you have left out another 100+ WP:DELSORT pages since Jews have lived in dozens of countries and have been part of every type of movement. You may as well place a notification on EVERY WikiProject Deletion Sorting page. Communists who have Jewish lineage have been part of art, movies, academia, science, etc etc etc, and lived in almost all countries, Egypt, Iran, Yugoslavia, Italy, South Africa, Chile, etc etc etc -- it is therefore absurd to place notices on every country and project page. There should be a limit to the number of notices at various countries WikiProject Deletion Sorting pages (please use your common sense because at this point you have already entered the realm of WP:SPIDERMAN) or else you are clearly and deliberately violating WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS as well as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Cool it. IZAK (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no canvassing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger: Posting to eight WP:DELSORT pages is excessive. Can you please cite other times when so many WP:DELSORT pages were notified of an AfD? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'The Bushranger', but I you hope agree that canvassing is about an editor's intention. So of course we should give PRODUCER the benefit of doubt, but it's okay for us to make the assumption that it's canvassing - no side can really prove the other as wrong. In accordance with PRODUCERS' broad usage of WP:DELSORT, I'm now adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel to here as well, since Jews and Israel are obviously strictly related, and communism has even played a role in that country. -Yambaram (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin, see the related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Delsorting removal. User/Admin The Bushranger (talk · contribs) is advised to avoid the perils of WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI while this AfD is ongoing. Please be reminded that this a WP:AFD an not a WP:ANI. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IZAK is reminded that WP:COI, referring to Conflict Of Interest, is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. IZAK is also reminded to please assume good faith and requested to not imply that others are incapable of discerning which board they are on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Bushranger: You have still not responded to my first questions. User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) posted to eight WP:DELSORT pages and would no doubt like to post to more because "Jews" who mutate into "Communists" and vice versa can be found in a lot of countries and almost all fields (even under some people's beds if they look hard enough) so that the question then becomes how many times can PRODUCER keep on doing this? Eight times is already overdoing it by any standard of AfD discussions and then veers into WP:CANVASSING by default because a lot of editors who share PRODUCER's POV are thereby being summoned to come join the fray here. Can you cite any WP policy that allows unlimited postings to WP:DELSORT pages that pure common sense and experience says is excessive. And can you show examples of any AfDs when eight WP:DELSORT pages were notified by one editor trying to defend his controversial article in addition to the three others that got those notifications. Thanks in advance. IZAK (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not "respond to [your] first questions" because my initial statement answered them: they are not canvassing. Period. There is no policy that prohibits "unlimited" postings to DELSORT pages. If "Jews and Communism" is a subject that affects 20 different nations, then posting it to 20 different DELSORT pages is entirely appropriate. I'm not going to show any examples, because it isn't necessary - it is not canvassing, it is not prohibited, and I strongly suggest you stop beating this dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yambaram (talk) 23:58, 5 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 [9], 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)

• Delete The whole purpose of this article is to make anti-Semitic conspiracy theories more palatable. Steeletrap (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bah.. another IDONTLIKEIT WP:VOTE. -- Director (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is clearly notable; see The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, for a piece by Marci Shore which is quite encyclopaedic in tone and so sets a good example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. And one needs to consider other articles besides Jewish Bolshevism, which seems rather narrow in scope. The article Jewish left seems more relevant in setting the general context for this topic. Andrew (talk) 00:23, 4 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 info/merge to Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish left as appropriate: [Added later after more comments read, I do think it's censorship to remove from Wikipedia any valid (and not WP:Undue) analysis of any group if there are sufficient WP:RS about the topic, and especially if there is a lot of public interest in that groups behavior in whatever area that needs to be approached in an intelligent manner. There are such articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, articles about the behavior of some groups of Jews only has been allowed if it is couched in terms of "antisemitic canards". More skilled editors aren't going to rewrite this article because they know that some editors will start inferring they are antisemites and start messing with them. So editors who may be more biased may create and edit articles in a less than encyclopedic fashion.

For example the AfD'd Allegations of Jewish control of the media (a middle range title between canard and "Jews and") was moving towards being a good article that used good sources to talk about "over-representation" of Jews (including material from the ADL!!) but making the point that over-representation doesn't necessarily mean control. However, once some editors finally realized the article's originator had not been trying to slam those who had alleged control, but may have supported that view, there was a 190 degree turn against it and former supporters wanted it AfD'd! That is just irrationally absurd! Some editors evidently fear that any such information on Wikipedia will lead to automatic worldwide pogroms, or something. Yet the censorship is far more likely to lead to negative attitudes than balanced information.

Since both Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish left do survive, the first being a "canard" article and the second a largely unsourced puff piece, I think it would be appropriate to add factoids from the better sources on the topic to both of them, as appropriate. If an editor with the guts and integrity to do it can be found. (Don't look at me; I've tried to do my part and taken enough lumps.)

I'll leave my original comments in parenethesis because they were a reaction to the "censorship" issue. (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 Wikipedia 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. After reading and considering the numerous comments on this page, I no longer believe any page is appropriate at all. The article violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Unfortunately it seems that a source of most of the comments on this page in favour of keeping it is coming from someone with a direct WP:COI as the article's author. Among the many excellent points on why this article badly needs to be deleted, I'm convinced that the logic behind keeping this article would be just as strong for writing other pernicious articles like Hispanics and crime and Muslims and sexual abuse and so on (and I certainly do not think there is any valid reason for an article like that, even if there can be sources that incidentally discuss the existence of such a phenomenon). mikeman67 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, for anyone who's using the vote counter tool, please note my vote is being counted as keep for some reason. mikeman67 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: While I now agree this title isn't too good, FYI, there is an article called Islam and domestic violence that Muslims and domestic violence forwards to. There's also Jewish religious terrorism, so there are ways of writing articles about these topics that can be done in an NPOV encyclopedic way. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If "Jewish terrorism" was about how the Jews have been behind every act of terrorism from Sarajevo to the Weather Underground, then I would say delete and start again. But that article is only about terrorism motivated by Jewish religion. Communism is not motivated by Jewish religion, unless one believes it is part of an international Jewish conspiracy for world domination. But we already have that article, Jewish Bolshevism. TFD (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, looking at the article more closely after my first "no censorship" opinion, I saw a lot/too much work would be necessary to correct the negative POV/title and it was best to transfer what was of interest to the other two relevant articles (Jewish left and Jewish Bolshevism, as relevant). But it also brings up the "Who is a Jew" issue again. Just to dance on heads of pins with angels, if you had a lot of groups of proud secular Jews who still called themselves Jews and they were committing terrorism, you might have the basis of another article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong delete. While the topic suggested by the title would make for a perfectly valid Wikipedia 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 [10][11]. 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 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)

The article Jews and slavery is mostly about the antisemitic theory that Jews had dominated the slave trade industry for centuries, a theory which the article shows has been debunked. The fact that it exists does not justify creating a new article about a certain ethnic group's involvement in any particular field they may have had a major involvement in, even if some sources discuss it. But again, you continue with your blatant accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" whenever someone disagrees with you. Regardless of the fact that this article is just an antisemitic piece, it's clearly not notable enough to remain - and as some users have said, the proper locations for its information are History of communism and Jewish Bolshevism, to which it should be merged and redirected.

Besides, does anyone else here agree that these countries shouldn't be included in this deletion discussion? They are obviously not relevant enough, just like (as I explained) I wouldn't link this deletion discussion to "list of Israel-related deletion discussions" because Jews live and are associated with this country, or "list of crime-related deletion discussions", because communism has caused a lot of deaths and crime. Yambaram (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an obvious attempt at Wikipedia:Canvassing. USchick (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Germans 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)
  • But those articles do exist: Italian mafia, Italian fascism, also mentioning that American mafia was an offshoot from Italian immigrants. --Pudeo' 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • All I'm see is a whole lot of appeal to emotion and no true Scotsman arguments. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • To Pudeo: One must be very careful and read carefully and click carefully since firstly there is NO article called "Italian mafia" it redirects to Sicilian Mafia, and while no one denies that there is such a Mafia, there is NO SUCH article that makes a blanket connection between the Italian people and the Mafia as would Italians and the Mafia or Sicilians and the Mafia. That is why Jewish Bolshevism is barely okay because there was such a phenomenon, but the minute you state that it's "Jews and Communism" by connecting two UNRELATED diverse topics (a violation of WP:NOR and WP:HOAX or worse) without any qualifiers you are directly implicating and stigmatizing ALL the Jews because the title just says "Jews" meaning that all Jews have a potential, real or whatever fantasy one wants to cook up, connection to Communism which is a slander and just stupid. Likewise if Sicilian Mafia were to be called Sicilians and the Mafia it would rightly be a slur on all Sicilians because it implies that there is a direct connection between Sicilians and the Mafia which there is not, the majority of Sicilians, or Italians, have NOTHING to do with the Mafia. For some people reading comprehension and word usage is not their specialty and they should therefore NOT be editing serious WP topics and certainly not defending them. Same thing with Italian Fascism that is RIGHTLY not named Italians and Fascism because the latter implies and implicates that somehow there is (correctly) a denotation in those words that all Italians are somehow connected to Fascism which if it were proposed would be rightly not just rejected but also condemned as an outright ethnic slur and racist outlook or worse. What do you say about Germans and Nazism? Using your "reasoning" shouldn't there be a huge article about that by now? -- LOTS of excellent sources for that topic by now, yet no one has come up with that bright idea, sources or no sources, in all of WP's existence, why not?! IZAK (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - guys, please take a look at something. Here's a Google search for "jews and communism". Check out all the first 10 websites that come up. All of them are antisemitic websites (Jew Watch, Institute for Historical Review, Metapedia, and more). And on top there's of course the Wikipedia article Jewish Bolshevism, which discusses it. So what does it mean? The subject of Jews and Communism is notable solely because antisemites make it so, which is why only the article 'Jewish Bolshevism' should cover it all. The same thing goes for Jews and lies [12] -there are certainly a lot of talks about it, but should that article be created? Jews and Communism's equivalence for this matter is Jewish Bolshevism just like Jews and lies's equivalent would be On the Jews and Their Lies. If this article (Jews and Communism) is allowed to stay, the next thing that happens will indeed be the creation of the article Jews and lies. Well, I'll say no more now. -Yambaram (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probably true that the conspiracy theory has made the historical review of Jewish involvement in communist movements more notable: pretty much how like Holocaust denialism has intensified scholarly writing of those who refute the denialist claims. Jewish studies and history is an academic subject. The historical situation in 19th and early 20th Century Europe was interesting as there were Jews who wanted completely assimilate to European nations and then international communism sort of represented the opposite (many Jews felt outcasted by European nationalisms), as Soman above points this situation for example is explanatory. But what makes it antisemitic? Can you point out a single non-factual statement? I just can't understand why a, b, and c being communists can be an offense. Even my own relatives include people who were communists and party members. Lastly, there are plenty of articles that deal with Jews in different walks of life: Category:Lists of Jews. --Pudeo' 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Offensive is not the problem here. It's not accurate to claim that all Jewish people were involved with Communism. Especially since it's not clear Who is a Jew. USchick (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed: "Can you point out a single non-factual statement?" Where is it claimed "all Jewish people were involved with Communism"? Such straw men. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Agree with USchick. The ultimate solution would be merging this article with the articles/sections suggested above. Yambaram (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing nonfactual in the website "Republican sex offenders." Clearly there are Republicans, such as Ted Bundy who were sex offenders. But the purpose of the website is to persuade the public that there is a connection between being a Republican and being a sex offendor. Perhaps there is, but we cannot create that article here unless there are sources that support the connection, in which case there would be other sources to counterbalance the theory. TFD (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice that this article is not titled "Jewish Communists." Maybe it should be? USchick (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete There are lots of refs for the assortment of cherry-picked facts, but the article as a whole is just a smear with no scholarly source to justify the encyclopedic connection between the topics in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't help but believe you haven't bothered to even read the article when you make a claim as ridiculous as "just a smear with no scholarly source". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• jesus fucking christ delete -- there's a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but this is pretty close to the worst thing I've seen here. Notability is not really the point; the question is whether this sort of thing has any place in an encyclopaedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete We don't create articles on topics such as "Blacks and crime" , "Latino people and Hooliganism" or "Hispanic people and Sexism‎", unless reliable sources exist to support a meaningful relation. In this case reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism. This article is nothing more than thinly disguised racism, very similar to antisemitic websites such as "Jew Watch". [13] Marokwitz (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Except they certainly do and it's a part of academic inquiry. Hell the entire book Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism by Oxford University Press is dedicated specifically to this topic with contributions from numerous scholars in it. Please stop comparing a political movement with crime, hooliganism, and sexism. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not compare them? They're all based on Systemic bias. USchick (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please see the comment I just posted below. In it, I responded to the two points raised here. Yambaram (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete It's interesting how little mention there is of Soviet anti-semitism. It's interesting that the article doesn't mention the Doctor's Plot, probably the most famous incident in the Jewish-Soviet relationship. There's no mention of Natan Sharansky and the Refusenik movement. There's no mention of famous Jews who became disillusioned with communism, for instance Emma Goldman or Arthur Koestler. Many prominent revolutionaries were Jews, but where's the context? Orlando Figes writes in A People's Tragedy, his history of the Russian Revolution: "Although, of course, it must never be forgotten that while many revolutionaries were Jews, relatively few Jews were revolutionaries. It was a myth of the anti-Semites that all the Jews were Bolsheviks. In fact, as far as one can tell from the elections to the Constituent Assembly in 1917, most of the Jewish population favoured the Zionist and democratic socialist parties. (pg. 82)" There's a complicated history here but this article is basically just a laundry list of who was Jewish. As others have pointed out, the implications are troubling. WP:TNT. GabrielF (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is a first draft and admittedly focuses mostly on pre-war. If every article was ironically purged on the suspicion of lacking material then there would be no Wikipedia to speak of. Figes can certainly be added and there is nothing stopping you. It's already noted that "most Jews were unassociated" with Kun's regime in Hungary and there was "little support in the wider Polish Jewish community" for the Polish communist movement. This isn't another list of Jews though if it were one can't delete it simply because it deals with communism. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Even setting aside everything that happened after Stalin came to power, the article as you wrote it is telling a completely different story than Figes (quoted above) and, I'm sure, other historians would tell. The article is essentially saying "Many prominent revolutionaries were Jews". Figes would say that many prominent revolutionaries were Jews, and there were a number of reasons why Jews were attracted to left-wing movements, such as a history of oppression at the hands of Russian authorities (and that this was true of other ethnicities such as Georgians), and that these Jewish revolutionaries were somewhat iconoclastic within the Jewish community, which generally had different political ideals and feared the repercussions of Bolshevism (Figes has a nice quote from the Chief Rabbi of Moscow: "Trotsky started the revolution but the Bronsteins will pay the bill") and that Jewish revolutionaries generally put class interests ahead of nationalist or religious interests and that the whites and others exaggerated the role of Jews in Bolshevist circles for propaganda purposes. This isn't a case where you just need to throw in a few details and the article will be fine. It's pretty clear to me that the article is missing the most fundamental piece, context. Without that context the article is intellectually dishonest and it doesn't pass NPOV.GabrielF (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
      • There are seven countries covered, one could likely find something to nitpick about any of them. I've said before the "why?" aspect should be discussed, but a lack of the "why?" aspect, detailing both reasons you mentioned and did not, does not automatically mean there are claims that the Jewish role in communism was "evil" or that "all Jewish people were involved with Communism" as some state. You seem to be insinuating I purposely left material out. There is also no mention of Jewish involvement in Narodnaya Volya (which contained "Jewish terrorists of socialist conviction" as historian Erich Haberer put it) nor their role in the assassination of Alexander II (real or suspected) nor, as historian Elias Tscherikower argued, their "congeniality" to political terrorism in Russia. I can just as easily also put you on the spot for not recommending those suggestions or those historians. Of course more context would be helpful and I'd be willing to cooperate with you on making a background section of sorts, but deletion is not a substitute for work and WP:BATHWATER should quite obviously be followed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: There are many books about the disproportionate representation of Jews in many fields, but articles titled Jews and ___ do not exist, and for a reason. Instead of Jews and science, we have "List of Jewish scientists and philosophers. Instead of Jews and Internet, we currently have List of Jewish American computer scientists. Instead of Jews and Chess, the article List of Jewish chess players exists. And there're plenty of other examples of lists, not only on Jews. Why is that? as Marokwitz (talk · contribs) said above, sources do not "support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity" and whatever field/aspect it may be. These are individuals who happened to be Jewish for one reason or another. I have a lot of "Jews" in my family, but trust me they have nothing to do with "Communism". So, after properly merging the misleadingly titled "Jews and Communism" article into the proper pages, the Jews listed there need to be added to the List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire#Politicians, just like it's done for any other ethnic group/religion/race on Wikipedia. Opinions, please? -Yambaram (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This would solve the systemic bias problem. USchick (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Me too. Marokwitz (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Though on first glance the title alone might seem like an attack page, Jews really did play a major role in developing Communism. I don't think that "Jews and ----" is a worthy article in many cases, but in this case Communism had such a huge influence on the world, and the importance of Jews in developing Communism was important enough, that the article is worthy of existence. It's an interesting phenomenon that has been the subject of published works, and is worthy of an encyclopedic article. I do wish that there was discussion of Jewish criticism of Communism or something along those lines. Orser67 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge The article is highly POV (the whole lead should be blanked for that), and misses the huge issue of Antisemitism. There's a lot of specific verifiable material here which could amplify History of the Jews in Russia#Jews in the revolutionary movement and History of communism and I'm not even opposed to Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism being expanded to an independent, NPOV article. Separately, since Communism is a largely atheist ideology, we need to clarify the use of "Jew" in the lead of any such article.--Carwil (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep

This article is a splendid example of what Wikipedia is, and is not.

Wikipedia is not about truth. Wikipedia is the "wisdom" of the crowds (i.e. not just one singular crowd).

In this instance, there is (in real life) different & sizeable crowds having different perspectives.

To the ones saying "Delete": Why not either improve the article to include your view(s), or create an alternate article providing your perspective.

(Deleting the witch, by burning at the stake - is kind of old, and hasn't really proven viable ... though maybe you got a different memo on that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.76.56 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be the peculiar feeling that to says that the Jews were active in a particular movement is derogatory to the Jews, or inherently anti-Semetic. It's true that this can be discussed from various prejudicial angles, and I am not sure the presentation here is as objective as it ought to be--the concentration on numerical statistics rather than explanations is capable of misinterpretation. (I would present the data as showing the successive elimination of minorities from Society political life, and I would interpret the data as an indication of the perceived value that many Jews in the period thought Communism would have for them, and discuss it in terms of the reasons for them to have adopted this position--It is after all only rational that any oppressed people would have looked for help from the best organized of those opposing the current regime.) To regard the inherent nature of Communism so evil that it is a smear of Jews that they adopted it, is as bigoted as the nazi propaganda that the inherent nature of Judaism was so evil that the association of Jews with the Communist party proved the Communist party to be evil. The role of various ethic groups in the various phases of Communism, both before and after 1918, is a topic for serious research and discussion, and to regard any discussion of the subject as inherently prejudicial to the Jews is absurd and overprotective, any more than to regard discussion of the WWTwo alliance of Finland with Nazi Germany as a proof of anti-Finnish prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:DGG, I agree that the topic itself should not be taboo. The problem is this that this specific text does not accurately represent the scholarship on the topic. Consider, for instance, citation 34, to Richard Pipes' Russia Under the Bolsheviks. The article quotes Pipes as saying that Jews "furnished 95% of the leading figures in Bela Kun's dictatorship", Pipes wrote that, but Pipes then spends the next page and a third qualifying the idea that Jews were highly represented in pre-war Communist ranks. He discusses how Jews were prominent in many other ideological movements of the time period, how the majority of the Jewish population did not support Communism and some of the rationale for Jewish support of Bolshevism after the Revolution.[14] To cherrypick one specific fact from a secondary source and then ignore the author's analysis of the facts is just plain POV editing. This cherrypicking of facts is a fundamental problem with he article beginning with the lede section.GabrielF (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You keep bringing up cherrypicking accusations yet you refuse to respond to me when I give an explanation. It's already stated "most Jews" were "unassociated with them" though it should have been said more explicitly as in the case of Poland where it's stated "had little support in the wider Polish Jewish community and about 5 percent of all Jewish voters supported the Communist movement". To reiterate "the "why?" aspect should be discussed, but a lack of the "why?" aspect, detailing both reasons you mentioned and did not, does not automatically mean there are claims that the Jewish role in communism was "evil" or that "all Jewish people were involved with Communism" as some state." Again I could just as likely complain about it's lack of material regarding the Rosenberg incident, the Communist Party of Great Britain, role in Soviet academia, the Lithuanian Communist Party, etc. It goes both ways. In the amount of time it took you to complain about it you could have just repaired the deficiency. We both see the article as needing work, but we don't agree on the methods to use to go about repairing it. Suspected "POV editing" is not an excuse for deletion. WP:BATHWATER --◅ PRODUCER

(TALK) 13:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I guess I don't understand why you chose to write this article the way you did. If you genuinely believe that the context was important, why didn't you include it? You clearly read the page in Pipes that you quoted, why didn't you use anything from the subsequent few paragraphs where Pipes offers his analysis of the facts? GabrielF (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This page serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to fan the flames of antisemitism. I believe this article should be terminated forthwith.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete A particularly nasty synthesis. Ankh.Morpork 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Carwil and other commentators that the article is highly POV and it is easy to see why it could be perceived as antisemitic. Merge any information into other articles that are not POV and kiss this one off. Topdiggie (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think WP:VOTES like these should simply be disregarded. I really do: they have no contact with policy. If the topic itself is significant, and the tone of the article is inappropriate - then edit the article. Make the tone appropriate, correct the "nasty antisemitic rantings" or whatever, and give Wikipedia a new article covering an interesting subject. Don't delete it because you're "outraged" with its current state.

Um.. "Topdiggie" appears to be an WP:SPA created for the purpose of voting here. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on Bias What I see as the most significant bias here, is the much greater coverage of the large number of Jews in the 20s and early 30s, as compared to the space devoted to the rapid decrease thereafter. Not just in the USSR where they were actively removed, but in the US the many who left because of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Among the key points not mentioned, is that within the Communist Party is Russia, the Jews were especially prominent in the factions opposed to Stalin, the Left (Trotsky) and Right (Kamenev and Zinoviev) Oppositions. One that is mentioned but not adequately discussed, is the large proportion of Jewish communists in the USSR who were part-Jewish but classified as Jews, and that essentially all the Jews in the party were Jews only by descent, not positive affiliation. (The Jewish left that were in any cultural sense Jewish were likely to be Bundists, and the Bund was very early on eliminated from Soviet political life.) The high number of Jews in the NKVD is attributed here to their desire for power--I would suggest it more likely to be desire for self-preservation, at least until it was realised that membership in that group was not actually protective. There is also the repeated word "disproportionate". Disproportionate to what? To the overall population, to the educated intelligentsia, to the overall body of politically active Russians and Poles in 1918? DIREKTOR, if you really want to keep this article, would you be agreeable to it being edited only by others than yourself? DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete naming names and lists of Jews. Anti-Semitic in effect even if it was not in intent (though I have a hunch that it was). --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is forbidden to say that a particular person was a Communist and a Jew, how could any article on the subject be written? The people mentioned were unquestionably Communists, and most of them officially classified or generally considered as Jews and discussed in books on the subject as such. If in doubt, that needs to be proven--but as it can be complicated, it's best done in the article on the person. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record I'm the first to jump at my own ethnic group for nationalist bias, and I'm not implying anything... but once this article is (deceptively) presented as an antisemitic attack against Jewish people, Jewish people are likely to oppose it; that's just an obvious fact, I think. GHcool is ofc Jewish; and I think it especially vile that such lowdown tactics are used on this project by the likes of TFD, who's shown he's perfectly willing to do a shameless 180 degree flip just to further the agenda of deleting this (reliably-sourced) info wherever it may be posted, and by whatever means available.

@To answer your above question DDG: I naturally don't own this article, anyone can certainly edit it, and will. I think it needs a thorough overhaul to bring its topic into historical context, and to bring the rhetoric down to a neutral level. If I were PRODUCER I would have started small, and introduced new content gradually and in collaboration with other editors. But that does not diminish the impressive research that went into this. As I said, though - it lacks context as provided by many sources), and could use trimming with regard to some of the more controversial figures. I hesitate to waste effort on an article under an AfD, though. -- Director (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You guys have a few misconceptions. When editors said this article should be deleted because it is a POV fork/antisemitic/not encyclopedic, the few defenders of this article consistently replied back accusing such editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG, WP:RUBBISH and so on. What it ultimately does is it falsely labels their legitimate reasons for the deleting this article as though they are simply based on a conflict of interest. Your argument that Jews played a major role in Communism and that it's backed by reliable sources and books is true, but I and other editors (see IZAK's comments too) have proved that no article titled Jews and Communism has a place on Wikipedia according to its own policies. Since you (those supportive of this article) have ignored the latest points I raised above and since three different users (USchick, Antidiskriminator, and Marokwitz) explicitly said they agree with me, let me bring it again: There are many books about the disproportionate representation of Jews in many fields, but articles titled Jews and ___ do not exist, and for a reason.

• Instead of Jews and science, we have "List of Jewish scientists and philosophers.
• Instead of Jews and Internet, we currently have List of Jewish American computer scientists.
• Instead of Jews and Chess, the article List of Jewish chess players exists.
• Instead of Jews and economics, the article List of Jewish economists exists.
• Instead of Jews and visual arts, the article Lists of Jews associated with the visual arts exists.
• Instead of Jews and fictional characters, the article List of fictional Jews exists.
• Instead of Jews and gays, the article List of LGBT Jews exists.
• Instead of Jews and Communism, we should have List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire#Politicians. Jews and Communism is not an exceptional topic!

And the same thing is done with other articles as can be found at Category:Lists of people. Why is that? As 'Marokwitz' rightly put it, sources do not "support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity" and whatever particular field/aspect it may be. Before it's deleted, some information from this article could of course be implemented into History of communism, History of the Jews in Russia#Jews in the revolutionary movement, or Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. But unless there is a double standard or some one and only exception for this article while ignoring similar articles on different ethnic groups/religions/races on Wikipedia - and there should be none - this article cannot stay. -Yambaram (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, albeit I have expressed concerns about the article in questions, I find that several of the 'delete' comments in this AfD borders historical revisionism. The existence of a Jewish communist movement (within the wider communist movement) is not fiction, but a historical fact. I suggest a reading of scholarly literature on the subject;
  • First of all, Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist..., "Jewish Communism was a combination of socialism and secular Jewish nationalism, though the latter was often only a subterrean form of discourse. They complemented one another: proletarian Jewish culture (especially in Yiddish) for Jewish Communists constituted the most authentic expression of Jewish being, of a secular Yidishkayt. [...] Rejecting religious and traditional Judaism, the Jewish Communists believed they could advance their cultural self-identity with a Marxist-Leninist framework, [...] Even while being part of a larger Communist "family", the extensive network of groups fashioned by the Jewish Communists enabled them to create a focus for Jewish socialist integration that was independent of the Communist Party. [...] The Jewish Communists emerged from the same historic and economic conditions as did the other Jewish socialist movements of the time. They all were products of the Jewish enlightenment, or haskala, the growth of Yiddish as a language of culture and literature, the proletarization and impoverishment of the Jews in the Russian Pale of Settlement before 1917, and the organization of Jews into trade unions and other resistance organizations as response to pogroms and persecution." (pp. 7-8). this, in short, would have been a perfect intro for an article on Jewish communist movements. Page 10 is also very interesting.
  • British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish State, 1936-1956, pp. 91-92 (albeit the author ignores the existence of Jewish CP sections in Latin America, Austria, etc.)
  • Dark Times, Dire Decisions : Jews and Communism, has already been mentioned a few times, the introductory chapter makes a good reading.

My suggestion for a way forward would be that 1) DIREKTOR & PRODUCER could take a step back, as those comments seem mainly to fan the fire and that 2) a group of the other commentators on this page get together and work on a draft that would be less conspiratorial in its tone, less of a "Who's Who" of Jews in communist parties and more focused on Jewish communism as a movement with distinct characteristics and its role in contemporary history. The article title could be worked out in a consensus process and possibly different from the current 'Jews and Communism'. Any takers? --Soman (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Soman, you raise an interesting question about a possible topic, but that's not what the present article is about. The present article is not about a Jewish-communist movement (I deliberately use a small c, because I think it's more neutral in this context). The influence of socialist, or even Marxist socialist ideology, or even the ideology of those who had been once members of the Communist Party before that party became overtly anti-semitic, on the early period of the Jewish state is a real topic, but it's not topic of this article. The role & motivations of the Israeli Communist Party is also a real topic, but it's not the topic here. Birobidzhan a is an interesting topic, and the motivations for its founding and its relation to Zionism is an interesting topic, but also unrelated to the contents of this article. This article is about the role of Jews in the mainstream Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the other national Communist Parties under its influence. That is also a real topic--the question here is whether this article is salvageable on that topic. (There are indeed some people in the discussion above who do not see it as a real topic, and , quite frankly, I agree that it's a try at avoiding the realities of history. (Just as the content of the present article seems to be a try to slant the realities). There's room for several articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dark Times, Dire Decisions, p. 8, says, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish State, 1936-1956 is about British Jews, Zionism and Israel between 1936 and 1956. Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist is about Jews between 1921 and 1956 who supported both the Russian Revolution and the creation of the state of Israel.

We have lots of sources that examine the connection between Jews and Communism at various times and in different countries. What we lack is a comprehensive study that ties it all together. Is there something about Judaism that draws them to Communism? Is Communism inherently anti-Jewish, or did Communist governments become anti-Semitic as the reality of governing actual nations forced them to abandon internationalism? Interesting questions, but without sources that address them, writing the article will be challenging.

Even if sources did exist, WP:TNT applies. If we begin with an article that attempts to show the Jews were behind Communism, repairing the article will be challenging if not impossible. It would be better to delete and if someone wants to pull together the sources and create a neutral article, good for them. But do not assume that editors will jump into this article and bring it to good article status.

TFD (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yes, the sourcing is well done but I fail to see the importance of this article, as it doesn't seem to have a point other than "look what percentage of early Soviets were Jewish!" which isn't surprising given the huge Jewish population of the Russian Empire. The article's intent does seem to veer close to Jewish Bolshevism. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This article is clearly not a "point of view fork" of Jewish Bolshevism. Jewish Bolshevism article is about supposed conspiracy theory only, which is different topic. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.