Open main menu

Template:Did you know nominations/Jewish Democratic Committee

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Democratic Committee

  • ... that the Jewish Democratic Committee and the Romanian Communist Party together sent Romanian Jews to Israel hoping to make it a communist ally? Source: Oțoiu, pp. 202–203; Lazăr, p. 197 also mentions a transport of communist-indoctrinated Romanian Jews
    • ALT1:... that the anti-Zionist campaign initiated in Romania by the Jewish Democratic Committee "only contributed to convincing more Jews they should get out as soon as possible"? Source: Szabo
    • ALT2:... that the Jewish Democratic Committee went from embracing a Labor Zionist wing in 1945 to organizing a pro-communist clampdown on Labor Zionism in 1948? Source: For the full list of Labor Zionist groups admitted into the Committee in 1945, see Crăciun, p. 176; for the sharing of an electoral ticket with Labor Zionists, see Nastasă, p. 181; for the clampdown, see Kuller, pp. 144–145

5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expanded, long enough, ALT0 doesn't seem particularly neutral but ALTs 1 and 2 are within policy. Hooks are formatted correctly, but I can't seem to find where in the article these statements appear? QPQ done, no image. @Dahn: all it needs is for the hook statements to be in the prose. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi and thanks. I'm not sure what you mean about ALT0: there are numerous sources attesting that fact (as the article notes, this plan was the topic of popular jokes: "At this stage, the PCR was viewing immigration as a potential asset, since an indoctrinated Romanian Jewish colony could bring Palestine, and subsequently Israel, into the Eastern bloc, ensuring that government was formed by the Hebrew Communists.[85] Its design was picked up on by the general public, and universally ridiculed: "A widely circulated anecdote had the emigrating Jews throwing their party cards overboard once the ship left [its] Romanian port".[9]"), and the hook is a statement of facts. I'm also unsure about what neutrality we're supposed to achieve in describing the absurd actions of a totalitarian state -- I mean sure, we don't use epithets or drivel against it, but we're surely not supposed to go out of our way to ignore the scope of its action (and neither is there a requirement that we should do so). I would really urge you to reconsider, because I frankly feel it is the most interesting of the hooks.
    ALT1 actually has the statement verbatim in the article: if you search within the text, without the quote marks, you'll find this exact sequence (it's part of a larger quote: "According to historian Stefano Bottoni, it marked "the first visible sign of a failed compromise, whose bases — namely, that party members were to drop their 'strong' Jewish identity, while the petty and middle bourgeoisie were to be economically ruined — had been proven as unacceptable for a majority of Jews in Romania.""); there are now several references to Committee members applying for emigration -- "The regime was much embarrassed when, in May 1950, the CDE's top echelons in Suceava County submitted requests for emigration, and again in September, when Zelțer-Sărățeanu was booed by Unirea Sfântă congregants for speaking out against emigration.[157] Northern Transylvanian cities also experienced the mass emigration of CDE members, including all the party hierarchy in Năsăud.[60]"
    ALT2 refers to two facts, one of which is discussed and sourced throughout the article, and the other discussed in particular in the whole section "Labour Zionist schism"; for both clauses together, see for instance: "A return to officially sanctioned anti-Zionist violence was made in November 1948, when Police raided the Jewish National Fund, detaining its leader Leon Itzcar on charges of contraband; this campaign was fully endorsed by Unirea, who referred to Zionists as "blackmarketeers" and "disrupters of the socialist economy".[113] During December, CDE squads stormed into the Bucharest offices of the ten remaining Zionist organisations,[114][115] including Mishmar, Ihud, Bnei Akiva, and HaOved HaTzioni. The latter two in particular mounted resistance,[116] with publicised incidents which prompted communist authorities order a truce. At least seven offices had been returned to Zionist ownership by 6 December.[115] In the aftermath, PCR internal documents criticised the CDE for being "hamfisted".[117]" Dahn (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't dispute that the claim in ALT0 is verifiable, but "colluded" and "indoctrinated" are quite obviously non-neutral value judgments which should not be asserted in WikiVoice.
  • For ALT1, while high profile party members emigrated and Romanian Jews found the party's practices unacceptable, the article does not state that these two events are connected in the way the hook does. The hook asserts causation which is not supported by the article text; the wider context for the Bottoni quote is "Between [1951 and 1953], a full purge of the CDE had been carried out: all energies were devoted to the frenzy of uncovering the internal enemy. According to historian Stefano Bottoni, it marked the first visible sign of a failed compromise, whose bases — namely, that party members were to drop their strong Jewish identity, while the petty and middle bourgeoisie were to be economically ruined — had been proven as unacceptable for a majority of Jews in Romania." So the article text states the party purges and the requirement to drop Jewish Identity (not anti-Zionism) were what Romanian Jews objected to. The article does not assert that the anti-emigration stance was so unpopular that it caused emigration. If this is the case, the article should be updated to reflect that information.
  • For ALT2, the article (and the parts you cite) give this event as occurring in 1948 while the hook says 1949. That may well be a typo, but I'm not familiar enough with this topic to intuit that. If it is a typo, then the revised ALT2 can be accepted.
  • And sorry for the delay in responding to this, DYKs tend to get pushed off my watchlist fast so it is always a safe bet to ping me. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: No worries about the delay, and thank you for looking into this.
  • I will respectfully dispute that interpretation as a value judgement on its own. The two terms may have acquired "loaded" connotations, but they are actually both descriptive: "collude" means to "cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others" (not unlawful, but for sure a secretive plan explicitly designed so as to game Israeli immigration law); "indoctrinate" (which appears verbatim in the sources) is to "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically", which was the objective of them having indoctrination classes, in the same way that people in North Korea are indoctrinated with Juche classes, or Germans were forced to read from the Mein Kampf. The article has a quote from communist officials describing it as "instructional work", which shows that they weren't exactly shy about what purpose it had. If you still feel these terms are too subjective or harsh, please suggest alternatives.
  • Technically, the issue of dropping "strong Jewish identity" would refer to Zionism (as well), but I do see your point. Would you accept, with another quote from the article: "... that the anti-Zionist campaign initiated in Romania by the Jewish Democratic Committee "only contributed to convincing more Jews they should get out as soon as possible"?"
  • You're absolutely right, the error was in the hook, and I've now corrected it. (I think it is because the text was originally imprecise about the issue, as the sources used were not precise about the dating, only covering the reaction, which was dated to early 1949; as I added to the text, it emerged that the origins were in early December 1948, and I forgot to update the hook as I went along.) Dahn (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I definitely see your point, and while the literal definitions may be accurate, it's the connotations that give me pause. This will be on the main page with readers who may not be familiar with the literal definitions or who will see it as a value judgment regardless of whether it was one. What ideology were the Romanian Jews being taught? I think a more neutral version would be something like "that the Jewish Democratic Committee and the Romanian Communist Party together sent anti-Zionist Romanian Jews to Israel hoping to influence Israeli policies?" assuming that the indoctrination was anti-Zionism, though it could be swapped out for whatever is accurate. This way we sidestep the connotation of "collude" by stating the organizations worked together on this plan, and we also clarify "indoctrination" by stating the specific ideology these groups were trying to export.
  • My only concern with this new hook is that, from the article, it seems that the propaganda campaign being objected to was "the dull evening courses teaching Jews the elements of 'class struggle' and of the need to change Jewish class structure". The article reads like it was the communist propaganda rather than anti-Zionism specifically which led to these sentiments. The hook itself is fine but it should be reflected in the article text.
  • Understandable, I've overlooked worse mistakes. I recognize this nomination has been open a while, so I can approve ALT2 now if you'd like. If you'd prefer one of the first two run, then I can hold off and we can keep working on those hooks. Let me know what works best for you. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: with due thanks for being so patient and kind.
  • I cannot say I fully agree with that logic, but yes, we can agree on a reformulated hook, and your proposal is quite fine. I would suggest however that the ideology, when they started doing this, was communism, as the communists had not yet developed an anti-Zionist discourse at that moment (1947--1947) -- they would so over the next few years. Specifically, sources suggest that they expected to turn Israel into a communist country, or at least a Soviet ally. So if we could tweak your suggestion to reflect this, it would be even finer.
  • Well, yes, but that quote is from another author, and describes the generic atmosphere as an additional factor for alienating Jews. The quote I proposed is from this English-language article, and it specifically refers to the anti-Zionist component; I've tweaked the text to reflect that more clearly. (Note: this does indeed refer to anti-Zionism, as it describes a series of events taking place after the failure of previous plans.)
  • I hope the above clarifies more on the other hooks, but in case more is needed and we're running out of time, sure, we can go with the one option. Dahn (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • How about something like "that the Jewish Democratic Committee and the Romanian Communist Party together sent Romanian Jews to Israel hoping to make it a communist ally?"
  • Thanks for the change, ALT1 is good to go now as well.
  • I'm fine waiting. I don't think DYK has a deadline, so I'm in no rush. I just know some people are eager and didn't want you to feel that I was holding this up. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wugapodes: I've now updated both remaining hooks to the versions we agreed on (I view this as a simpler alternative to creating more ALTs). Please have a look over the proposals, whenever it is convenient for you, and let me know id they're all approved or if anything else catches your eye that needs work. I personally am in no rush, and, while there technically is a time limit to DYK noms, I don't believe we're running out of time. If all is okay now, please comment and use the icon for the type of verification you used, so that the bots and queue reviewers will know the review is complete. Dahn (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)