From Bvio
Re "destroyed both its base and, according to (most/some), its ideological validity" I don't want to get into an edit war, so let me explain myself. Jayjg, could you also explain why you feel so strongly about "most"? I'm not disputing that the Bund lost most of its support after the war, I'm disputing that most people think that it lots its ideological validity. They're different things, and I Think that the word "most" here is POV. (Incidentially, there were still Bundist haggadot being published in the US after the war, suggesting enough supporters still around to sustain book publishing.) Serious historians debate the cause the rise of Zionism among Holocaust survivors, but to suggest (as I think the current wording of the article does) that "most" people were liberated from concentration camps and said "oops, I guess the Bund didn't help, I guess I'll go to Israel" is historically inaccurate. -- Remes 15:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note the sentence immediately following the one in question "By 1945 few of the surviving eastern European Jews believed any longer in the Bund's particular vision of socialism or in a future for the Jews in Europe, and most of the survivors emigrated to Israel." If they didn't believe in its vision, and emigrated to Israel, then who was actually supporting its ideological validity, aside from some remnants in the US who weren't directly affected by the Holocaust? Jayjg 16:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I don't think that sentence is so great either, because it rather flattens a good deal of historical experience and historical debate. But encylopedias flatten; so be it. Saying that most survivors no longer supported the Bund is the same as that they denied its "ideological validity." I disagree with lots of things without saying that they have no ideological validity. To me, that phrase means, if it means anything at all, that the ideology in question was wrong and was always wrong. I don't there's any evidence that says that "most" survivors thought that. Further, I think that in this context "according to most" is a code for "according to the author." I think it's a NPOV-seeming way around being POV, and I think that's how it will be read. Can we compromise and say "according to many"? Remes 04:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. Jayjg 01:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Done. Incidentially, I just got a new book on Soviet anti-Bund persecution (during the Soviet occupation of Poland during the era of the non-aggression pact), so I might make some additions and changes to this article. It probably won't be for a while though, and I'll post in Talk: if I think anything I'm doing might be controversial. Remes 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. Jayjg 01:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I don't think that sentence is so great either, because it rather flattens a good deal of historical experience and historical debate. But encylopedias flatten; so be it. Saying that most survivors no longer supported the Bund is the same as that they denied its "ideological validity." I disagree with lots of things without saying that they have no ideological validity. To me, that phrase means, if it means anything at all, that the ideology in question was wrong and was always wrong. I don't there's any evidence that says that "most" survivors thought that. Further, I think that in this context "according to most" is a code for "according to the author." I think it's a NPOV-seeming way around being POV, and I think that's how it will be read. Can we compromise and say "according to many"? Remes 04:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
