Talk:Soviet anti-Zionism/Archive 1
Bias
[edit]As others have said, the vast majority of the article is biased, and much of it should be rewritten entirely, otherwise the page should be removed. For example, quotes the quote from Paul Johnson which includes, "the Soviet Union portrayed the Zionists (i.e. Jews)", is factually incorrect, correlating Jewish people and a specific ideology and implying that all Zionists are not Jewish people. Joe Biden is the most powerful Zionist in the world and is not Jewish, and Jewish people like those in JVP are not Zionists. The quote is added with no clarifications and is not the only quote by him in the page. I deleted it but was informed that the deletion is de facto controversial, so I'm at the least advocating the striking of this quotation (if not all quotations by him in the article) if the article is still not to be deleted. LordGigapiller (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article won't be deleted, but it can be edited. If you want to edit it, you should not remove sourced information, but find another reliable source to balance it with. Paul Johnson is a reputable historian, so you can't just delete his material without a reason, as it is attributed to him. See WP:V for more information. Andre🚐 22:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ignoring the question of what constitutes a reputable historian and whether prior decisions on page deletion are (or aught to be) binding, the equating of being Jewish with Zionism is a deliberate falsehood as I clearly stated; as such it was not "without a reason". When a source says something blatantly untrue it should no longer be sacrosanct. If I sourced to balance it out the page would become a mess because it would be a source essentially saying "what the prior source said has a categorical untruth in it" and would break down into an explanation of Zionism. It's a completely unnecessary digression, but if that is the only manner with which to combat such direct misinformation then so be it LordGigapiller (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can nominate the page for deletion again, certainly, but it will almost certainly be kept, so that's probably a waste of everyone's time. See WP:AFD for the info and instructions on doing that. Describing anything as a "deliberate" falsehood also seems awry of WP:AGF. I don't know who wrote that but I'm sure they were not intending to create a falsehood, nor have you presented any sources other than your own opinion as to why it is false. Regardless, it's attributed to a historian and not stated in Wikivoice. In general, your opinion on what is true or false is irrelevant because the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Andre🚐 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the editor was making a deliberate falsehood I'm assuming good faith there, I'm talking specifically about the source. I feel like the knowledge that "Jewish people" are equivalent to "Zionists" is pretty universally agreed upon. I've given examples that break such a rule on both sides, I'm not saying the greater point is true or untrue but that aspect IS untrue. This is going off of the definition of Zionism, rather than an opinion. Again I can use a source for this but that just seems unnecessary for me for a basic fact and would make most articles need source verifications for the definition of words. Again, if that's the necessary route of editing, I'll do that, but it would make most articles essentially unreadable I feel LordGigapiller (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, it's not unnecessary for you to quote a source, as the claims you are making are certainly not obvious, they are in fact, quite controversial. Andre🚐 01:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is the oxford dictionary a fine source
- "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann."
- Also the page for Zionism on this site. Neither describe a Zionist as "someone who is Jewish"
- This really does feel like "verify[ing] that most people have five digits on each hand." but to each their own LordGigapiller (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't work. First of all, that's WP:SYNTHetic. The source has to mention "soviet anti-Zionism," otherwise you're novel-ly combining disparate, unrelated things in a way that's essentially forbidden on Wikipedia. I can reasonably tell you that this wouldn't work, but what would work is if you had a counterbalancing expert historian or some kind of professor or pedigreed journalist with knowledge of soviet Russia and what they meant back in the 80s when they said that stuff about Zionism that historians are saying was coded for "Jews." Andre🚐 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I may misunderstand but I think we're talking past each other here. Paul in the quote doesn't clarify that "Zionist" means "Jewish person" only in the context of Soviet anti-Zionism. I take issue with the fact that he's making the claim within the context of Soviet anti-Zionism, and putting forth that his statement is a universal claim and Soviet anti-Zionism is incidentally where this definition is being used. As such, using an incidental definition to fix an incidental incorrect statement seems the only reasonable way to correct it given the parameters you've described for correction. That's why I said I felt it was needlessly digressive earlier. Given that, if I were to apply the explanation you gave just now, it would be impossible to find a source unless I specifically found one that spoke on the Paul's definition of Zionism in one line of one writing, which would make it borderline impossible to push back against the initial fallacious claim LordGigapiller (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming the quote is correctly quoted, the context makes it clear what it refers to.
all over the Soviet Union portrayed the Zionists (i.e. Jews) and Israeli leaders as engaged in a world-wide conspiracy along the lines of the old Protocols of Zion
Explicitly tying the Soviets' anti-Zionism to antisemitism. It's certainly not impossible to find a source, all you would need to do is find a source that says the Soviets were just against Israel, but they didn't really mean Jews. If you can't find a source, it might be because that statement isn't true. Andre🚐 03:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- The article quotes statements to the contrary wdyem. And I feel that the context of the article certainly could lead to such an interpretation but the form of the quote doesn't make that clear enough if that is the interpretation. Given that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are often conflated 1:1 and that the quote doesn't clarify between general and specific I think that aspect of the quote is far too up to interpretation (including an interpretation that could mislead readers) and, as such, the quote should be elided LordGigapiller (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're arguing meanings and logic but it's neither here nor there. The article has a sourced, attributed statement to a reliable source, which you are removing, citing your own opinion of what he means or the interpretation of its truth or falsity. I'm not engaging you on the substance of that because it's irrelevant. We just summarize what the reliable sources say. You don't have a valid reason to remove this, but if you want to add something, cite something reliable. Andre🚐 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- It literally is here and right there. The conflation made in the quote is factually incorrect. If you're not engaging me on what my point is and are solely engaging based on a point that I'm not making then there is no need to continue the discussion LordGigapiller (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained, "verifiability, not truth." You may agree with the conflation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but it's being intentionally made by a reliable historian. That is because the Soviets did it. Andre🚐 04:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained, that is not applicable to the point I am making. And if such a subclaim (which is not even the claim you're making, the claim is Zionist=Jewish person not anti-Zionist=antisemite which is categorically untrue but not the point I'm making) is reliable than it should be more than fine to put in a counter-definitional quote (or quotes) from a reliable source on the subject (specifically of said definition). Also, at the end you're literally arguing for "truth over verifiability". Given the extremely harmful nature of such a conflation there should be no chance of conflation in my opinion LordGigapiller (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's that under the Soviet Union, they would call people Zionists even if they were just ordinary, non-political Jewish Russian peasants, or targeting non-Zionist dissidents who happened to be Jewish. I'm not sure if the article says that, but that's the broader context of Soviet Anti-Zionism. That is why the quote says Zionists, ie Jews. The author isn't saying all Zionists are Jews or all Jews are Zionists. It's that totalitarian Communist Russia was calling everyone a Zionist, even just Jews who probably weren't necessarily. Andre🚐 17:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't read the article??? You are once again arguing on the question of truth over verifiability. I'm uninterested in whether the claim was being used antisemitically by the the USSR for the point of this discussion. I feel I have made that abundantly clear. Your interpretation of the quote may be that it was only in the case of the USSR (which is also a massive timeframe. Such a claim would not be applicable under Lenin at the very least) but that is YOUR interpretation. I feel that it is reasonable to believe that people (especially those unaware of the subject) may be mislead by such a quote as it is, and could believe in an idea that is liable to facilitate both antisemitism and genocide. If you feel the quote being in as is is important enough and/or my claim unreasonable enough to the point where it is necessary to not even have a qualifier appended, then you can leave it, and it can be left to others to discuss their opinions on the subject. LordGigapiller (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean I didn't read the article? I didn't say that, what I mean is I'm not sure if our current Wikipedia article, which I am not the main author of, explains it clearly. Again I'm not arguing truth at all. You're saying you think the quote could be misinterpreted, but I'm saying that such misinterpretation is a historical matter that the Soviets caused. Yes, your claim is not based on anything concrete in Wiki policy or any reliable source (you tried to source it to a dictionary) Andre🚐 19:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are all Jewish people Zionists? LordGigapiller (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously not. But there you go again. I think we should take a break. Don't you? This isn't getting anywhere. Andre🚐 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are all Jewish people Zionists? LordGigapiller (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean I didn't read the article? I didn't say that, what I mean is I'm not sure if our current Wikipedia article, which I am not the main author of, explains it clearly. Again I'm not arguing truth at all. You're saying you think the quote could be misinterpreted, but I'm saying that such misinterpretation is a historical matter that the Soviets caused. Yes, your claim is not based on anything concrete in Wiki policy or any reliable source (you tried to source it to a dictionary) Andre🚐 19:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't read the article??? You are once again arguing on the question of truth over verifiability. I'm uninterested in whether the claim was being used antisemitically by the the USSR for the point of this discussion. I feel I have made that abundantly clear. Your interpretation of the quote may be that it was only in the case of the USSR (which is also a massive timeframe. Such a claim would not be applicable under Lenin at the very least) but that is YOUR interpretation. I feel that it is reasonable to believe that people (especially those unaware of the subject) may be mislead by such a quote as it is, and could believe in an idea that is liable to facilitate both antisemitism and genocide. If you feel the quote being in as is is important enough and/or my claim unreasonable enough to the point where it is necessary to not even have a qualifier appended, then you can leave it, and it can be left to others to discuss their opinions on the subject. LordGigapiller (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's that under the Soviet Union, they would call people Zionists even if they were just ordinary, non-political Jewish Russian peasants, or targeting non-Zionist dissidents who happened to be Jewish. I'm not sure if the article says that, but that's the broader context of Soviet Anti-Zionism. That is why the quote says Zionists, ie Jews. The author isn't saying all Zionists are Jews or all Jews are Zionists. It's that totalitarian Communist Russia was calling everyone a Zionist, even just Jews who probably weren't necessarily. Andre🚐 17:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained, that is not applicable to the point I am making. And if such a subclaim (which is not even the claim you're making, the claim is Zionist=Jewish person not anti-Zionist=antisemite which is categorically untrue but not the point I'm making) is reliable than it should be more than fine to put in a counter-definitional quote (or quotes) from a reliable source on the subject (specifically of said definition). Also, at the end you're literally arguing for "truth over verifiability". Given the extremely harmful nature of such a conflation there should be no chance of conflation in my opinion LordGigapiller (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained, "verifiability, not truth." You may agree with the conflation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but it's being intentionally made by a reliable historian. That is because the Soviets did it. Andre🚐 04:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- It literally is here and right there. The conflation made in the quote is factually incorrect. If you're not engaging me on what my point is and are solely engaging based on a point that I'm not making then there is no need to continue the discussion LordGigapiller (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're arguing meanings and logic but it's neither here nor there. The article has a sourced, attributed statement to a reliable source, which you are removing, citing your own opinion of what he means or the interpretation of its truth or falsity. I'm not engaging you on the substance of that because it's irrelevant. We just summarize what the reliable sources say. You don't have a valid reason to remove this, but if you want to add something, cite something reliable. Andre🚐 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article quotes statements to the contrary wdyem. And I feel that the context of the article certainly could lead to such an interpretation but the form of the quote doesn't make that clear enough if that is the interpretation. Given that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are often conflated 1:1 and that the quote doesn't clarify between general and specific I think that aspect of the quote is far too up to interpretation (including an interpretation that could mislead readers) and, as such, the quote should be elided LordGigapiller (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming the quote is correctly quoted, the context makes it clear what it refers to.
- I may misunderstand but I think we're talking past each other here. Paul in the quote doesn't clarify that "Zionist" means "Jewish person" only in the context of Soviet anti-Zionism. I take issue with the fact that he's making the claim within the context of Soviet anti-Zionism, and putting forth that his statement is a universal claim and Soviet anti-Zionism is incidentally where this definition is being used. As such, using an incidental definition to fix an incidental incorrect statement seems the only reasonable way to correct it given the parameters you've described for correction. That's why I said I felt it was needlessly digressive earlier. Given that, if I were to apply the explanation you gave just now, it would be impossible to find a source unless I specifically found one that spoke on the Paul's definition of Zionism in one line of one writing, which would make it borderline impossible to push back against the initial fallacious claim LordGigapiller (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't work. First of all, that's WP:SYNTHetic. The source has to mention "soviet anti-Zionism," otherwise you're novel-ly combining disparate, unrelated things in a way that's essentially forbidden on Wikipedia. I can reasonably tell you that this wouldn't work, but what would work is if you had a counterbalancing expert historian or some kind of professor or pedigreed journalist with knowledge of soviet Russia and what they meant back in the 80s when they said that stuff about Zionism that historians are saying was coded for "Jews." Andre🚐 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, it's not unnecessary for you to quote a source, as the claims you are making are certainly not obvious, they are in fact, quite controversial. Andre🚐 01:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the editor was making a deliberate falsehood I'm assuming good faith there, I'm talking specifically about the source. I feel like the knowledge that "Jewish people" are equivalent to "Zionists" is pretty universally agreed upon. I've given examples that break such a rule on both sides, I'm not saying the greater point is true or untrue but that aspect IS untrue. This is going off of the definition of Zionism, rather than an opinion. Again I can use a source for this but that just seems unnecessary for me for a basic fact and would make most articles need source verifications for the definition of words. Again, if that's the necessary route of editing, I'll do that, but it would make most articles essentially unreadable I feel LordGigapiller (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can nominate the page for deletion again, certainly, but it will almost certainly be kept, so that's probably a waste of everyone's time. See WP:AFD for the info and instructions on doing that. Describing anything as a "deliberate" falsehood also seems awry of WP:AGF. I don't know who wrote that but I'm sure they were not intending to create a falsehood, nor have you presented any sources other than your own opinion as to why it is false. Regardless, it's attributed to a historian and not stated in Wikivoice. In general, your opinion on what is true or false is irrelevant because the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Andre🚐 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ignoring the question of what constitutes a reputable historian and whether prior decisions on page deletion are (or aught to be) binding, the equating of being Jewish with Zionism is a deliberate falsehood as I clearly stated; as such it was not "without a reason". When a source says something blatantly untrue it should no longer be sacrosanct. If I sourced to balance it out the page would become a mess because it would be a source essentially saying "what the prior source said has a categorical untruth in it" and would break down into an explanation of Zionism. It's a completely unnecessary digression, but if that is the only manner with which to combat such direct misinformation then so be it LordGigapiller (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)