Jump to content

Talk:Jewish Bolshevism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yasmo3333 (talk | contribs)
36 edits
Line 309: Line 309:


:::::I don't know where I pretended to be a reliable source. What statement are we talking about? And yes if reliable secondary sources say something is true, so can we. We do not say for example, "Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945, according to Smith. He was born in Austria, according to Jones. He wrote ''Mein Kampf'', according to Doe." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::I don't know where I pretended to be a reliable source. What statement are we talking about? And yes if reliable secondary sources say something is true, so can we. We do not say for example, "Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945, according to Smith. He was born in Austria, according to Jones. He wrote ''Mein Kampf'', according to Doe." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::The difference between statements like "Hitler was born in Austria" and "Jewish Bolshevism is a canard" is that nobody disputes that Hitler was born in Austria. But quite a few people have been disputing that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard. [[User:Yasmo3333|Yasmo3333]] ([[User talk:Yasmo3333|talk]]) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


==The article logic is is upside down==
==The article logic is is upside down==

Revision as of 21:30, 14 October 2016

Trotsky image

Image restored. directly relevant. trotsky is a well-known standard poster boy of "Jewish bolshevism" canard. see google books. - üser:Altenmann >t

And many more. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the links. They talk about Trotsky representing Jewish Bolshevism. I wouldn't mind a photo of Trotsky if someone wants to make that comparison. My question is specific to this poster. It's not discussed in the article an it's not clear what it's supposed to illustrate. Can you please explain? USchick (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for the image caption?
  • Representative of the attitudes held by those who subscribe to the Jewish Bolshevism canard, this White movement propaganda poster from the Russian Civil War era (1919) depicts a caricature of Leon Trotsky as a red devil wearing the Star of David. Below him are Chinese soldiers with braids and blue and gold uniforms.
Since this article is about a conspiracy theory, it may be relevant to include the imagery used by the followers of the theory in question. I don't feel strongly one way or another, but I believe the suggested caption above explains what the poster is doing in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Star of David is not what he's wearing. Therefore the confusion about what this poster represents from people who aren't reading what the poster actually says. It's a statement against Sovdepiya, just like this poster File:WorkerSovdepiya.jpg and has nothing to do with Jews. To make the claim that this poster relates to something Jewish, a source would be most helpful. USchick (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Sorry about my mistake. I see that he's wearing a 'red star' (symbol of the revolution). But then my question - was the star made intentionally to look like the Star of David? I'm leaving towards that theory, as the red stars were never worn in such manner. (If you do a google image search for "star of david on chain" you get a lot of hits in jewelry; google "red star on chain" and you get nothing).
Revised suggested caption:
  • Representative of the attitudes held by those who subscribe to the Jewish Bolshevism canard, this White movement propaganda poster from the Russian Civil War era (1919) depicts a caricature of Leon Trotsky as a red devil. Note that the red star (symbol often associated with communist ideology) he is wearing around his neck is stylized to resemble the Star of David. Below him are Chinese soldiers with braids and blue and gold uniforms.
In any case, this is beginning to look like conjecture, so I would let people more experienced with the subject comment.--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the words on the poster, it's propaganda against Sovdepia. If there's a scholarly source that claims a different message, let's see the source please. USchick (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USchick is right. A a gold five-pointed star circuit with a red background was a Communist symbol. The six-pointed yellow star of David only came into wide use under the Nazis. The subject is actually wearing a pentagram. The Trotsky article says the star represents satanism and Trotsky is portrayed as the devil.

Also, there is no indication that the subject was Trotsky and nothing in it that implies he was Jewish. There are no reliable sources that connect the painting with Jewish Bolshevism. It's like an inkblot test - different viewers may see different things.

TFD (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's propaganda against Sovdepia - the poster says "Peace and freedom in Sovdepia" and depicts a "judeo-bolshevik devil" and "asiatic hordes" killing White (?) soldiers, at least that's how it looks to me.
Here's what I was able to find on the connection between "Sovdepia" and "Judeo Bolshevism" (although not specifically Trotsky): The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, 1978 - the statement is footnoted to another source, which I cannot see.
This one comes directly from the timeframe in question: 1920 book by George Gustav Telberg The Last Days of the Romanovs. I believe his bona fides as a nationalist (& prob a virulent anti-semite) can be established by the recommendation of his work alongside Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth, and Disbandment by John C. Lester, Daniel Love Wilson on a white supremacy forum. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Trotsky also mentioned in the Telberg book, including a statement of him being more powerful than Lenin.
PPS - In any case, I don't feel strongly about the inclusion (or not) of this poster in the article. I was interesting (for me personally) to find such "Judeo-Bolshevik" messaging from the timeframe of the Russian civil war. I had previously assumed it was more of a Nazi Germany concept. I'm neutral on the subject of this particular poster itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a source that says the poster represents "sovdepia" (which means areas under Communist control) and another sources that says some people thought the Communists were Jews and conclude the poster represents the Communists as Jews. Maybe that was the message in the poster, but you need a reliable source that makes the connection. And again, we do not even know if the subject is supposed to be Trotsky. TFD (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct; I don't have specific arguments for having this poster in the article. I'm neither pro or against keeping it the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovdepia" is a very derogatory term. The language used on the poster is not Russian. Ukrainian? The message on both posters is about slavery, Jews, Russians, European (all outsiders) pose a threat because they will conquer and enslave the local population. There may be other references tying Jews to Communists, but there is no such reference in this poster. USchick (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - the language in the poster is Russian, in the pre-reform orthography. See more details here: The post-revolution reform. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, thanks! So the meaning is even less clear about who is the intended audience for this propaganda. The only thing for sure is that they will all become slaves. USchick (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the use of the pre-reform orthography does not change the meaning. I read it as: the so-called "Peace and Freedom in Sovdepia" means death, enslavement and "godliness." As you said, the "Judeo-Bolshevik" connection is less clear. Re: orthography -- poster may have been printed prior to the reform having taken place. More likely explanation is that the White forces continued to use the old orthography for a while, since it was a "communist reform". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the meaning written on the poster does not change. However, if this poster was used in different locations, the local population would have different reactions to it, ranging form being mildly annoyed to organizing a local defense army. So how the poster was being used becomes increasingly important. USchick (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting more interesting. The Chinese soldiers were sort of confusing to me, so I looked up "Chinese in the Red Army" and what do I find? The very same poster in the article Chinese in the Russian Revolution, with the following explanation: "The use of Chinese troops by the Bolsheviks was commented on by both White Russian and non-Russian observers.In fact, the Bolsheviks were often derided for their reliance on Chinese and Lettish volunteers. Anti-Bolshevik propaganda suggested that the Bolsheviks did not have the support of the Russian people and thus had to resort to foreign mercenaries who ran roughshod over the Russian populace."

So I'm changing my position on the inclusion of this poster in the article to "against," since it depicts a different aspect of anti-bolshevik propaganda from the Russian civil war era. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the anti-Jewish Nazi Lithuanian poster, see the discussion above? It has all: Jewish face, Star of David, hate... Zezen (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a source that connects it with Jewish Bolshevism. Also, there is no visual symbol of Communism, so for people who do not speak Lithuanian, the anti-Communist message is not obvious. TFD (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other page where it is used says in the description: 

 1941 Nazi propaganda antisemitic "Jewish Bolshevism" poster in Lithuanian language equating Stalinism and Jews[d]. Top reads: "Jews - your eternal enemy", Bottom reads: "Stalin and Jews are the same band of scum"

Can't we? Zezen (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If following the wikilawyering logic you applied to trotsky's poster, we cannot. Stalinism is not the same as Bolshevism. Also the statement that Stalin and Jews are in the same band of scum does not mean they are the the same. Compare: "Nazists and fascists are the same band of scum". 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source for this one. And that article provides no sources that refer to Jewish Bolshevism. I do not know if the Stalinism ≠ Bolshevism is accurate, but its a possible objection and we would require a source that determines that the poster falls within "Jewish Bolshevism." TFD (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann would you like to join this conversation or do you prefer to edit war? USchick (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice I started this conversation and still talking. Would you like to remember that some people, even former wikiholics have real life, and sometimes Q&A may take time. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for Trotsky image, I provided references, including in image caption, which say, in most direct way possible, that Trotsky is a prime example of the idea of Jewish Bolshevism. I find it ridiculous that someone disputes that this is a picture of Trotsky, but I don't care to argue. Just put your favorite photo of Trotsky instead. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian poster: this is me who provided translation (partial; lazy) of the poster from Lithuanian and I can assure you that the whole text blames Stalinist atrocities in Lithuania on Jews. Ie, the poster is 100% anti-Semitic. However nowhere in this poster there is a direct indication that Jews are blamed for Communism/Bolshevism/ etc. We know Nazis do this. But not in this poster. Finally, please notice this poster is non-free, and it will be impossible to apply wikipedia fair use policy to use it in this article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. I restored the long-standing image. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes absolutely what? You can't just tag-team without explaining. Everyone including Altenmann agreed to the photo instead of a poster. USchick (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tag-teaming with whom? Please explain. My reading of the discussion above is that there is no consensus to remove the image, and it is in the public domain, hence it can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it again. You are the only one insisting on the poster. Everyone else has agreed that the photo is more appropriate. USchick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The poster is a MUCH better illustration of the concept in question, and the straightforward photo lends undue weight to the canard.--Galassi (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please explain how this poster relates to something Jewish. USchick (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind using the poster if some sort of context can be established for it. I found sources that provide context. Does anyone have a problem with these sources? [1], [2][3] [4]. USchick (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, this is famous poster, precisely on the subject of this page, and it has been described in books (sources #3 and #4). Only source #1 may not be RS, others are fine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moskovskiy Komsomolets

These two statements are supported by an article on Solzhenitsyn from Moskovskiy Komsomolets:

  • Jews made up 7.1% of members who had joined before October 1917.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Deutsch, Mark, "Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia". Moskovskiy Komsomolets. 10 January 2003. http://www.sem40.ru/anti/7820 Template:Ru icon

I could not find the article itself, but found this reference to it from Sputnik News:

[Solzhenitsyn's recent work] "Two Hundred Years Together" [...] split the readers into two irreconcilable groups. Many have described it as blatantly anti-Semitic. The high-profile journalist Mark Deitch, for one, responded with an article entitled "A Shameless Classic. Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia." The piece was carried by the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets. Actually, both labels seem too strong for the frail patriarch. He is neither an anti-Semite nor a Xenophobe. It's just that he does not have enough energy or knowledge to explore such a complex issue in depth. An entire research institute wouldn't be up to the task. And the role of a judge that he assumes in this book is not particularly becoming, either.

So I don't think the article (if it can be found) is qualified to support the statements being made in the article. Would anyone want to tackle this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This number 7.1% has been brought up before. I don't know what they're looking at this time, but last time it was a calculation error. Please post the entire paragraph of text and not just a broken link. USchick (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot post the entire paragraph (I assume you mean from Mos Kom article by Deutsch/Deitsch?) since I cannot locate it. As you said, the link is broken. The point I was making is that using the article to support the numbers seems like a misuse of a source, since the article in question appeared to be about Solzhenitsyn and his work (Two Hundred Years Together), and only tangentially about demographic composition of the communist party in revolutionary Russia. This source, in turn, cannot be located and what it said is not known.
If I were to handle it, I would remove the source (Deutsch/Deitsch) and replace the references with [citation needed]. If better source cannot be provided, these statements then should be removed. But this seems like a contentious area, I wanted to post about this on the Talk page first. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you K.e.coffman, the person who wants to use it needs to post the entire paragraph from the original source. The article is an opinion piece and not considered a reliable source. USchick (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I did locate the article in question by doing a Russian language google search. As the Sputnik News said, it is a harshly critical review of Two Hundred Years Together and has no place being the source of the numbers cited in the Jewish Bolshevism article.
In Russian: Бесстыжий классик: Александр Солженицын как зеркало русской ксенофобии by Марк Дейч. The author appears as Mark Deutch in English Wikipedia.
Deutch is a critic of the "Jewish Bolshevism" canard and his use in the context of supporting the numbers is inappropriate. Once the dust settles on the "Trotsky poster" edit wars and there's a stable version of the article, I will remove this source. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trotsky as narkom is a hard fact, reference should be easy to replace. %% does require assurance that it comes from scholarly source. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being critical review has nothing to do with source reliability. Especially if the review is busy with nailing down factual errors. This would, in part, mean due diligence with facts for critique to hold, if the critic is not stupid. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. and in this particular case Deutch cites his source (and since he does this, we may consider him reliable source as well), and our footnote may be written as "Deutch....., citing Д.А.Чугаев, «Коммунистическая партия — организатор СССР". - üser:Altenmann >t 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (quote: В 1922 году «гвардейцев» было 44148 человек. Из них подавляющее большинство — русские (65%). Евреев же — 3146 (7,1%). («гвардейцев»=Bolshevik Old Guard, i.e pre-Ocrober 1917 bolsheviks))[reply]
  • At the same time these numbers contradict Kara-murza, discussed in the talk section below, who alse speaks of pre-Ocrober numbers. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of citing an exact percentage in the article, would it be more appropriate to say that the exact number is contradictory? USchick (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed Deutch as source and added [citation needed] for the 7.1% number. Since Trotsky being a 'narkom' is not in dispute, I left it as is. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Kara-Murza

Hmm, this article appears to need a source cleanup for POV. For example, Sergey Kara-Murza, used as reference #22 for the statistics here ("On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 23,000 members, of whom 364 were known to be ethnic Jews.[16][22]"), also authored a 2001 book Jews, Dissidents and Euro-communism: http://www.koob.ru/karamurza/evrei_dissidenti_i_evrokommunizm.

Loose translation from Russian from a paragraph attributed to Kara-Murza in the review of the book (http://nash-sovremennik.ru/p.php?y=2002&n=10&id=15):

“Если евреи — семья, то кто в ней сегодня “старшие братья”?.. Сегодня “старшие братья” — банкиры. По общему мнению, они обобрали Россию и безжалостно довели половину народа до голода. Неприязнь к этой семье, которая, похоже, беспрекословно следует за своими новыми “старшими”, становится естественной. Для этого русским не надо даже становиться националистами, ибо евреи — не народ, а клан”.

"If Jews are a family, then who are today's "Big Brothers"? The Big Brothers are the bankers. It's common knowledge that they stripped Russia bare and ruthlessly starved half of the population. The dislike of this 'family' is natural. Russians don't even need to become nationalists, as Jews are not a people but a clique."

If Kara-Murza is to be kept in this article, his works should be moved to the Works propagating Jewish Bolshevism canard. Although he does not appear to be that influential, so perhaps it's not necessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you need sources which say that to do this. I don't know what kind of scientist Karamurza is, but he expresses a popular observation that a high number of buzzword Russian oligarchs are Jews: Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Alex Konanykhin, Mikhail Fridman, Anatoly Chubais, Vladimir Gusinsky, Vitaly Malkin, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich, Alexander Abramov, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Fridman, Mikhail Prokhorov, Alisher Usmanov, German Khan, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonid Michelson, Vagit Alekperov, Pyotr Aven, Len Blavatnik, Eugene Shvidler, Alexander Knaster, Konstantin Kagalovsky - do Jew-counting (no article for this redlink???) yourself. Compare with Ukrainian oligarchs - üser:Altenmann >t 16:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Popular observations without any explanations are not very helpful. I could also make the observation that Jews were driven out of Ukraine in large numbers, and the ones who were left in Ukraine had access to Jewish friends and relatives all over the world, and that's why they were more successful than the Ukrainian oligarchs who didn't have as much access to the outside world. Connectivity works all the time everywhere, just like the Internet, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand this. Here's a source that explains Jewish connectivity of micro-regions in the Mediterranean basin [5]. I'm sure it works the same way in the modern world, except faster. USchick (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval antisemitism explains how Jews throughout history were restricted by law to do only tax collecting and money lending. So why is it a surprise that they are bankers? USchick (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get this back on topic, I don't believe Kara-Murza can be considered a WP:RS in the context of the article, as he appears to subscribe to the "Jewish Bolshevism" canard himself. Am I on the right track here? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a scholar, so his views are relevant. I support moving it to Works propagating Jewish Bolshevism canard. However, an academic study of his would be a better source than a book of his personal opinions. USchick (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what kind of scholar his is, or how prominent he is. His English wiki page is rather mild compared to the Russian version. For example, I linked off to a critique by Mikhail Veller offered here (this is a progressive radio station, but nothing rabid-anti-communist about it) -- http://echo.msk.ru/blog/weller_michael/633070-echo/, where Veller refers to him as "a professional liar, a paid KGB snitch and a pro-Soviet propagandist for hire." He also refers to him as a "crazy toxicologist", (I assume) alluding to his initial education as a chemist.
I personally would not feel comfortable putting him into the article, even as a representative of the canard, because I know nothing about him or his work. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Mikhail Veller's background, I can see why he would say that, and that's why there's currently a war. Let's see what other editors say. USchick (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Sergey Kara-Murza is not the best source on these numbers. If anyone can provide a better source which provides the same, please do. However, simply removing the source with numbers would not be justified. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. My proposal: (1) Keep the content as is for now; (2) Remove Kara-Murza as source; (3) Add [citation needed] to the statement being supported by the Kara-Murza work. Works? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited the statement itself and I see that it uses two sources - and the statement actually comes from the 1st source, rather than Kara-Murza. Here it the full paragraph:

Of all the Jews active in politics, a relatively small number join the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; most of them join the Menshevik faction after the party splits. On the eve of the Revolution, the Bolshevik party has about 23,000 members, of which 364 are Jews.

So Kara-Murza is not needed there. This exhibit's authors are Joke Kniesmeyer and Daniel Cil Brecher per the About page. I'm not familiar with these two individuals, but the exhibit looks 'legit' and I've seen it referenced in books. So my revised proposal is just to remove Kara-Murza since I'm not even sure what his ref is supposed to provide.K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed Kara-Murza as unnecessary and not actually supporting the statement provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

I removed a link from the See also, that is already linked in the lede, and two navigation boxes. Seealso says linked in the body, not lede, but it does mention navigation boxes. --Malerooster (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solzhenitsyn

Should his book (Deux Siècles Ensemble. Tome 2. 1917-1972. Juifs et Russes pendant la periode Soviétique, 1917-1972) be moved from Further Reading into the section Works propagating the Jewish Bolshevism canard?

Here's a review from Sputnik News:

[Solzhenitsyn's recent work] "Two Hundred Years Together" [...] split the readers into two irreconcilable groups. Many have described it as blatantly anti-Semitic. The high-profile journalist Mark Deitch, for one, responded with an article entitled "A Shameless Classic. Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia." The piece was carried by the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets.

Actually, both labels seem too strong for the frail patriarch. He is neither an anti-Semite nor a Xenophobe. It's just that he does not have enough energy or knowledge to explore such a complex issue in depth. An entire research institute wouldn't be up to the task. And the role of a judge that he assumes in this book is not particularly becoming, either.

Additional sources to the same effect can probably be found. If the 'propagating the canard' is too strong, then I suggest simply removing from Further Reading. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS - this book has an article: Two Hundred Years Together K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources which describe the book as "Works propagating the Jewish Bolshevism canard"? - üser:Altenmann >t 03:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Regardless, Sputnik News is a non-neutral source for this question. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. Sorry, I didn't notice your second part. It is widely recognized that this book of Solzhenitsyn is not a reliable reference, to put it mildly. So I am removing it from the recommended reading. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Books should not be mentioned unless academic sources say they are primarily about promoting the Jewish Bolshevism theory. TFD (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal from Further Reading which Altenmann has already implemented. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After glancing at this thread I can only assume that if a book makes an indisputable argument that most top Bolsheviks were Jews, then you don't want to hear about it. Perhaps you should follow the Soviet example of destroying any documents that aren't to your liking.71.174.127.111 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
""Most top" is nonsense measure. In any case, for serious research in Jewish involvement in Russian Revolution, we have an article "History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union", while the the article "Jewish Bolshevism is about a conspiracy theory. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

@71.174.127.111: You are currently engaged in WP:edit warring; please wait until the incident is is resolved] to re-introduce your contested edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Esau's Tears" quote

What about quoting a Jewish author, a scholar about anti-Semitism: Albert Lindemann?:


Sorry for the typos if any. I just typed directly from Lindemann's academic book. - Cesar Tort 10:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. This one is about the canard, not about the Jewish participation. A completely different subject, unless you are after making htem into one.--Lute88 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCMeekin

"And in fact the "Wilhelmstrasse", i.e. the German Foreign Office, had looked at the possibilities of a public embrace of Zionism.[1] A recent history of the intended use of world religions in World War I, concluded that "neither Max Bodenheimer's committee of German Zionists, nor the Zionist Executive, nor any kind of organized international Jewish network had much of anything to do with either the February or October Revolution."[2]" Here's the offending passage. What exactly is MAcMeekin? and what role did Zionism have in WW1?--18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the reference section McMeekin is McMeekin, Sean (2012). The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power. Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0674064324 He is a well known historian who for some reason has an article on de.wiki bipartisan not here. BUT I hadn't realised that the original wording was the wording I reverted, although it still sounds wrong. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds weird either way, and "Zionism role" sounds like an outright innuendo.--Lute88 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read the pages referenced (and those immediately preceding them) in the source originally quoted in the article (McMeekin):

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6k5HzkboGvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sean+mcmeekin&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bodenheimer&f=false Note for example 'While Bodenheimer later came to regret compromising the cause by so closely aligning German Zionists with the war effort' (p345). 'The intended role of world religions' is an opaque and inaccurate description of the source text, two movements in particular are discussed by the source. This doesn't mean that McMeekin determines a major role for Zionism in the war, but the source addresses these movements specifically in the context of the build up to the war, not 'world religions' in general. Clivemacd (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that Zionism has a role in the war?.--Lute88 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see above ** so closely aligning German Zionists with the war effort ** Clivemacd (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aligning with is not the same thing as a role in. The latter implies a lot of things contrary to the nature of this article.--Lute88 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Wikipedia articles have a 'nature', but if they do, the nature of the article has to be driven by the facts/evidence/sources, not the other way round. It's difficult to argue that Zionism had no role when the President of the German Zionist federation is making political proposals to the German General Staff and to the foreign ministry (McMeekin, p344), which result in them taking specific actions (the leaflet drop - p345), albeit actions which Bodenheimer immediately regretted, but if the word 'role' is causing a problem, I propose the alternative 'activities' instead, thus 'A recent history of the activities of Islamic jihad and European Zionism in World War I....' The text 'A recent history of the intended use of world religions' is opaque and inaccurate for the reasons previously stated.Clivemacd (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McMeekin (2012), p. 348.
  2. ^ McMeekin (2012), p.347.

Is Jewish Bolshevism really just a "canard"?

Can Doug Weller explain why he thinks it is better to describe this as an "antisemitic canard" than an "antisemitic theme"? Yasmo3333 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, major changes need agreement. My views aren't that relevant, and I can't recall if I was even part of the discussion that led to the consensus on this. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The change I made wasn't a major one. Wikipedia isn't supposed to report Wikipedians' consensus view of what the truth is. Instead, we are supposed to summarize the views held by the literature. As it stands this article is disseminating blatant disinformation by labeling this a "canard". I am not the only one who thinks this is not a canard. Look at these two edits: [6] [7] Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these edits were made by IPs, who have made no other edits at all to Wikipedia. They hardly constitute a new consensus. RolandR (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Wikipedia doesn't report Wikipedians' consensus view of the truth. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term canard means "an unfounded rumor or story," which is an accurate description. That the Jews planned and executed the Russian Revolution and then proceeded to dominate international Communism enjoys no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about Kevin MacDonald? Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it's a fact that there are many racists who think Jews control the world. Some of them edit here as IPs, some get accounts and rant using repulsive language. One was blocked last week. That doesn't affect this. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Jews controlling the world. It's about Jewish culpability for Communism. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you've completely missed my point. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is? Yasmo3333 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory that has been brought up and disregarded here (as it should be) more times than I can count. This is an old Nazi propaganda line (see Bartov, Hitler's Army, 1991) that has never died - just like the bogus Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "Leuchter Report" are still cited by the fringe. GABgab 16:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to resolve disagreements here, one must clearly understand their essence and how this is covered in sources:

  • @Yasmo3333: Please explain your understanding your difference of "antisemitic canard" vs. "antisemitic theme". - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralizationsAreBad: Please explain your understanding your difference of "antisemitic canard" vs. "antisemitic conspiracy theory". - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • which scholarly scholarly sources describe it as 'canard' or 'conspiracy theory'? - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this and tell me if you still think this is a canard: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/slezkinerev.pdf Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin B. MacDonald in the The Occidental Quarterly writes, "A persistent theme among critics of Jews—particularly those on the pre-World War II right—has been that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was dominated by Jews." He provides Adolf Hitler among others as a proponent of this view. He then says, "This long tradition stands in sharp contradiction to the official view...." It could be that the official view is wrong, but Wikipedia policy says that we treat it as right, just as we do in articles about evolution, climate change, the moon landing and reptilian shape-shifters. If you think Wikipedia articles should explain what really happened rather than what standard textbooks tell us what happened, you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/kevin-macdonald . --Galassi (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear MacDonald is being sarcastic when he says the "official view". Read the remainder of the article. Yasmo3333 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He says the "official view" is "promulgated by Jewish organizations and almost all contemporary historians." How is he being sarcastic when he says that? Does he actually mean that almost all modern historians do not hold that view? TFD (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just because MacDonald says it is the official view does not mean that it actually is the official view. If we trusted everything he says then we'd have to also trust his view that the Jews actually are responsible for Communism. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't have a problem with saying that such-and-such source says that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard. What I have a problem with is stating it as if it is the commonly accepted truth and without ascribing it to any particular source. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. You wrote, "Take a look at this and tell me if you still think this is a canard." If the author is saying that his views are not accepted by mainstream historians then you cannot use his article as a source for his opinions. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If MacDonald's article is not a reliable source then you have no reason to mention it. We say that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard because no reliable sources say otherwise. TFD (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Explanation of the neutral point of view: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." TFD (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, let's take a look at that: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." While this belief can't be proven, it can't necessarily be disproven. Nor is it our place to attempt such a thing, but rather to neutrally describe notable beliefs, while clearly expressing the majority view on the matter.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Jewish Bolshevism, also known as Judeo-Bolshevism, asserts that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks. It is widely considered an antisemitic canard." or "Jewish Bolshevism (also known as Judeo-Bolshevism), which is widely considered an antisemitic canard, asserts that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks."; Either of those would remedy the issue at hand.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: This is hardly an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion". Yasmo3333 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...widely considered" is euphemistic and creates the impression of doubt far beyond what's supported by reliable sources. It should, as it currently does, simply say it's a canard without bending over backwards to accommodate unnamed fringe perspectives. Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: If the views this article describes was based on "unnamed fringe perspectives" (not to conflate what you said, but draw a parrelel; otherwise this should be called something along the lines of "Criticism of Jewish Bolshevism", which would have its own policy based problems, but I'm not going to get into that) then we wouldn't describe them, and this article wouldn't exist. Wikipedia's voice should not state that controversial theories/beliefs are true or false. However, it should very clearly state the level of acceptance, and the evidence or lack thereof to support them.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:FRINGE get's at is that we clearly state the level of acceptance by using plain language. That's what the article does by saying it's a canard, and equivocating would be misrepresenting that level of acceptance. There is a difference between "fringe" and "controversial". Fringe perspectives are by definition characterized by the vast majority of sources as being wrong, so that's how we treat them. Presenting it as "controversial" only legitimizes the fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the leads at of any of the examples that guideline gives of notable fringe theories. We don't call any of them patently false, which is what canard does. Saying it is "widely considered" an antisemitic canard wouldn't be equivocating, it would be maintaining the neutral point of view of Wikipedia. Furthermore, "canard" is a rather obscure English word, so the plain language argument doesn't really apply anyway.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitic canard is an established term with its own sourced article. Comparisons to other articles are rarely productive, and those examples were selected to explain notability guidelines, which has nothing to do with this discussion. That said, all of those examples, in different ways as appropriate, make their lack of acceptance clear. None of those arbitrarily selected examples strain to give credibility to proponents of the theories they describe. I see no benefit to your proposed change, as it would introduce exactly such a strain for no real benefit. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I did not see support for the removal of "canard" from the hatnote, unless I'm mistaken. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reasons are clearly explained in edit summary: Bundism cannot possibly confused with Communism, therefore this dab hatnote is misplaced. Not to say it is false: Bundism is hardly the main article about involvement of the Jews in Russian revolution. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spilling your brains, and answer a simple question I have already asked but ignored: which scholarly scholarly sources describe it as 'canard' or 'conspiracy theory' or any other buzzword? - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question! Anyone? Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yasmo3333, if you do not think it is uncontested, please provide a reliable source where it is contested. TFD (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Kevin MacDonald. See his book The Culture of Critique, preface and Chapter 3 for example. Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, as requested: Jeffrey Herf notes in Holocaust and Genocide Studies how the concept of "Jewish Bolshevism" was part of a grand conspiracy theory invoked in Nazi propaganda: "[Nazi propaganda] presented the [D-day] invasion as further proof that a world Jewish conspiracy was directing the war and that Roosevelt and Churchill were Stalin’s dupes in a “Jewish-Bolshevik plot” to dominate Europe..." (59). Behrends says much the same: "Goebbels went on to read a long list of crimes that he attributed to Soviet Russia’s rulers and their communist allies abroad... he set out to convince the German population and the European public that the Comintern was a 'Jewish conspiracy.' The speech showed Nazism’s proclivity for viewing the world in conspiratorial terms... With the construction of “Jewish Bolshevism,” internal and external threats could be fused and the leadership’s conspiratorial perspective on politics could be promoted... The USSR was now portrayed as one part of a global conspiracy of Jews against Germany." Gerrits: "Few historians would deny that 'Jewish Communism,' a variant of the 'Jewish World Conspiracy,' has been one of the most powerful and destructive myths in early-20th century Europe... [It] was a powerful and persistent myth." Bartov, as cited above, has some good detail on how this thought spread to the Wehrmacht. GABgab 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not citing McDonald as if he were an established academic churning out books we should accept as reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some interesting quotes:

Conservatives throughout Europe and the United States believed that Jews were responsible for Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution (Bendersky 2000; Mayer 1988; Nolte 1965; Szajkowski 1974). The Jewish role in leftist political movements was a common source of anti-Jewish attitudes, not only among the National Socialists in Germany, but among a great many non-Jewish intellectuals and political figures. Indeed, in the years following World War I, British, French, and U.S. political leaders, including Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and Lord Balfour, believed in Jewish responsibility, and such attitudes were common in the military and diplomatic establishments in these countries (e.g., Szajkowski 1974, 166ff; see also above and Ch. 3). (Culture of Critique, p. xlv)

...a majority of Communists were Jews, that an even greater majority of Communist leaders were Jews, that the great majority of those called up by the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1940s and 1950s were Jews, and that most of those prosecuted for spying for the Soviet Union were Jews (Culture of Critique, p. xlii)

In 1923, several Jewish intellectuals published a collection of essays admitting the “bitter sin” of Jewish complicity in the crimes of the Revolution. In the words of a contributor, I. L. Bikerman, “it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks” (p. 183). (Stalin's Willing Executioners, p.85)

How can you read these quotes and still tell me that this is a "canard"? Yasmo3333 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin B. MacDonald isn't a reputable academic historian or any other kind of reliable source. Not even close. Treating him as such is a dead end and a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin MacDonald, professor of psychology at Cal State University, is the leading authority on Jews and anti-semitism.Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MacDonald's self-published book Culture of Critique is not a reliable source. Furthermore, his opinions are not accepted in the mainstream, which he himself says. None of the other sources support your claim. They are merely recounting what some conspiracy theorists believe, not endorsing them. TFD (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book isn't self-published -- it's published by Praeger! Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Conservatives throughout Europe and the United States believed... The Jewish role in leftist political movements was a common source of anti-Jewish attitudes,... such attitudes were common." This is authors attributing beliefs. And... the rest is MacDonald. GABgab 04:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not a canard. As such, I will be disputing the factual accuracy of this article. Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a reasonable doubt? Wikipedia isn't a court of law, so that isn't a standard we use here. There are an ample number of sources calling it a canard, with many, many more available. Your source seems to be the self-published works of a single discredited academic. This is a fringe claim, and Wikipedia doesn't present those as legitimately debated controversies. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the original book was published in hardcover by Praeger, the paperback reprint was self-published using 1stBooks.[8] The self-published book contains the preface which is quoted here as a source, but it fails rs. But even if the preface were rs, it clearly states that the academic consensus is that Jewish Bolshevism is an anti-Semitic canard. TFD (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike three

I am asking for the third time, please indicate the sources which call it "canard". Otherwise the word will be removed from the article, per wikipedia rules. Sorry, time of original research is out. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[9][10][11][12][13][14], etc. etc. etc. We shouldn't ignore the mountain of sources that plainly refer to it as a canard to accommodate a tiny fringe that disputes this. Canard implies that some people believe it, and some promote it without believing it. We would need a lot more than a handful of examples disputing that characterization to ignore the countless sources which take it as a given. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these refs are so abundant, then why did you chat for such a long time instead of just adding footnotes in the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same sources as Grayfell by typing in "jewish bolshevism"+"canard" in Google books search. I did not immediately respond because I think we have spent too much time on this discussion. You know that there is no support in academic literature for theories about the international Jewish conspiracy and the intro to MacDonald's book presented above says that. TFD (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are nowhere near as notable as MacDonald's book. But if you think you have sources, then why not have the article say such-and-such source says that this is a canard? I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it is the uncontested truth. The number of IP address and other editors who have been trying to remove the word "canard" from the article indicates that it isn't. Yasmo3333 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is not the same as reliable. MacDonald isn't reliable, and neither are Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, saying "reliable sources characterize it as a canard" is just a verbose way of saying "it's a canard", which is a perfectly fine way to describe it. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf are far more notable books expounding Jewish Bolshevism than MacDonald's. Yet neither are reliable sources. And the Preface is not part of MacDonald's notable book, which was published by Praeger, but part of his self-published paperback version. TFD (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia editors aren't reliable then we should be able to assume that you, The Four Deuces, and GAB aren't reliable either. And there's a big difference between phrasing something in Wikipedia's voice and saying that a certain source says it is true. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, we're not reliable. That's what WP:OR and WP:V are about. It's not "a certain source" we are talking about, here. This is the academic consensus based on more sources than we can count. Wikipedia treats that differently than a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where I pretended to be a reliable source. What statement are we talking about? And yes if reliable secondary sources say something is true, so can we. We do not say for example, "Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945, according to Smith. He was born in Austria, according to Jones. He wrote Mein Kampf, according to Doe." TFD (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between statements like "Hitler was born in Austria" and "Jewish Bolshevism is a canard" is that nobody disputes that Hitler was born in Austria. But quite a few people have been disputing that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard. Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article logic is is upside down

An important historical consideration is completely missing.

Those who propagated "Judeo-Bolshevism" Conspiracy were anti-Semites hard and true. For them "Jews are evil" was an axiom. Therefore for them JBC was an argument to prove that Communism/Bolshevism is evil. Please keep in mind that the latter was not at all self-evident in the first part of the 20th century. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&oldid=744384291"