Talk:General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia

Old talk

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)

Mistransliterated?

The first paragraph currently starts with "The General Jewish Labour Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia, in Yiddish the Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund in Lite, Poyln un Rusland". However the actual Yiddish name that's given in parentheses appears to be "Algemeyner Yidisher Arbitersbund ayn Rusland, Lite, und Poyln." Can someone who (unlike me) actually speaks the language or is familiar with the subject fix this or clarify the discrepancy? Zyqqh 11:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the discrepancy, but I don't know which one is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this when I first wrote this article, in which several editors highly competent in Yiddish got involved. The conclusions were (a) that Yiddish is an unstable language with several regional variants and also no fixed transliteration into the Roman alphabet and (b) that there is no one historically "correct" rendering of the name. The current version is the one they seemed to agree was least objectionable. User:Danny, if he's still around, would be able to tell you more. Adam 22:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the question was more about the order of the countries listed, rather than the transliteration. Are you saying that the order of the country names in the title changed? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I am looking for people, who can tell my a bout the BUnd in Germany and today in the world --Steve2 11:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the Bundist also pro-Nazi German-American organization of the 1930s?

Thats the 2nd definition, verbatim, on the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

Also, a Nazi is called a good little bundist in the movie Stalag 17.

Sefton: "He's a Nazi, Price is. For all I know his name is Preissinger or Preishoffer. Oh, sure, he lived in Cleveland. But when the war broke out, he came back to the Fatherland like a good little Bundist. He spoke our lingo, so they sent him to spy school and fixed him up with phony dog tags."

I mean the jewish labor bund in germany

The Stalag 17 reference was to a different "Bund": see German-American Bund. The German word "Bund" means "union", and can be used as a shortcut to all kids of unions. Ahasuerus 02:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bund in germany

No I mean the General Jewish Labor Union in Germany, this Bund was also in Germany active under the jews and i want some informations

unsourced POV

"The massacre of Polish Jewry during the Holocaust destroyed both its base and, in the eyes of many surviving Polish Jews, its ideological validity."

Somehow I get the impression that a number of Wikipedians are keen to diss on everything progressive and anti-Zionist in the larger Jewish community - even if it's from sixty years ago!

Bundists in the Spanish Civil War

I think that is very important to talk about the bundism in the spanish civil war, because they some the jew communist an socialists, were in Spain defending the Second Republic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.152.60.87 (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Bundists were indeed fighting in the Spanish Civil War. We need to add this as well. After that, it should talk about this on the Spanish Civil War article, and if need be, redirect to the main article or section. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger between General Jewish Labor Union and Jewish Bolshevism

Jossi has proposed that Jewish Bolshevism be merged into this article. On first glance this seems to be a very unusual proposal. This article is about "a Jewish political party in several European countries operating predominantly between the 1890s and the 1930s" and the other article is about "an antisemitic political epithet; it is the antisemitic conspiracy theory which blames the Jews for Bolshevism and everything else." Certainly there are historical links between conspiracies and political/labor unions, and these links should be noted, but I fail to see a stronger connection.

I am unfamiliar with either the history or politics of the phrase "Jewish Bolshevism", but perhaps if this is an attempt to remove the article from Wikipedia the {{AfD}} tag would be more appropriate? --Bookandcoffee 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism looks like a very confused article. The lede is about an epithet and antisemitic booklet, but the article is also about (genuine) Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish revolutionary anti-Bolsheviks in the nascent Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the article does have a small section about the Bund. I oppose a merger, as the articles barely overlap. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as per Malik S. BobFromBrockley 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bund in Sweden

Interesting material, at [1]. --Soman (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Can anyone verify whether Image:Ac.manif1917.jpg really is a photo of a Bund rally? http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/Beyond-The-Pale/eng_captions/41-2.html says the demonstrators belong to the Jewish Socialist Workers Party. --Soman (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.berdichev.org/jewsinurss_a_1.htm says the same. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the photo now, to an image that is definately of the Bund. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad title

The organization is pretty universally known as the Bund - it seems to me that the word "Bund" ought to be in the article title. john k (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved now. --Soman (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Bund on Wikipedia" Project PLEASE READ

Hello all,

"The Bund on Wikipedia" Project is a project that was established in order to create and edit pages about the General Jewish Labour Union, or Bund, on Wikipedia. The project's main goal is to create a network of "editors" who will continue to create and edit Wikipedia pages about the Bund. Please join the Task Force. For more info, please visit http://bundwiki.weebly.com/. Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Just a note, where possible, priority should be for references/citations available in English. Thanks.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: the richness of the English wikipedia is just the heterogeneity and language skills variety of its contributors. I would agree if for instance in an article over the Armenian genocide some (self-censored) would begin adding a lot of references in Turkish from Yusuf Halaçoğlu supporting the allegation that Armenians genocided Turks and not the contrary. But in the case of the Bund I hope there are less contentious issues, even if I read some horrors in some Zionist propaganda literature about the Bund during WWII, they sometimes don't even mention that Edelman was a Bundist. Moreover there are several contributors who understand several languages and seem to know a lot about the Bund, so if some contribution with a non-English reference seems odd at any moment, I guess it will be discussed here. --Pylambert (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You disagree with WP:NONENG?...that's all I was suggesting.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some very general thoughts (no pun intended)

The article needs a better structure, would propose something like this:
1. Emergence
2. Growth and inter-war years
3. WW2 and destruction
4. Immediate post-war
5. Legacy

At present the ideological differences between the Bund, the Bolsheviks and Zionists are not very explicit in the article. The role of the Bund as a Jewish defence organisation should be larger, IMO, eg its support grew especially in Poland in the late 1930s as it was seen to be the most effective Jewish organisation struggling against antisemitism.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

בונד or בּונד?

I just changed the Yiddish spelling of Bund from בונד to בּונד, however, I then noticed that the project task force page has a request for use of YIVO standardisation. It seems "בּ" for "b" is not part of the YIVO standard. I think though given that the Bund itself used בּונד (as can be seen in the photo in the lede, or in this photo) using בּ is more appropriate in this case. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Using בּונד is appropriate in this case. Even if the YIVO Standardization might say otherwise. That is why on the Task Force's page that you mentioned, it said when applicable. Thanks for bringing this to the discussion. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to General Jewish Labor Union

The current title "General Jewish Labour Bund" is an odd mixture and has only 2 Google book hits, and 38 when "Labor" is used. "General Jewish Labor Union" has over 200 Google book hits, though. Also, the proper Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund has around 100 hits. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the usual problem with whether to use English or American spelling - the only Wiki guideline I'm aware of on this just says to be consistent. Personally I usually use American spelling, if for no other reason then that then my computer doesn't red-mark everything as a misspelling. Since there's more Google book hits for "Labor" - I'd support Matthead's proposal. But I don't have strong feelings either way on this.radek (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently, this article is titled General Jewish Labour Bund. It was recently changed to as such from what you propose, General Jewish Labour Union. Although in you may get more "hits" (results) when searching on books, it is more commonly referred to by Bundists as the "Jewish Labour Bund" (ok, so we kept the "General" part, to keep it closer to its original form - General Jewish Labour Union). I completely disagree with renaming it by its Yiddish transliteration. I propose we keep it as it is. This needs more discussion. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the name or the spelling, the word "Bund" needs to be somewhere in there.radek (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it most commonly as "Jewish Labor Bund" (without "General"). As far as Labor or Labour, don't focus on Google hits; see WP:ENGVAR. Generally, American topics get American spelling, British topics get British spelling, and everything else depends on the style preferred by the first major contributor to the article. Most importantly, consistency counts. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to stick with British spelling. Re the name, "the Bund" is the most common term, surely. Because "the Bund" is the most common, there is no prevailing fuller phrase, which probably reflects contemporary reality as histories and participant accounts of the Bund emerged in multiple languages and countries in the post war period. The present title may be a little cumbersome, but it is IMO the best representation in English of the full name of the organisation. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "The Bund" would be my own personal preference but it does appear that there is a lot of English sources on the area of Shanghai.radek (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

split into three?

I started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Jewish_Labour_Bund_Task_Force#Trifurcation_of_main_article.3F. --Soman (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional titles

In the first paragraph of this article, it says that the General Jewish Labour Bund is known as:

• General Jewish Labour Bund of Lithuania, Poland and Russia
• אַלגעמײַנער ײדישער אַרבעטער בּונד אין ליטע פוילין און רוסלאַנד, Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund in Lite, Poyln un Rusland
• The Bund, בּונד
• Jewish Labour Bund

It needs to also say that it is known as:

• The General Jewish Workers Bund of Lithuania, Poland and Russia
• The General Jewish Workers Bund
• Jewish Labor Bund

(Needs to specify when it is called the Jewish Labour Bund (with a "u") and Jewish Labor Bund (without a "u").) (I think it has also been called:)

• The General Jewish Workers Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia
• The General Jewish Workers Union

I brought this up so someone can organize the titles in a better format, with the consent of everyone else. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

articles in Ukrainian and Russian wikis

There is a strange sentence in, the article in the Ukrainian wiki, "Під час Першої світової війни Бунд займав соціал-шовіністичні позиції.", i.e. (according to the Google translator) "During World War Bund held social chauvinist position." ! The Russian wiki article includes interesting data (numbers of Bund's members: 34,000 during the 1905-1907 Revolution; 2,000 in October 1910; 34,000 after the February Revolution), but without sources (there are general references at the end of the article, but no inline refs). It would be interesting to somewhat coordinate the various versions of the main Bund article to modify POV versions such as the Ukrainian one and to ask the Russian contributors to add refs so that their info could be recycled on the other wikis.--Pylambert (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a strange sentence, but rather a copy-paste from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Since GSE is public domain, texts from it are used as base for articles in some of the Soviet language wikis. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)