Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Non-admin closure ([1]) overturned. Neil 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish subversion

Jewish subversion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This paragraph (it is a stub really) is an obvious WP:POVFORK that can become a POV magnet as well. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and Merge contents into Antisemitic canard, as above. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with IZAK and the nom TaintedZebra 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — This article is not about "Antisemitic canard". The user who added antisemitic canard is User:Malik Shabazz[2] It is an independent topic regardless of antisemitic canards. It is not a neologism either, because "Jewish subversion" has been used in many academic books (which you can see by just looking at the references) explaining antisemitism. And how is this article a WP:POVFORK? It deals with discrimination Jews have faced by several different leading politicians. If it becomes a "POV magnet", we'll just make it NPOV. The topic is notable though. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. — Dangerous? Provocative? I'm sorry, but that is what he said he did. Didn't you read the cited source? Also, I found that in the Nazism article:
Nazism has come to stand for a belief in the superiority of an Aryan race, an abstraction of the Germanic peoples. During the time of Hitler, the Nazis advocated a strong, centralized government under the Führer and claimed to defend Germany and the German people (including those of German ethnicity abroad) against Communism and so-called Jewish subversion. Ultimately, the Nazis sought to create a largely homogeneous and autarchic ethnic state, absorbing the ideas of Pan-Germanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Ideology

Are you going to delete that too now? By the way, I can see that the AfD nominator is Jewish. This isn't a personal attack or anything, but I get the feeling that censorship is at hand due to an uncomfortable topic, and you have to remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Jewish subversion is hardly a neologism, it is even used by the Jerusalem post:[3] And many other newspapers and scholarly books: Find sources: Jewish subversion — news, books, scholar Sorry, but this is an independent topic, and deleting this topic is censorship and nothing else. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:53 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, Elias, are you open to the ridiculous suggestion that as the article's author is not Jewish, that the feeling could be had that the author has an anti-Semitic agenda and wants to spread such ideas on wikipedia? I would not say that, but it is the mirror image of your above argument. People have areas of expertise; Jews are more likely than not more informed and aware about topics related to Jews than non-Jews are. Further, they are more likely to have an interest in Jewish topics. It is nothing more than simple probability as to why the nominator is Jewish. Similarly, even casting the aspersion that because the nominator is Jewish that is the reason why this article is nominated for deletion, besides an example of the circumstantial argumentum ad hominem: Appeal to motive, is also somewhat disturbing/insulting to those of us who try and do our best to approach things fairly and neutrally as best we can. -- Avi 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no agenda to spread anything. I create articles that may not be mainstream topics and very controversial. This goes for all topics that I find. Why do I do that? Because I want to learn something new. When Wikipedians collaborate on an article, it will sooner or later become an informative article. That is why I create articles on Wikipedia; the topic seems interesting, someone will work on it, and when I look back at the article after 20 editors or so have expanded it, I will get an informative article about the subject and being able to expand my knowledge about this and that. That is my main motive for creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't want to see them deleted because I don't find that productive. And for the record, I'm not an anti-Semite. Though of course, you are free to believe that I am, if it makes you happy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:45 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I think it would be ridiculous to call you an anti-Semite because of the combination of your starting the article and not being Jewish. Parallely, I think it is ridiculous to accuse IZAK of censorship because of the combination that he nomimanted the article for deletion and that he is Jewish. Do you disagree with the parallelism? -- Avi 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having "Communists in the State Department" as the introduction to McCarthyism. While the accusations that Hitler made would be notable, merely changing the title to "Accusations of Jewish Subversion" isn't a cure for this seigheilish little essay. Mandsford 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The title is beside the point, that is what this is called. If your concern is NPOV, that is no reason to delete this article. Because if your reason to delete this article is NPOV concern, then you are not neutral yourself since your POV is clearly showing. You think this is an uncomfortable topic, and again, I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored. What you're implying, is that you want to delete this article because you don't like the title of it. That is censorship. Case in point: your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:22 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
        • "Your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count". Oh, excuse me. Change the title of garbage and it's still garbage. I like the way you lump Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church together as one: "Nazi Germany and the Roman Catholic Church considered 'Jewish subversion' to be a threat." What's up with that? Mandsford 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - This is not a vote: please see WP:PNSD. Freshacconci | Talk 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Discussion or not, you will have to find valid reasons to delete this article, if you want it deleted. {{NPOV}} disputes are not reasons for deletion. Either you find actual reasons to delete this article, and then we can discuss if it's a valid reason to delete it, or, you edit the article until the point where you consider it NPOV. This "delete it because I find it too POV" is clearly an abuse of AfD debates. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:39 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
          • EliasAlucard: Just a point, it is not censorship to nominate and request that this article's content's be put into the main Antisemitic canard article, because no sane person or scholar gives any credence to Hitler's "Jewish subversion canard" delusional rantings, you may as well start articles about Insane rantings by Adolf Hitler or Delusions of Adolf Hitler. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment This is not exclusive to Hitler. And all other sections in Antisemitic canard have their own articles. This one should be no exception. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:18 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
              • When it was nominated it was but a mere stub quoting Hitler in it's opening sentence. Since then, in the last 24 hours, the {{rescue}} template was added to it and a few more allegations were put into it. The onus is upon the editors who decided to create it to actually prove what the Jewish "subversion" really was and if it indeed exists at all. What were the Jews "subverting" exactly? Is there any historical proof that the Jews subverted any place? Methinks not, if anything, history shows that wherever Jews were let in, the countries were enriched, so it would have been a better public service to create Jewish contributions to civilization and if one needs to dwell on lies, maybe create Allegations of Jewish subversion, but you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. IZAK 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Reply You are showing your blatant POV bias now. Let's be honest, you want this article deleted, not because it's a hoax or anything of the other things you claim, but because you fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews, if we have an article, documenting on "Jewish subversion". This is the reason why you want to censor this article. Also, I wouldn't call the famine of the Soviet Union, "enriched". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
                • Do I read this right? It sounds as if you're suggesting here that Jews caused "the famine of the Soviet Union". Wow. Mandsford 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Reply No, you read that wrong. He claimed that in whatever country Jews have been, the country has been "enriched". Obviously, that was not the case with the Soviet Union. I didn't insinuate that the famine was the Jews' fault; I just disproved the myth he was trying to create. I must say however, I think it's quite arrogant to claim that wherever Jews go, the country prospers because of Jews. Sounds like Jewish supremacy if you ask me. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:51 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
                    • Comment I think y'all are being a tad silly here. Taking IZAK's statement too far would be the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Even if there is a correlation between economic, scientific, or cultural advancement and the presence of Jews in those fields, the most that can be said for certain is that a correlation exists, and we would have to see statistical evidence for that. Elias is exhibiting the fallacies of Ignoratio elenchi and Hasty generalization, in that having a famine in an area does not in any way shape or form mean that enrichment could not have occurred in other areas. Further, famines are acts of G-d or nature, and even humorously attributing responsibility for them to a specific category of people is somewhat reminiscent of past libelous situations. This is the 21st century, you know :) . -- Avi 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • Comment: Actually, Avi, the famine was due to Soviet policies (see Holodomor)...the same Soviet policies, as it happens, that were shipping tens of thousands of Jews to gulags at the same time. The idea that the Jews caused the famine inadvertently, or that the Jews created it intentionally, bespeaks two concurrent problems: deliberate antisemitically-inspired lying and unforgivable ignorance. As for the assertion that societies that invite Jews in experience a flowering of cultural and economic, etc. advancement...that is true. It is also true, however, that it's not just because they let Jews come in and live freely—it is because when policies are enacted that encourage Jews to come to a country and live in freedom, the same policies are extended to the populace at large. Freedom inspires creativity and enterprise, regardless of whether it is offered to Jews or to non-Jews. The one thing that does "help" in such circumstances is when Jews move into such countries and bring philanthropy and investment with them. An example of this can be seen with the Fugu Plan, whereby Jews were invited to Japan, and some went. Prosperity did not ensue, however, because the Jews there were subjects of the oppressive Japanese Empire (although the Jews did not experience the same horrors as some of the Chinese did at the same time, at the hands of the Emperor's armies). It is freedom that brings prosperity, not simply the presence of Jews, although free Jews certainly help. Tomertalk 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • To dislike Hitler is a crime? That's a new one! So why were the Nuremberg Trials held? I think that it was great that they were held, does that make me too POV as well? Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a POV -- you included -- but it's as editors that we all control our POV to write and edit in a NPOV fashion, so you have no clue what NPOV means if your interpretation of it is "NO Point Of View" -- which is not what Neutral Point Of View means. Check it out. This nomination is neutral and the article will stand or fall on its merits, and please note it is other users who state that the article is a violation of WP:NPOV because the nomination is more basic than that. Note also, that as a human being I am entitled to my anti-Hitler feelings just as anyone is free to have pro-Hitler feelings, and may the best man win. But really now, do you really think that I hold that I "fear it will result in some sort of persecution of Jews" when the whole Internet is flooded with all of the worst antisemitic garbage in history? If that is what you think, then you can review my edit history and you will find that my record shows that I have no fear of well-written truly NPOV articles about anything, which this one is not. It was just an opinion piece for Hitler when I nominated it and now it's not much better, just that it now quotes from some Popes and other misfits. IZAK 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • Reply What? Where did that come from? Where did I ever write that disliking Hitler is a crime? Stop putting words in my mouth like that with Straw man fallacies. Yes, everyone has his POV, and so do you. This nomination is nowhere close to being neutral. Basically, it goes something like this: "HELLO, I'M JEWISH, BECAUSE OF THAT, I FIND THIS ARTICLE PROVOCATIVE AND I DON'T LIKE IT, SO I WANT IT DELETED, REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC, AND THE POPE AND ALL ANTISEMITES ARE DEMENTED MISFITS". You're not representing yourself very well with your personal attacks. Nowhere did I say that NPOV means NO POINT OF VIEW. But it goes without saying, you, are not being objective here with your deletion rationale. You and many others who have voted delete, want this article deleted, because you don't like it. That is is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Add a {{cleanup}} tag. Your approach of the first edit you make in the article by putting it up for deletion, is obviously, a very suspicious approach. Had it been some other article, it would just have been put up for {{OR}}, {{cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} or something else. But now, it's a controversial topic, and therefore it must be deleted. That is to me, pure and simple, censorship. Another thing, you say: you can't have an article about "Jewish subversion" just because Hitler, or some Popes or Henry Ford decided to say so in their state of dementia. — What? Who are you to decide the rules on what articles should be allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia? If the article has notability, we can have an article about it regardless of the topic. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles which put Islam in a negative light. Bottom line, AfD is not an {{NPOV}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:15 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why is the title any worse than, say, Zionist Occupation Government, Kosher tax, or Jewish Bolshevism? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Er, Malik, who is questioning those topics now? You were the one to put in the links to Antisemitic canard [4] and added it to Category:Antisemitic canards [5] and what the nomination is requesting is that the information in this stub (of Jewish subversion) be put into the Antisemitic canard article where it rightly belongs. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that my comment became separated from the comment to which it was a response: "The title alone is a tip that this one isn't going to be entirely neutral. It's like having 'Communists in the State Department' as the introduction to McCarthyism." My point was that "ZOG", "Kosher tax", and "Jewish Bolshevism" were similar titles that aren't preceded by "Allegations of ..."
          Regarding "Antisemitic canards", please read my comments elsewhere on this page: "'Jewish subversion' is an antisemitic canard but ... each of the other canards at 'Antisemitic canard' has its own article." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Freshacconci | Talk 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of sources to speak to the subject and explain what the concept was/is who used/uses it and how; POV issues are legion on wikipedia but not a reason to delete an article that's a reason to edit an article. Deletion an article because it's a POV or vandalism magnet would wipe out Jesus and plenty of other standard fare for an encyclopedia. Fix through regular editing and make suggestions to focus the lede to steer towards non-forkiness as appropriate. Benjiboi 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Benjiboi is right. This entire AfD nomination, has no support in Wikipedia policy: WP:DEL#REASON — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:50 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      • Sources for a huge historical hoax and lie and then place it in Category:Hoaxes. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Modernist 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is clearly not "Antisemitic canard". I've just recently read a biography of Winston Churchill, and several books regarding Neville Chamberlain and the British government during the late 30's and up to the start of the WW2 and the question of "Jewish Subverion" runs through all these books. Jewish refugees who wanted to come to the UK after the start of the war were viewed with suspicion, simply due to this reason, and this lead to them being sent to the British mandate of palestine after a certain number came to the UK, I think the number was 12000. scope_creep 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not just a canard, it's a lie. There is no such thing as "Jewish subversion" (if only people knew how disunited and split the Jews are, for 2000 years they couldn't even get a country of their own but wandered around like lost sheep!)-- or are there Christian subversion or Hindu subversion or American subversion or Chinese subversion? (Of the latter there actually may be), but "Jewish subversion" is a hoax actually a violation of WP:HOAX and pure fiction of the delusional sort. IZAK 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. It just seems to be a soap box for anti-semitic views; not a proper encyclopedic article.Spylab 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply If it's a lie, why are you so afraid to have an article about it? Isn't it better that we have an article where it explains all these allegations, and perhaps, even refute them as being false? Also, it's you who should prove that it's a hoax. You can do that by editing the article with credible sources. If you want it deleted because you consider it a hoax, then I'm afraid, you're giving the impression that this accusation of subversion is so genuine that you want to censor it on Wikipdia. In any case, it's not a violation of WP:HOAX, it may be a false accusation, but regardless of that, it has an important historical significance in the history of the Jewish people. Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion. You want to ignore this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
        • What do you mean by your statement: "Your ancestors have been killed because of Jewish subversion" without even a qualifier or what? So now editors must think about who was "killed" in their families when the identity of editors is anonymous? It is beneath contempt that a discussion on Wikipedia could stoop to such depths that fear of who was allegedly "killed" is introduced into a discussion. Well, then again, Blood libels did occur but they only revealed how demented and sick those who created the lies really are. IZAK 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Reply Well obviously, Jews, which I assume are your ancestors, have been persecuted, and killed, because they have been perceived as "Subversive". That alone is a notable reason to have an article about it on Wikipedia. The question here isn't if Jews are by their nature subversive or not. This article is simply trying to report about the phenomenon that Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion". — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:36 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
            • Pardon, but this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it, so don't backtrack now by saying that "Jews, throughout history, have been accused of "Subversion"" -- and you know something, this is a dumb discussion, because every nation that has had enemies has been accused of "subversion" or something else like that, but why does that have to get huge articles? Alleged subversion by Greeks written by Turks, Alleged subversion of Muslims written by Christians, Alleged subversion of Tibetans written by Chinese, and is there an article about Nazi subversion or did the Nazis not subvert anything? Something is very wrong here, when this article needs to be defended. There was a similar debate about "Israeli aparthied" and it was resolved to call it Allegations of Israeli apartheid as in Allegations of apartheid. So even the choice of wording for this article is way off. IZAK 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Reply this so-called article was only a quote from Hitler when you wrote it — This is a lie as much as it can be a lie. This is what it looked like before it was put to AfD,[6] obviously, more than a quote from Hitler. Now, the interesting question is, why are you making up lies like that? Why are you disingenuous? Obviously, the article had a lot more content than a mere quote from Hitler; it never actually quoted Hitler, it said, Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion, that wasn't a verbatim quote. But anyway, all your lies aside, would you be satisfied if we called this article Allegations of Jewish subversion? If you can find me historical examples of Greeks, Turks or any other kind of ethnic groups being accused of subversion as much as the Jews have been, I think we definitely should make articles out of that too. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment — Well obviously, it is a topic related to antisemitism. I can see by now, that is the sole reason you want it deleted. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you feel it isn't Encyclopaedic enough, edit it to a higher quality. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:16 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As you seem to like citing that one rule, I'd like to point out what it actually says: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)..." (emphasis mine). This is not a question of censorship. The article appears to be anti-semitic in nature which violates WP:NPOV. Freshacconci | Talk 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply — This article is not antisemitic, it's a topic related to antisemitism. This article has a historical significance, it deserves an encyclopaedic entry just as much as Jewish Question, Homosexuality and Islam, Islamic extremism, Islamophobia and other, controversial topics, which may, by the very nature of the article's topic, seem like anti this or anti that. Again, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Now, it's an indisputable fact, that this topic, Jewish subversion, is linked to politicians and other historically important men who have expressed antisemitic views regarding this article's topic. Again, that is not a reason to censor this article by deleting it. This article is part of Jewish history, it's an encyclopaedic topic. It deserves to stay. Now, I do agree that the current revision isn't exactly the best article on Wikipedia, but that is no reason to delete it. You can help improving the article by expanding and editing it to a higher quality version. By the way, where does it say, in Wikipedia policy, that you are allowed to AfD articles due to NPOV concerns? If this article gets deleted due to NPOV, I will report it as abuse of NPOV policy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:48 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Excuse me? If it is deleted its history. Seems to me it looks just like a duck, it sounds just like a duck, it walks just like a duck, but...Modernist 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply — What's that supposed to mean? If this article gets deleted, it only shows how censored Wikipedia actually is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:18 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. The section you cite ends with: "Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." There are serious questions of verifiability here. If that is not established, then WP:NOR applies. The sources cited merely add supposed references to what appears to be original research. In order to save this article, we would need to gut it and start again. Is there any point to that? Others have suggested a merge and that is a sound compromise, and that is exactly what we are here for, reaching consensus. Please do not jump the gun on whether or not the article is "here to stay". The necessary gutting of this apparent bit of original research would likely lead to an edit war: not a reason in itself to delete, but more than enough reason to be cautious and consider at the very least a merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion. — But that is what the AfD nominator did. This entire AfD debate, should on that basis, be disqualified since it wasn't a valid reason to AfD it in the first place. If the AfD nomination had been something like, "article has no encyclopaedic notability", that would have been a valid reason to discuss if it's notable and if it should be deleted. But, the truth is, the AfD nomination is for one reason only: the nominator is Jewish, he doesn't like the article because it bothers him, hence, he wants it deleted. I'm sorry, but that in itself, is not neutral. If you think this article suffers from Original Research, then you add an {{OR}} tag on it, discuss on the article's talk page, and from there, we reach consensus, compromise, and fix the article to an NPOV, free from Original Research, revision. This entire AfD debate should be closed without any deletion, because it's not a valid procedure in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's so obvious that there are users here, far from being neutral on the subject, who want this article deleted for the sole reason that it bothers them, they feel offended by the controversial nature of the article; that's why they want to delete it. That is what we reasonable people call, Censorship. And don't even start with the "you're an antisemite" ad hominems. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:36 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It sounds to me as though you might consider WP:NPA in your remarks about the nominator of this AfD. By the way this so called article that you are so ardently supporting is a total of 3 paragraphs of various biased points of view from Hitler to Henry Ford, this is not Censorship, your argument sounds a little too much like WP:ILIKEIT, and YES it's a duck, and I think you can understand that. Modernist 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply — It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. And neither is it WP:ILIKEIT, I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion. I believe the reasons given here to delete the article, lack a valid, and most of all, neutral, reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:02 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I never called you an anti-semite. I said that the "article appears to be anti-semitic in nature." But it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion, which is just as interesting as you pointing out that another editor is Jewish, and that is why "he wants it deleted." Cries of censorship, persecution and pointing out irrelevant information about someone's identity are odd ways to reach consensus (reminds me of certain groups, but I digress). By the way, my comment above pointed out that WP:NPOVis allowed as a reason for deletion (i.e. it does not say that we can't use it, as you have claimed). As for "it's here to stay, whether you like it or not" and "I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion": you may want to check out WP:OWN. The fact remains, many of us feel the article is not worth keeping. That is our opinion. You can continue to obsessively watch this page and reply to everyone who disagrees with you, but I will move on. My opinion is here for the record. Have a nice day. Freshacconci | Talk 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I'm not trying to WP:OWN anything. I added the {{expert}} tag, did I not? I added it because I wanted help with the article from people who are more familiar with the topic than I am. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:01 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is certainly not anti-semitic, and its NOT an neologism. Trying to extinguish something which is historical fact is stupidity in itself and is akin to burning books. Any student of pre WW2 history will tell you that this fact and phrase was well know throughout Europe and America in the 20's, 30's and early 40's. And please don't label me anti-semitic. I am half Jewish myself. scope_creep 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentThis so called article is about the German propaganda used against the Jewish people during the 1930s. Anti-semitic nah, by the way which half is Jewish? Modernist 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The article at the moment only has a German reference to it, but it was used all over Europe and America at the time. It needs to be expanded with the right content and tidied up. The dark half....;8-) Modernist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question This is a question to the dark half - what was used all over Europe and America at the time? and please sign your edits - Modernist 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply Then we tag it Nazi propaganda,[7] which only makes it more notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:41 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Redirect to, and Merge content into Antisemitic canard where it will fit perfectly with the other dozen or so examples of such. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment What's interesting here, according to the AfD nominator: There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. — is that, all the sections in the Antisemitic canard have their own, separate articles. Hence, this article, shouldn't be deleted. Should it have its own section in Antisemitic canard? Sure. But deleted? In my opinion, no. Otherwise we'll have to AfD all other articles in Antisemitic canard. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:34 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Just to clarify my position: I don't think that the material should be deleted, just the article. Other sections within Jewish subversion are larger and might need to be separate articles, but I don't think this material does. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "Jewish subversion" is an antisemitic canard but, as EliasAlucard just wrote, each of the other canards at Antisemitic canard has its own article. Accusations of Jewish subversion date from Biblical times (Esther 3:8, perhaps even Exodus 1:10) and have been a near-constant theme in anti-Jewish politics since then. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment With all due respect this article says nothing of the kind, Biblical? Esther? Exodus? what article did you read? I don't think so. Modernist 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply The article is still in its early stages. Yesterday, when it was created, it was a few sentences; while it's much improved today, it's still mostly about the 20th century . My point is that, contrary to many of the earlier comments, "Jewish subversion" is not a term or concept that originated with the Nazis. A more complete article, to which I'll help contribute, will show that accusations of Jewish subversion are almost as old as the Jewish diaspora. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment with all due respect, Modernist, but this article, is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that instead of wasting time on this AfD debate, we should be working on it. It can become a great article helping showcase the persecution of Jews through the centuries. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment with respect to you perhaps the article should be renamed and refocused to say: Subversion Of The Jewish People Over The Years. By the way this looks like WP:Canvas [8] - Modernist 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply WP:Canvas? The guy seems familiar with this topic, I would like to improve this article, and I asked him for some help. What's wrong with that? User:Scope creep has actually voted in this AfD poll. It doesn't fall under canvas. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:43 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:Civilty please. As entertaining as it is to dig through who's accusing who of what I'd much rather see some constructive work on improving the article to where most disagreements are rendered resolved or we all agree that the article could never possible be encyclopedic. As we apparently have a few folks here who have knowledge on the subject please apply your energy into refocusing the lede and addressing the needs of the article. I'm quite concerned that those, like myself, who would like to contribute to the article are not getting much constructive outflow from this discussion. It's a tough subject and one which wikipedia can grasp with breathtaking maturity if given the chance. Benjiboi 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be a notable concept and is well cited. Could use some cleanup and editors of this article should keep WP:NPOV in mind. I don't agree that this is violates WP:NEO or WP:POVFORK. Pilotbob 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The concept is notable but the implementation is awful. This needs to start from scratch using academic sources. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The article is using almost exclusively academic sources, it's well cited to published academic books from different universities. There's no need to delete it, just edit it until you feel satisfied with it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:12 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not a haphazard and dubious collection of quotes lacking context. Such kind of articles needs to be created complete abd cannot be built by random people adding their favourite bits. Pavel Vozenilek 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Afd is not a {{cleanup}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:21 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Following along with this debate, I'll pose this question to you Elias... are you referring to Jews being subverted by someone else, or are you referring to Jews being subversive? "Subversion" has more than one meaning, although it's most commonly used in the sense of a group conspiring in secret to do something evil, rather than the same group's existence being undermined by someone else. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on an ambiguous word. Mandsford 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply To be honest, I have no idea or should I say, no knowledge of this word's (as in "Jewish subversion") history. I found it when I edited the Nazism article,[9] and decided to create an article out of it, from what I could find on the Internet, because it seemed like an interesting topic. That's what I usually do when I discover new topics, for instance, Aslim Taslam was added for AfD just as soon as I had created it, but it survived the nomination, and now it's an interesting article. To answer your question: have the Jews been subverted by other peoples? Yeah, many times; a few examples are the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and lastly, the Germans. Have the Jews been subversive towards other peoples? Probably; there are those who claim they have. Gwynne accuses them of being subversive through the revolutionaries of their race,[10] which I assume he was talking about the Russian Revolution when the Bolsheviks seized power; a coup d'état in which many Jews were involved (which is why there's an article entitled Jewish Bolshevism). But this article should report on it from an NPOV stance. To claim that this is an Antisemitic canard, is of course, needless to say, a POV stance because it implies that this accusation of Jews being subversive, is by default, false. Now, whether this accusation of Jews being subversive is false or true, is none of my concern. I believe this article has an Encyclopaedic value, simply because of its long use by politicians, and the fact that it is a controversial topic, is why I believe it's an absolute must to have an article about it. I also believe that Jews have been persecuted because they have been perceived as "subversive" (most notably, in Nazi Germany). That is why I want an article about it, because once a lot of editors edit the article, improve it and expand it, it will be an interesting article and it will clear up a lot of misconceptions. By the way, if I'm not mistaken here, Muhammad considered the Jews subversive as well, which is why he persecuted them until there were basically no Jews left in the Arabian peninsula. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:50 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

*DELETE and MERGE relevant content into a broader anti-semitism article. I just don't see the point about retaining this as a separate article, nor EliasAlucard's passion for doing so. Are we to have Wikipedia articles such as Big Nosed Jews, Greedy Jews, etc.? Those are certainly derogatory statements that one could find secondary source for, as well, aren't they? Shawn in Montreal 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Is that supposed to be funny? You can't compare this, a political term, with stereotyping of facial features of Jews. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:05 01 Nov, 2007 *(UTC)
    • No. I'm dead serious. But actually I see there are separate articles for all the canards so I can't argue such a position, after all. So withdraw my deletion without offering to keep, either. Have your Jewish subversion article. Shawn in Montreal 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. After the article had been nominated for deletion, the definition of subject was changed to: "Jewish subversion is a term mostly used by anti-semites to justify hostility toward Jewish people or those perceived to be Jewish". Since now the article seems to be about Jewish Subversion as a firm term, it should report about the history of the term, and say who has used it in the public where the first time. But in the article, I can't find any clear source for a literal use of this very term Jewish Subversion. So far, this article is a bullet-point list of unrelated accusations made against Jews through history. --Schwalker 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I changed that lede to be avoid POV problems (not all who use the term are anti-semites, and hate speech is often misdirected at people one mistakes to belong to a certain group, etc). If it's broken then either fix the lede, the article or both via regular editing per WP:AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is true, the remedy for a POV content is to edit, not delete; but it is legitimate to delete an article that through its topical focus can not hope to meet NPOV standards. I think the title is inherently POV, for starters; and the topic is so vague ("subversion") that it is practically impossible to differentiate from the general theme of antisemitic canards. Articles that deal with very specific allegations (Doctors' Plot, blood libel, Jenin "massacre") may justify their own article, but this, in my view, is too broad. --Leifern 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You've listed yourself as an inclusionist, now that wasn't very inclusionist of you, was it? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:52 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one thing, there's nothing about jewish subversion in the article, only allegations of jewish subversion, of shaky reliability. Gzuckier 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually that's part of the point. Hitler may or may not have believed there was actual Jewish subversion but he certainly promoted the concept and used the term thus it is in the article and as the article is expanded the subject will be better explained. Benjiboi 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Antisemitic canard where it will fit with the other so examples of such. --JewBask 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As was stated above all those canards seem to have articles of their own already. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please expand why provocative and unnecessary is grounds for deletion. Otherwise it seems like you just don't like it. Benjiboi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently the article is nothing more than a list of the times this phrase was used by anti-semites. This in no way shape or form implies that the term is notable in and of itself; it is an example of an association fallacy. Just because more than one anti-semite uses this term does not mean that it means the same thing to them or anyone else. To suggest that these people all had the same intent and idea in mind is original research, albeit possbibly implied, on the part of the article's author. At this point I see no way for this article to be salvaged from its obvious point-of-view biases, original research violations, essay-likeness, and lack of context. Should an article about the phenomenon of the use of the allegation that Jews, as a whole, are considered by anti-Semites of all types, religions, and eras, to constantly be involved in the subversion of whatever government and country that they happen to reside, then I could consider having this listed in "AntiSemitic Canards" with perhaps its own, properly sourced and impartially written article. This article does no such thing and is thus unworthy of wikipedia on its own merits. Avi 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or maximally merge with canard. Just a list of accusations of subversion, quite meaningless without context. JFW | T@lk 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Yossiea (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. To even debate this is silly. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic seems legitimate. I think a problem here might be the name, which implies acceptance of the claim, so suggest rename to Claims of Jewish subversion or Accusations of Jewish subversion. --Eliyak T·C —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Agree the article title is a sensitive subject but so is Homosexual agenda which is balanced by the actual article which explains the term and usage. Perhaps we should insist the content be upgraded to accurately portray the term and its usage? Benjiboi 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the direction of the article violates WP:OR and is beyond salvageability. --MPerel 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:43, 02 Nov 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not nearly enough content to warrent article. Yahel Guhan 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps with REname as per Eliyak. This article has a wealth of citations. Whether all the items listed should be included is a different question. However, Jewish subversion was Hitler's excuse for genocide against Jews. This certainly makes the topic an important one. It is not WP:OR in the sense that is usually meant by that term (i.e. personal views, unsupported by evidence). The fact that he subject is unpalatable is no reason for deleting it. Nor does it violate WP:POV, for it is not expressing a POV, but describing one that people have held, even if it is (or was) unjustified. Peterkingiron 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:04, 04 Nov 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I failed to see how is this article is a WP:POVFORK. This article have good sources and is notable and is pretty much NPov. I am sorry, but I think Jewish editors are being too sensitive. Chris! ct 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • SORRY, NO. A more thorough discussion? Didn't you discuss this enough already the other day? Nobody's interested in debating with you anymore. Mandsford 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if the title is non-neutral, than neither will the article content Will (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Elias. Now you're editing out the comments you don't like? Grow up, son. Like I say, you discussed this one to death. More than 3/4ths of the discussion is written by you. Mandsford 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply It's not that it was a comment I didn't like. It was relisted for more votes. It is allowed to do that. Your comment wasn't a discussion and it didn't do anything to help reach a consensus. You basically implied that you didn't want to discuss it more. So you don't have to. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:29 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • This, coming from the kid who wrote "I'll have to remind you, Wikipedia isn't censored." I think it was like the third comment out of the thirty that you wrote last week, so you might have forgotten that you thought you were a victim of censorship. Regardless, you should be aware that editing comments on AfD is a "no-no" here. If you keep trying it, it's easily verified. I'm just telling you before an administrator has to. Mandsford 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for filling me in on how things work on Wikipedia. I must commend you for insulting my intelligence, as if I couldn't myself figure out that it is easily verified. But you're wrong on one thing: this isn't censorship. Censorship is to prohibit politically sensitive content from being shown to the public. For instance, deleting this article on the basis that the "title isn't neutral", is censorship. Deleting a provocative comment which is not adding ANYTHING to the debate, isn't exactly what I would call censorship. But hey, I just added your comment back if it makes you happy. Now, can we please continue this serious AfD discussion, with votes and actual arguments for deleting/keeping it, based on REASON and LOGIC? Thanks. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:49 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you two stop bickering about some personal issues here? This is an afd and not a general discussion. Just let it work. OK. Chris! ct 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As a side note, Mandsford is right for one thine. You can't edit nor delete someone's comment. Chris! ct 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Editors have expressed a willingness to add to the article but seem to unwilling to waste time if article is to be deleted. Article has been zealously referenced now simply needs a chance to be written while not under the threat of deletion. I suggest those who feel it can't possibly be encyclopedic enough consider "allowing" article to be and develop (maybe a month or two?) and revisit issue if article doesn't progress enough. Benjiboi 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is systematically referenced, appears NPOV, is short, and lists several examples of notable anti-Semites using the term or concept of "Jewish Subversion". One suggestion for improvement: (slightly) longer quotations from Hitler, Ford, etc., could make it more apparent that said individuals really were complaining about Jewish subversion per se. Phrenophobia 04:10, 5 November 2007 (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.