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. This discussion is a mess, but it's fairly clear that there exists no consensus to delete either of the nominated articles. In fact, I'd almost be inclined to rule a clear "keep" result for Żydokomuna, which seems only tangentially related to the main issue at hand. That said, there does seem to be nearly unanimous agreement that something needs to be done to fix the current duplication of content between The Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. A sensible suggestion made by Racepacket, Kevin Murray and others, for which there seems to be at least some semblance of consensus, is that the article The Jewish Bolshevism should be cleaned up to only contain information on the pamphlet of that name, with the information of the political epithet and conspiracy theory merged (back) to Jewish Bolshevism insofar as it's not already present there. Once the two subjects have been cleanly separated, their respective notability can then be judged independently if necessary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

The Jewish Bolshevism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Much of this article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:NOT#GUIDE. This article is essentially a repeat of the contents of Jewish Bolshevism article and a third duplicate article using the Polish name of Żydokomuna. These duplicate articles should be merged into Jewish Bolshevism. The following related article is included in this nomination for the above reasons:

Żydokomuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, IZAK 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All three items simply involve the antisemitic juxtaposition of Jewishness with Bolshevism, or with Communism, a close cognate of the latter; the Polish term (with the Z simply transliterates as "Jewish Communism"). There is no real political, or any other kind of "theory" (as scientists think of "theory"), except a conspiracy theory, which is really a cognate of "crackpot." So there is not much to say about it contentwise. That's the consequence of its being dubbed by scholars, and those who, as antisemitic. So what that leaves us with is reporting who used, or rather, abused, these expressions. "The Jewish Bolshevism" is a pamphlet which is apparently the only one which used theb term as a title and at the same time elaborated upon it as a topic or "theory" in the non-scientific, and certainly antisemitic, sense. I think therefor we need not dignify the notion by turning it, needlessly, into a Wikipedia Article. It is more than sufficient, as well as sensible, to use that pamphlet, issued by the most notorious antisemitic organization, dedicated to promoting and publicizing antisemitic propangand, The Britons. There is in that also appropriate poetic justice. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might as well add here the antisemitic argument all antisemites use with respect to rationalize (unsuccessfully, I might add, from the logical point of view) or support the above view: (1) Jews are more numerous than non-Jews percentage-wise (except in Israel) as subscribers to Bolshevism or Communism. (2) Ipso facto, Bolshevism and Communism are Jewish (whatever that means). Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accordingly, there is not much to write about except to name the antisemtic texts which embodied this view (and what better, or more appropriarte, text is there than The Jewish Bolshevism. The other thing that's to be done is to list or name the antisemites who subscribed to this fundamentally incoherent view: Alfred Rosenberg, Adolf Hitler, Henry Hamilton Beamish, etc. Yours truly (not me, by the way), --Ludvikus 00:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a tendency, however, to engage here in improper original research. Some editors have consistently tried to write into at least one of these articles and explanation of Why "so many" (POV word, I always ask why not "so few?) were Communists. That's may be an interesting topic for political scientists. But it has no place in an article about an ethnic slur and political epithet. To do so is to act as if there were merit to the charge which needs defending. The situation is quite similar to that of the blood libel. One would not offer a dense. Rather, one argues that the charge is absurd. In a blood libel charge, would one need to show that the defendant was present on Easter Sunday in the home of a Christian family with many witnesses ready to attest thereto? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More