Talk:Jewish Bolshevism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Jewish Bolshevism really just a "canard"?[edit]

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)

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)
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: [1] [2] Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
As I said, Wikipedia doesn't report Wikipedians' consensus view of the truth. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
What about Kevin MacDonald? Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
This article isn't about Jews controlling the world. It's about Jewish culpability for Communism. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And you've completely missed my point. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Which is? Yasmo3333 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
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)

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

Take a look at this and tell me if you still think this is a canard: Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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) . --Galassi (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Saying it is widely considered a antisemitic canard would be one thing, but stating that it is one (i.e. a "false belief or rumor") inherently lacks neutrality.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
@The Four Deuces: This is hardly an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion". Yasmo3333 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"...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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
The book isn't self-published -- it's published by Praeger! Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
While the original book was published in hardcover by Praeger, the paperback reprint was self-published using 1stBooks.[3] 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)

^^^^Whether or not Kevin MacDonald is a reputable source [is he not reputable because his conclusions are that Jews have been other than disorganized innocent victims? Quote from Yale's Timothy Snyder - about “forty percent of high-ranking NKVD officers had Jewish nationality recorded in their identity documents, as did more than half of the NKVD generals” - That's in Bloodlands.

Now Snyder is absolutely a well respected historian saying at least some of the same things as the many writers deemed 'not credible' because their conclusions place {some} Jews in a bad light.

It is axiomatic that if a group which was around 5% of the population was 40-40% of NKVD officials, a stat similar to what existed in Poland and Hungary by the way - that the Jews' involvement was DOMINANT over the ethnic Russians - and the particular fervency of the attacks on churches and executions of priests goes to an ideology not OF the Christian, Russian people.

This article is absolutely biased against reliable historical texts - the test of 'reliability' for them is not whether or not the ADL approves. Articles like this are so obviously slanted as to render wikipedia into a Jewish version of history rather than a genuine attempt to present reliable, even if conflicting evidence.

The role of Jews amongst the old bolsheviks was so high that to call it a "canard" is to rob the word of any meaning. Jew haters may have over-stated the extent to which it was 'the jews' alone, but the very high number of Jews, and the references to Bolshevism being led by Jews by people from Churchill to Wilton to Douglas Reed to even several rabbis and Jewish leaders of the time... this article is not history - it is bunk. 2601:196:4A01:B620:EDCF:4139:B171:83AF (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)jpt83

Unless a source actually discusses Jewish Bolshevism, which this section in Snyder's book does not, it is synthesis to use it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to resemble what we would find in reliable sources. You would need to show that articles about Jewish Bolshevism in reliable sources mention this snippet. While some writers might see it as evidence that the Jews were behind Communism, others may see it differently. Snyder for example saw it as part of Stalin's tendency to staff the NKVD with minorities, not proof he was taking orders from the Jews. TFD (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Strike three[edit]

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)

[4][5][6][7][8][9], 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Quite a few" is meaningless. Quite a few people dispute many widely accepted positions, but Wikipedia reflects the academic consensus without giving undue weight to disgraced conspiracy theorists or misconceptions fermented in anonymous forums. I'm sure there are people disputing Hitler's birth location. There's a theory that he's secretly José Rizal lovechild, so I'd be very surprised if there weren't groups who think he's secretly from somewhere else. The idea that this isn't a canard is only very slightly less ridiculous than that. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It is hardly the academic consensus that this is a canard. Even some Jewish sources admit Jewish culpability for Communism (see above quote from Stalin's Willing Executioners). Yasmo3333 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This one quote from 1924, taking out of context by a discredited author, from a book review in an unreliable white nationalist magazine, which is edited by the person who wrote the review, cannot be used to cast doubt on the modern academic consensus. "Stalin's Willing Executioners" still isn't a reliable source, and MacDonald still isn't a reputable academic. MacDonald doesn't even clearly explain where the quote comes from in that article. I think it's supposed to be from Россія и евреи : сборникъ первый, and I think the Bikerman quoted is Elias Joseph Bickerman, but this is so deep into the most obscure, weakly supported nonsense that it's downright comical. The only remotely credible discussion of this source I could find was this article, which says it was likely never translated into English, German, or French. It's occasional cited by neo-Nazis and similar (something called "The Mein Kampf Project"), and is otherwise only infrequently cited as being of historical interest. So this refutes the academic consensus? No. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The name of the 1923 publication that that came from is "Russia and the Jews". Where does it say in Wikipedia policy that it is acceptable to phrase something in Wikipedia's voice if you believe that you have "academic consensus" (which you don't)? This page is currently violating WP:A. Yasmo3333 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Neutral point of view": "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." TFD (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is the point of an encyclopedia if not to represent the academic consensus of a topic? That means the modern consensus, not discredited theories that might have once been more acceptable. If the only refutation you can come up with is MacDonald and his cherry-picked quotes from an obscure 92-year old essay compilation, then you do not have a refutation worth taking seriously.
The consensus is that this is a canard. Introducing doubt based on unreliable sources would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE. Summarizing dozens of sources by saying "it's a canard" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's stance on attribution. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces and Grayfell: I've just realised that Yasmo3333 is a single purpose account who made 10 edits, the last being to create a blank user page, and since then has only edited this article and talk page and the antisemitism template. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Bad memory, I knew it was an SPA when he made his first, see my edit summary then. Presumably related to the IP socks this article has had. Anyway, Bishonen blocked him. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Better distinguishing baseline fact from conspiracy[edit]

This is clearly a sensitive and contentious topic, but I think this article is too aggressive and unmeasured in its dismissal of this theory as completely delusionally baseless. There are, of course, no academic sources suggesting that Bolshevism was a top-down Jewish conspiracy, and the article shouldn't imply that academics seriously consider that possibility. However, it is a fact that Jews have been incredibly overrepresented in some Western Communist movements and heavily overrepresented in most others. I think the article should present the statistics about Jewish involvement in Communist movements and differentiate ethnic interests and cultural predisposition from conspiracy.

Below is a quote from the introductory essay of Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism, written by two left-leaning academics:

The communism-is-Jewish claim of white nationalists has somewhat more substance behind it than the ludicrous claims made about the Talmud. Karl Marx was, after all, the descendant of a long line of Jewish rabbis (though he harbored a generalized hatred of Jews that was the equal of any Gentile anti-Semite),102 and many of the leaders of the Communist Revolution in Russia, including Leon Trotsky, Karl Radek, Grigori Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev were Jews, as were many of the Marxist leaders in Germany, Hungary, and several other nations of Europe. The situation was similar in the United States where Jews were vastly overrepresented among the ranks of the American Communist Party and formed the backbone of the communist movement in many strategically key cities including New York, Hollywood, and Los Angeles.103 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of passing nuclear secrets along to the Russians in the early Cold War years (an action for which they were later executed), were also Jews.

The Jewish penchant for radical left-wing politics in the twentieth century could also be seen in the student rebellions of the late 1960s in a number of countries, including France and the United States. Jews were among many of the top leaders in the 1960s-era New Left movement in America, which became ever more extreme as the sixties progressed, culminating in the apocalyptic terrorism of the Weather Underground. Many American New Left leaders –particularly the Jews –were “red diaper babies” whose parents had been active in the communist and radical socialist movements of the previous generation.104 It is also true, as white nationalists point out, that leftist Jews are currently a powerful presence within many leading universities and law schools in America, and that many top Hollywood producers and directors are Jews, most of whom have a strong affinity for the cultural left.

[removing the remainder to prevent copyright violation]

(Pages 77-80). What do you all think? Franzboas (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yuri Slezkine, a famous and highly respected professor at Stanford, is another academic who has researched Jewish involvement in Bolshevism in mainstream and thoroughly supported ways. He is a Russian Jew and his Jewish grandmother dedicated much of her life to Russian Communism. Franzboas (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you're confusing two topics: the antisemitic canard that Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution and communist movements -- the subject of this article -- and the historical and perhaps outsize presence of Jews in communist movements. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@MShabazz: I understand what you're saying and agree. I'm saying that the canard is at its core an exaggeration of a fact (outsize Jewish presence in communist movements), and this article skimps on the baseline facts and statistics. For example, I think it should mention the overwhelming Jewish presence in American communist movements, which was far larger than the Jewish presence in the Soviet Communist Party and the basis for many anti-semitic canards. Franzboas (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
First, you should not post lengthy passages per "Copyright violations". I don't know why you think that the author Carol M. Swain is "left-leaning," other than she is black, an academic and wrote about white nationalism. She describes herself as conservative and been mentioned in the SPLC's "Hatewatch." It says she defended a DVD which "is a hit among white supremacists looking for a smart-sounding defense of their beliefs."[10]
Swain's comments above are her opinion and should not be entered into the article as fact. We may be able to add it as opinion, but first we need to show that it has attracted attention. The types of conclusions she reaches have been analyzed and rejected by mainstream sources.
TFD (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Wow, TIL. I drew my perspective on her politics only from the book, in which she uses a sternly analytical tone, espouses liberal and egalitarian values, seems to favor the center-left perspectives on topics like race and IQ, and frequently challenges the white nationalists in the ways you'd expect. However, the book is a surprisingly fair and well-researched treatment, as opposed to the more facile and openly hostile treatments by groups like the SPLC.
I'll look into it more. Remember, though, that the SPLC is in many regards a partisan and sometimes even a fringe organization. Their article on Charles Murray labels him a "white nationalist" and an "extremist", even though most of his prestigious peers (including the left-leaning and exceptionally famous Robert Putnam) express a deep respect for Murray and the legitimacy of his work. Linda Gottfredson is another well-respected mainstream researcher who the SPLC labels a "white nationalist" and lambastes. There are many more, but those are two egregious examples that first come to mind.
Maybe we should review whether this is an appropriate source, but I object to the suggestion that it's "her opinion and [not] fact". The book's introductory essay is thoroughly cited academic analysis, not op-ed. In response to your question of whether it has "attracted attention": she's a widely read academic, the book was published by Cambridge University Press, and it was reviewed (largely positively) by several prestigious academics, so I don't think there's reason to question its notability. Franzboas (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I read your comments at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory and do not look forward to a lengthy debate. Let's just agree to disagree. TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: That doesn't settle the question of whether this is a quality source, though. I think I can avoid a conflict by taking what I need from Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century, which I doubt you'll find even mildly controversial.
By the way, the conversation at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory got heated on both sides, and happened during some nasty policy conflicts. See User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Ethnicity_and_religion_in_living_people.27s_biographies for a civil and constructive (excluding the first message or two) conversation about the kind of work I'm doing here. Franzboas (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would help to ask about the source at rs/n. Due to the historical significance of the concept, I think the lede could use improvement - right now its basically just a set of links to articles that should be in the See Also section. The role that this played in Nazi propaganda could be given more weight, but I'm not convinced that the content you are suggesting would improve the article. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is a quality source, but it advances a controversial opinion. We had a lengthy discussion on sources claiming Jewish "over-representation" in Bolshevism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination), which you should read, as well as the previous AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism and in the archives of this article's talk page. Unless you have some new argument, I don't see why I should repeat what I already said. And your description of the SPLC as "fringe," when it is routinely mentioned in mainstream media when describing hate groups and Swain as left-wing, when she is a controversial conservative writer, show that you have not researched the issue fully. I suggest you take at least a day to go through the material before presenting new arguments. TFD (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty misguided to pick the SPLC quotes out of the media - in the context of a news article they are presented as one point of view from a biased sourced. Unless other points of view are presented also, it is not a very good news article. SPLC does publish reports that are longer in length and present facts and evidence for the conclusions they state. These may be primary sources, but media reports for them are secondary sources. The reports are of high-quality, but opinion statements to the media should not be cherry-picked from news stories (and we do this a lot with SPLC). Seraphim System (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, if I am reading the quotes correctly this is a primary source, it is the authors own idea and not an analysis or synthesis of other cited sources. Has it been cited by any other secondary sources? If it has not, it might not be appropriate for inclusion (I don't really think the SPLC is relevant for this. It's not like we add sources to a blacklist because the SPLC's opinion is that they are a hate group. I don't care who the source is - their analysis needs to have thorough citations and evidence for the statements - the personal opinions of scholars and lawyers are distinguished from their written, published work. WP:RS is not entirely based on someone's profession - there are also considerations of whether the source is secondary. As far as news reports go, the quotes are secondary only as part of the analysis in a news story, new stories are not a secondary source for the quotes (which are primary) - I've seen too many cases where SPLC is quoted from a news story, and all the conflicting opinions are left out. Not good practice.) - the relevant policy here for exclusion is due weight.Seraphim System (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: @Seraphim System: I agree that I should do more research before making major changes. However, I'm already confident that adding reliable statistics about Jewish presence in Communist Party USA next to the corresponding Soviet Communist Party statistics is valuable and notable. I've looked at about four sources so far, and all referenced the impressively high percentage of Jews in CPUSA.
This isn't the place to start a long-winded SPLC discussion, but I've seen a lot of evidence that they've become a partisan organization in the past few years and groups like federal law enforcement are distancing themselves as a result. Relatedly, their pages on "white nationalist" academics often demonstrate serious ignorance of the basic scientific premises of the controversies involved. I mean "didn't read the first three sentences of the Wikipedia article" levels of ignorance. For example, in their "extremist file" for Linda Gottfredson, they open with a quote of Linda about the fact that white Americans have an average IQ of ~100, while black Americans have an average IQ of ~85. They apparently think this is some shocking opener, and they reiterate this belief of hers in the bio's body, but that's been rock solid scientific consensus for many decades. (The debate involves how much of that discrepancy, if any, is genetic.) They consistently demonstrate that they don't understand the basic facts that both sides of these controversies accept.
If these are the views that you are here to promote, I think eventually the editors are going to decide you are WP:NOTHERE. IQ is not a particularly meaningful measure of anything. It does not a measure of analytical ability - it tests how fast you can do things like unscramble a word. Wow. That you represent this as a "genetics" debate is pretty revealing that you are here with a certain POV. There isn't even consensus about what IQ tests measure. I have tried to be fair because I know editors here can get heated about opinions they don't like, but this really isn't the place to promote white nationalist views or try to legitimize fringe ideas through WP:OR. These articles could be improved, but not like this. Seraphim System (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: I'm not trying to start an argument here, but if you look at the race and IQ article and its citations, it is indeed a fact that black Americans average ~85 and white Americans average ~100. The importance and generality of IQ is debated, but that too is a controversy separate from the the established fact that IQ is defined by performance on a standard IQ test and different races have different average scores. Obviously, this is all off-topic, but it's a prime example of a "white nationalist view" that is long-established scientific fact and is recognized as such in academia (and in the corresponding Wikipedia articles). The controversies lie elsewhere (e.g. how much does IQ matter, how much of the race discrepency is genetic), although those who haven't looked into the topic usually don't know that. Franzboas (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I want to state that I have not looked into this - I've looked into controversies over intelligence measures like the fact that IQ tests are next to impossible to do well on once you are college-aged, which is one of the measures many obvious flaws. The white nationalist spin on this is that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, this is actually not an established scientific fact. This is a pretty good example of the problems with some of the edits you have proposed recently - other editors have already warned you about WP:OR and misrepresenting WP:RS. It seems like your stated purpose is to legitimize certain fringe views - that isn't how we write articles. If you want to improve the articles you need to stick to the sources. Seraphim System (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC seems like a solid source for objective facts about actual terror and hate groups, but I don't know how anyone could read a bio like Gottfredson's and think that they reliably appraise academics. Franzboas (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some analysis in her work, as there is with almost all academic social science writing, but it is data-focused and thoroughly cited (the floating numbers 102, 103, and 104 are citations in the passage I pasted). Franzboas (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the point is if you want to make obviously controversial edits to obvious controversial articles, you should have more then one source ready. If she has cited sources for her statements you can look at some of those, or if other sources have cited her you might want to look at those as well. I think this is WP:EXTRAORDINARY - not least of all in its treatment of Karl Marx's background as relevant and the claim that Marx hated Jews as much as any "Gentile anti-semite." It doesn't seem she gives any sources for statements like this, so I agree with other editors who have commented here.Seraphim System (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The book has a lengthy footnote with quotes from Marx supporting her argument. It didn't survive the copy-paste. I agree that it's a bit of a hyperbole, but the things he said were in fact very classically and aggressively anti-semitic. Franzboas (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's cited scholarly work published by CUP it should not be excluded, even if it a minority view. Seraphim System (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Could you please read the previous discussions because this is starting to sound like Groundhog Day. All your points have been raised and addressed, and it is a waste of other editors time to raise them again and expect them to present the same replies. TFD (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I've been reading them, but they're both monstrous. Can you recall any parts that were particularly relevant? Franzboas (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: It sounds like it was badly written but that there should be an article on it...including Moses Hess Seraphim System (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I said in the second AfD for Jews and Communism that there were no studies connecting the two except in individual countries. Similary "Jews and Hollywood, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood and "Jews and Money" (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.) Anyway, the far right today does not say tht the Jews created Bolshevism, control Hollywood, are greedy, etc., but that there is some truth that lies behind the prejudice. That is a controversial point of view and therefore can only be presented in conformance with policy.
Also, even if we look at the evidence presented, there is no connection between the popularity of the tiny Communist Party of the USA among Jews in the 20s and 30s and the Russian Revolution in 1917. And their children who became activists in the 60s did not join the Communist Party. AFAIK there were very few of them anyway.
Anyway, whatever happens, you probably won't persuade editors to say that the Jews are behind the Communist conspiracy or blacks are inferior to whites etc. standard textbooks don't say that. If you are suspicious of textbooks, then you need to get policy changed.
TFD (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
And if Jews had created Bolshevism, or been influential in its ideological development, what would the significance of that be? Is being a member of the Communist Party of the USA a bad thing? Considering how left wing Germany was and the documented evidence that its Christian writers at the time were left wing, and even some of the high-ranking Nazis - it's in no way a settled question whether Bolshevism incited hatred of the Jews, or anti-Semitsm incited a self-destructive hatred of the left wing. Jews were influential in the development of socialist, anarchist and communist ideology. There are definitely sources about this, as was noted in the AfD. There is nothing anti-semitic about the topic per se - but it would have to be written neutrally with secondary sources and of course, avoid WP:OR.Seraphim System (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I don't know whether it's worth responding to this at length: "you probably won't persuade editors to say that the Jews are behind the Communist conspiracy or blacks are inferior to whites etc.", but I don't believe those things, and I would hope that my grounded and rigorous approach shows that. My problem is that it's almost impossible to make factuality and POV improvements to these topics on Wikipedia without being attacked and blockaded. Franzboas (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem you face is that you disagree with how most reliable sources treat this topic and want to change the article to reflect your view. That is contrary to policy and will lead you into conflict. If you think that the topic is not adequately addressed in the mainstream, then you would be bettered advised to place your efforts elsewhere. TFD (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"The problem you face is that you disagree with how most reliable sources treat this topic and want to change the article to reflect your view." I don't think that's the case. I'm saying that I think the statistics included in this article were cherry-picked to downplay Jewish involvement in communist movements, and that reliable sources such as The Jewish Century include statistics that demonstrate a much larger presence. Franzboas (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a legitimate question why this article describes Jewish Bolshevism as an "anti-semitic canard" - when it was a real thing. Shlomo Aronson uses the term in an entirely normal historical context. Seraphim System (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Where? TFD (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Here - discussing American views - from the context it sounds that in at least in some cases, it was more anti-left then anti-semitic (an issue that has been previously raised on this talk page.) Also here discussing in more detail the complex identity of Jewish Bolsheviks - I don't know that much about it but it sounds more complicated then an "anti-semitic canard" - a canard is an unfounded rumor or story - based on these sources, the attacks on Jewish Bolshevism (not only in Nazi germany, but in Israel's early history as well) seem more like straightforward propaganda, then a canard Seraphim System (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, as long as we retain information about the exaggerations made by some. The article Jewish anarchism seems like very similar to what you're suggesting. Franzboas (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Aronson used the term when referring to the conspiracy theories of anti-Semites, in which he did not happen to believe. I don't see the term in Pipe's book, do you have a page no.? BTW, we already have information about Jews in the CPSU in Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. TFD (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I know Aronson is using it in context, but he seems to be referring to it not as a conspiracy theory, but as anti-leftist. Where he says "quite a few points of prophecy" he is saying basically that it was true - Nathan Yellin-Mor who he mentions by name and the "left-flank of Lehi" or Semitic Action Seraphim System (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think you may be confusing the CPSU with the CPUSA, which is what I was proposing adding data about. Franzboas (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, no I mean CPSU - the section is about Jews in the CPSU. There's nothing about the U.S. in the article. TFD (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: There isn't currently a section about the US, but there are a few mentions of the canard being used in the US, and there is an "Outside Nazi Germany" section with a subsection about the UK. Also, many of the notable examples of the canard given at the end of the article considered Communist movements throughout the world. Therefore, it seems relevant to mention the statistics from the United States. Franzboas (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Why? Show me a source that says it is relevant to the subject. TFD (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Is the source I quote in this section's original post what you're imagining? Franzboas (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
You have to find an article about the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory not something that mentions white nationalists in passing. Think about it. If this were an article about parakeets, we would get books about parakeets or chapters about them or articles about parakeets. We wouldn't look for books that mentioned them in passing and put together an article. TFD (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Are you confident that there are entire books on this topic? The passage I included above is only a small except of a well-researched, thoroughly cited section that was several pages long. (In fact, you can probably find much of that section in this talk page's history; I deleted most of it out of copyright concerns.)
I'll look for other sources too, though. Franzboas (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
No there are not and it limits what we can put into the article. While you may think the fact that there were lots of Jews in the NKVD bolsters the theory that Communism was a Jewish plot, you have to show that the literature on Jewish Bolshevism does that. TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential secondary source[edit]

Before I start reading it: do people consider this a citable source? I would expect so. Yuri Slezkine is a respected mainstream academic. Franzboas (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It is included in "Further reading." Reliability as with any source depends on what use you plan to make. TFD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a sentence about baseline truth to the lead[edit]

I know everyone's going to love this, but in the spirit of neutrality, I think the lead should include a short passage like the following: "Jews have been proportionally overrepresented, sometimes heavily overrepresented, in many Communist movements. However, fringe commentators often exaggerate this overrepresentation or suggest that it was a conspiracy." There's a section about this baseline truth in the article, but the lead doesn't mention it at all. Franzboas (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not phrased like that, no. There is a historical connection between the two things, but we should not frame this as the "baseline truth" because that's missing the entire point of the canard. We shouldn't casually grant legitimacy to the idea that "The Jews", as a unified, shadowy, monolithic group, controlled Communism in Russia. It's not about the historical fact that some Jews were also, for various reasons, Communists. It's not just about degree, but about a more substantial ignorance/warping of reality.
"Heavily over-represented" is not going to work, because it could be read to imply that the canard is in some ways reasonable. "Exaggerate" is also inappropriate, since it's implying that this is a matter of mere degree, instead of something molded from that statistic for purposes of fear-mongering and antisemitism. This canard is propagated as a canard because it can be propped-up by an ignorant/prejudiced reading of history. It's not a coincidence, and this article is about the canard, not the real history of Bolshevism.
"Fringe commentators" is okay for a talk page because WP:FRINGE has given it a bit more weight, but it's euphemistic for the article itself, and if such language were included it would have to state in clear language that these commentators are pushing a canard/falsehood/conspiracy theory/etc. I don't see a strong need for this at all, though. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't casually grant legitimacy to the idea that "The Jews", as a unified, shadowy, monolithic group, controlled Communism in Russia. It's not about the historical fact that some Jews were also, for various reasons, Communists. It's not just about degree, but about a more substantial ignorance/warping of reality. Jews are, however, a group, and a strongly identified one. They have group interests, and those interests are sometimes at odds with those who they live amongst. As I said in my response to TFD below, this doesn't imply a conspiracy. However, it's necessary to distinguish a canard or conspiracy theory from people's factual acknowledgement of or concern with the fact that Jews were strikingly overrepresented in many communist movements. Franzboas (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Franzboas has been blocked indefinitely. In the unlikely event they get unblocked or someone else wants to continue this: antisemitic canards lumps all Jews together as having the same motives and interest, which is childishly simplistic. Speculating on whether or not those interest are "at odds" with others is, among other serious problems, original research. Being "concerned" with the ratio is POV-pushing, and finding this representation "striking" is something we should leave to sources. If they do not emphasize it or find it a cause for concern, then obviously neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. As I have repeatedly said to you, how topics are covered in Wikipedia articles must reflect how they are covered in reliable sources about the topic. If sources about Jewish Bolshevism don't lead out with this piece of information, we cannot either. While it may seem important to you, it is not important to people who write about anti-Semitism. They believe that there is no truth whatsoever in the theory that the Jews set up Communism or they control the banks or are trying to control the world. If you want to change how mainstream scholarship treats this topic, then you are going to have to get them to change and we will reflect that change here. TFD (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: To the contrary, many mainstream sources (e.g. Carol M. Swain, Yuri Slezkine, Harvey Klehr, Nathan Glazer) acknowledge the significant overrepresentation of Jews in some communist movements and their striking overrepresentation in others. For example, Klehr's works suggest that at least a third of CPUSA committee members (often more than 40%) were Jewish, and Glazer's work suggested that at least half of CPUSA members were Jewish in the 1950's. (I can give specific citations tomorrow.) Jews constitute ~2.5% of the US population, and may have been an even smaller proportion in the 50's. This is striking overrepresentation. Again, these numbers don't imply a conspiracy, and I'm open to counterarguments. However, as I've said before, I think that the statistics in this article don't fully acknowledge the legitimate mainstream statistics, and the lead doesn't accurately represent even what's already in the body. Franzboas (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You are not listening to me. None of those people wrote articles about Jewish Bolshevism. Unless they did, we cannot mention what they said per policy. TFD (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I am listening to you. Carol M. Swain has written about Jewish Bolshevism. I cite and quote that source in the section "Better distinguishing baseline fact from conspiracy" above. The other writers I mention may have written about Jewish Bolshevism as well. I can look into it tomorrow. Franzboas (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────She mentioned it in passing. TFD (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews also have a huge overrepresentation in the Christian object of worship.--Galassi (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Our Jewish Communist past[edit]

This provides zero sources, is it original information? If so, why is it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)