Jump to content

Talk:Red Scare/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Red Scare from 1919 to 1921

This article should focus on the Red Scare, from 1919 to 1921. McCarthyism is already covered in well... McCarthyism. It would be prudent to put italics at the top pointing out the era known as the Red Scare and pointing to a link to the McCarthyism article. Also, all those who have contributed to the McCarthyism article shouldn't also need to contribute to this one too, there should be one for Red Scare and one for McCarthyism... this current organization is bad.--So Hungry

I'm going to reorganize this article pretty soon to only cover the Red Scare from 1918 to 1921. If anyone objects, say so now. And if you do object, just provide some source (not at all from wikipedia) stating how the word "red scare" even refers to anywhere after 1940... I have this feeling that because some wikipedian said that it did, everyone else believes this.

The McCarthyism article's description of the "second red scare" conflits with the on in this article... showing that some wikipedians have definetly contributed errounous information about the "second red scare"--So Hungry 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ť== subscriptions? ==

in the following paragraph you added that "subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source".


These laws made it illegal to speak out against the U.S. government as well as giving the Postmaster General power to deny mail of citizens suspected of being dissenters (ie: censorship of communist, socialist and anarchist related mail, subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source). However, the United Sates later repealed both of these acts in 1921.

From what source did yout cite this?--So Hungry 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Need for citations

While people may disagree about the content, it is inaccurate to say that it is not adequately sourced. I'm removing the citation tag. BCorr|Брайен 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

minor edit

Did a minor edit to the page to get the educational packet under the publications heading.

Then wondered why I was able to edit this page so freely as a guest. I did some reading and now I realize what exactly wikipedia is. What an awesome thing.

-- Misha

== The Second Red Scare ==

Causes


Added the following sentence to "The Second Red Scare", Causes" :

"The release by the U.S. government in 1995 of secret Soviet-era cables decoded by the Venona Project confirmed that, in fact, there were hundreds of Soviet spies employed in high levels of government during that time." I also provided a link to the "Venona Project" page.

I thought that it was important to point out, as the article on Venona Project states, that there was a re-evaluation of the Red Scare as a result of the discovery of these cables. It seems that it was not largely "hysteria" and that there was factual justification for the investigations.

--Bsod 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)


I have changed 'the fall of China' to 'the Communist revolution in China' as I felt the former represent a non-empirical viewpoint. This also provides a link to the 'Communist revolution' article. 134.219.164.85 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

second red scare

I suspect the 2nd paragraph in the TOP of this article is over broad. Does anyone have any information showing that the 2nd Red Scare included any fears of anarchism? I believe it was all anti-Communism at this time. Thanks Hmains 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture POV

Does anyone else think the picture of the anarchist tyring to destroy the statue of liberty is POV, although the Cold War is over and everyone is on the West's side, it does seem portray the belief that communists were evil people.Akupta321 01:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be argued that it is PoV, indirectly. I would say that it is much more... incoherent. The article is 99% about communism, not anarchism. The image should be removed based on that... however I guess we all can't deal without the article having a picture haha... A more suitable picture is needed though.--So Hungry 04:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is not really about communism or anarchism. It is about the reaction of state and local government to allegedly subversive political activity. The contemporary news reports and government statements aren't too careful abuot makeing a distinction between anarchists and communists. They didn't spend too much time trying to figure out their goals either. So the picutre is an important symbol for the hysteria of the times and should stay. The article needs more images, of course. At some point it should be broken out into two articles: one covering the period after WWI and the other covering the period after WWII. I don't have time to tackle this right now, unfortunately. DJ Silverfish 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

should this article be split?

This article is technically about two different time periods and two nearly unrelated parts of American history: one after World War I, and the other after World War II. I don't see why this article shouldn't be split up into the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare. I realize that some people may argue that both were parts of ongoing American isolationism at the time, but in that case, it could technically be argued that both World Wars should be put together into a single article because one led into the other and because they were both parts of an ongoing hostility between America and the communist powers. It would seem absurd to do that, wouldn't it? Then why should this article be any different? Besides, there's enough information for both to be separate articles.

And if it's not split, then this article should be broadened to a more worldwide scale, because I know that more countries than just the US had scares like this. Yay or nay?--BigShock 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

split the article. Thanks Hmains 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FBI?

The article states 'A series of bombings in June of 1919 sparked the FBI to more aggressive actions.' I don't think the FBI existed in 1919!

Although the FBI did not acquire its current name until 1935, it was created way back in 1908 under the name "Bureau of Investigation" (BOI) during Teddy Roosevelt's term in office. It did the same job then as it does now. --BigShock 14:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


CPUSA Pipeline to the Kremlin!

I noticed this statement by User:Andyluciano on September 3, 2005 when he was discussing this page. He said:

"...even the mere existence of a US communist does not necessarily imply that they had a direct connection to Moscow."

I have to make a comment regarding this statement. It has been proven that the Communist Party of America was directly taking orders from the Soviet Union! If someone was a "good" CP member then they would be following orders from their cell leader. These people were not just a bunch of innocent people. They were fervently working for an over throw of the capitalist system so that they would be in full communion with Mother Russia! A good example is the so-called radical muslims of today. We know that members of some of these enemy groups are over here, members of secret cells, working as ordinanry people, passing intel back to their leaders for the day that they are called to do their duty.

And just like the Muslims held by the US in Cuba, these Communists all claimed they were innocent and being discriminated against. Dwain 23:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

They were innocent, and they were being discriminated against. This country was founded on the premise of religous tolerance-- that also means tolerance to all forms of thought. When you speak here, you say that USA has a duty to mass-arrest those who were associated with Communism. But when you speak about American values with your friends/family/etc, don't you always say that America is a land of the free? Yet when it is to your liking, you advocate this kind of discrimination...--4.152.102.244 21:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah doesn't matter if they were discriminated against!! No, it doesn't mean all tolerance of thought regarding pinko's! Another sympathizer! no once can just run to the first amendment when they are obviously a security risk. For decades it was like that. All of the sudden in this day and age we now don't know which was is up! RomanYankee (24.75.194.50 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Try as I may, I do find the basis for this allegation, "When you speak here, you say that USA has a duty to mass-arrest those who were associated with Communism", as referenced by the Anon above. Seems hyperbolic, and not a contribution to the discussion. Thank you. nobs 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with anon. It seems to be that Dwain really believes that USA had a right to do what it did, therefore he does believe USA had a duty to arrest communists. Perhaps you are just not agreeing with the fact he said "mass-arrest"... they didn't mass arrest, perhaps he used the word mass to represent the amount of terror it inflicted on *all* american communist and anyone thinking positively about communism (ie: communist sypmathizers). So, anyway, I'm now starting to wonder why this discusion is going onto small things like using the word mass incorrectly... So Hungry

First Red Scare

I made sure that the 'First Red Scare' article contains all the text that was in this article on the First Red Scare. I went into other WP articles and where appropriate changed the links to the First Red Scare article. I then removed the First Red Scare content from this article and pointed to the First Red Scare article for thayt information. WHY: the first and second Red Scare were really very different events from different periods of US history and involved different sets of people and facts. In other words, they have little in common. Having the First Red Scare as the only article that contains the information on the First will also aid editors who are probably interested in either the First or the Second Red Scare, but not both. Thanks Hmains 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is anti-communism in america not a similar event. ANti-communism may have different causes, but it also has similar roots. Mrdthree 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


We have an article called 'First Red Scare'. Why should any material at all on the 'First Red Scare' be in this article. Now we have two articles that must be maintained on the same subject, two articles that have to be kept in sync, two places to maintain comments, etc. This makes no sense. Move all the material to the First Red Scare article and leave this just a referral as it was before all this material was added. Hmains 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


There's also a McCarthyism article that duplicates much of the material in the Second Red Scare section of this article. Duplication like this is a fact of life in Wikipedia. Sometimes it's appropriate, and that's what the {{mainarticle}} tag is for, as in the World War II article, which has a section on, for example, "German winter offensive", with a {{mainarticle}} tag pointing to Battle of the bulge. In theory, readers come to this article for an overview of both Red Scares, and follow the {{mainarticle}} links if they want more detail. In practice, sub articles are often not in sync with "parent" articles, and there will be different facts and emphasis in each one, and sometimes outright contradictions. That's another fact of life in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit."
Anyway, I think the parent article/sub article structure is appropriate here. One thing that would be an improvement to this article would be if it had a longer introduction that did a compare-and-contrast examination of the two red scares, as well as looking at the common roots and history of both. KarlBunker 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Americocentric

This article is too much focused on the U.S.A. "Red Menace" redirects here, but the idea of a "Red Menace" was international, and in other countries its history of ebb and flow as a fear (and a reality, to the extent the fear was justified) does not truly follow that in the United States. My impression is somewhat that "Red Scare" is more of an American term, in particular, so perhaps it is not so bad if an article on "Red Scare" concentrates on the U.S. However, either the equivalent phenomenon in other countries needs to be given proper coverage here, or a separate article, perhaps entitled "Red Menace", is needed, in which to cover the topic more globally. -- Lonewolf BC 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-communism article has a more international scope. Because "red menace" is a such an informal term, I think it's hard to pin down what it should redirect to. My personal opinion at the moment is that having it redirect to Anti-communism would make more sense than Red Scare. What do you think? KarlBunker 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

I am thinking this should just be a disambiguation page pointing to separate article on the First Red Scare and Second Red Scare. I fail to see the point in having duplicated/contradictory material in this article and the existing First Red Scare article. Hmains 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate article for "Second Red Scare" makes no sense, since there's already a "McCarthyism" article, and historians use "second red scare" and "McCarthyism" to refer to the same thing. Having an article on "Red Scare" with sections that cover both the first and second red scare when both are already covered in other articles may or may not make sense, but that's another question. KarlBunker 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
having just gone through all the WP links to 'red scare' and changing all appropriate ones to 'first red scare' or 'second red scare', that left about half a dozen links left to 'red scare' (ignoring all the talk pages). These links are about 'red scares' in general or other speciific 'red scares', such as in 1935. To handle these, I think the 'red scare' article should become a disambiguation page. This is why I am making these changes. Hmains 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Mains, I wish you had taken into account the issue I have posted about below, in making your edits. See that post, for one of the reasons that your edits were not altogether fitting. This is the danger of making sweeping, semi-automated edits on articles about whose topics you perhaps do not know much, and spending little time to consider each case. I have noticed that you run into this sort of problem fairly often. I don't mean to be officious, but I think that you ought take a more judicious approach to editing. -- Lonewolf BC 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure I agree with Lonewolf BC's specific objection below, I agree that you've been pretty injudicious here, Hmains. To make a change to hundreds of articles when there hasn't been any discussion, much less a consensus, and when you don't have much knowledge of the subject, is seriously careless of you. As I've pointed out to you in our talk page discussion, I don't know of any historian that makes a distiction between "McCarthyism" and "The Second Red Scare." Unless you can show that the majority of historians make some such distinction, then your sweeping edit to multiple pages was an error. KarlBunker 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, Hmains. My comments above were based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the edits you made. I realize my mistake now. Clearly I'm guilty of making some "careless edits" myself, in the above paragraph. KarlBunker 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this article need to be protected?

I cannot see any mention of vandalism on the talk page nor anything else that would require SP. Can anyone clarify why this is in place? For information regarding the SP policy see WP:SPP--FearedInLasVegas 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's rarely any reason to discuss vandalism in an article's talk page. There's no need to discuss whether there was really a historian named Gofoloffoguss, for example. The article was put under semi-protection because it was being vandalized a lot. You can see this by viewing the article's history. KarlBunker 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Individual acts of vandalism, of course, don't require mentioning but if it becomes persistent, then it should be mentioned in the talk page, perhaps mentioning that a request for SP has been made. When an article becomes protected it makes sense to leave a note on the talk page explaining why it has happened, instead of leaving a user unfamiliar with the article to trawl through the mass of revisions to try and piece together an answer. --FearedInLasVegas 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The notice box that's put up on protected pages includes a link on the word "disabled" in the sentence "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled." The info at that link explains why pages are protected or semi-protected. That might not be the most intuitive place to put that information, but it's there. Since vandals generally vandalize because they want to call attention to themselves, mentioning vandalism on a talk page will only serve to encourage them. KarlBunker 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

False statement in this article

The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War and worldwide revolutionary wave from 1917 to 1923 inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions...

I don't know of a single example of violence by an "aggressive labor union" inspired by the above, let alone a "campaign" of violence. Can someone please justify this sentence to me? Sources and details, PLEASE. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Or better, reversed-- there was a tremendous amount of violence directed at the Industrial Workers of the World. Lynchings, tar & feathers, union halls ransacked, shootings... Richard Myers 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph was inaccurate and unsourced. It was also unnecessary, so I just deleted it. KarlBunker 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I added a trivia section and if anybody has anything interesting to contribute, or anything currently in it to edit, please be my guest.

If there is a debate on whether or not the section is worth-while then please post that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etni3s (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

CN, non-NPOV

I marked one unreferenced statement and one plainly-non-neutral-point-of-view statement in the First Red Scare section. They should be self-explanatory, but some editors remove them unless mentioned here. 72.83.190.183 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of content

(revising my own comment, it didn't explain the edits very well, and IMO this situation needs attention)

I noticed a significant deletion of content, the Second Red Scare (1949-1960) section's content was removed entirely, and vandalism content inserted in the same edit, here:

[1]

The deletion and vandalism were made by 65.29.206.140

Notice that the vandalism content was removed here,

[2]

But (except for a link to main article) the deletion of all that original content was allowed to stand.

This appears to have been an oversight. However, because of discussion of reorganization on this talk page, i am not reverting, but inquiring. Is it appropriate to leave all of that material deleted? I'm inclined to recommend re-inserting the information, but i'm not a regular editor of this article, and so invite discussion.

Richard Myers (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) revised, Richard Myers (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The content was unquestionably removed as an act of vandalism. I'm restoring it. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Second red scare

First, the title is pejorative. Since the US survived and the USSR didn't, the implication is that there was nothing to be afraid of.

The second is the line " The fear was provoked with red-baiting and blacklisting". I think the word "provoked" is a bit pov. More like these political activities were the result (reaction) to the scare. Yes, some people used them to their advantage, but that is the way of politics in any event, good or evil. There is always someone out front ready to lead a charge and gain political leverage whatever the cause. Is your "worthy" cause any different? Come on! Student7 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The title is descriptive and historical, and not pejorative, in my view. Richard Myers (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's "historical" only because the media named it and they survived. I wonder what the Cambodians called the Khmer Rouge "Scare"? Or the German Jews the Nazi Scare? Doubtless, there were those who sneered at the danger then. These trivial titles, carefully constructed by wordsmiths interested in promoting a media political agenda, are poor titles for an encyclopedia and harmful to our efforts in the long run IMO. Student7 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd reference

A statement says, 'the Red Scare didn't distinguish among communist, socialist, or Social Democrat — because all were "foreign" (European) "ideologies", thus, "un-American" ' This was probably true of the first "red scare", but not of the second.

I'm not sure what the author was driving at. The Socialist Party of America ran a candidate nationwide for office in 1952, as it had for many years. The US was fighting the Korean War with the help of the United Kingdom with a Socialist Government. Without their support in the UN, there would have been no resistance to the North Korean invasion. All European governments were socialist in fact, regardless of what they were in name, so the statement is a bit silly and clearly incorrect.

I wonder what was intended? Student7 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference supposedly quoted is from "^ O. Dickerson, Mark (2006). An Introduction to Government and Politics, Seventh Edition. Toronto: Nelson. ISBN 0-17-641676-5." This sounds like a legitimate textbook. Can anyone verify that this quote is from that textbook?
Secondly, is there such a thing as a WP:RELY reference with a quote that isn't quite reliable? The foregoing one is off base.
A third possibility, a "compromise" until somebody can check this out: Suggest moving this quote back to "First Red Scare." I rather suspect it is just misplaced. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the quote back intact to "First Red Scare" with imbedded comment in case it is wrong.
The second half of the now-final sentence doesn't read right. It phases over from simple McCarthism into deporting left-wingers. In the 1940s there wasn't anyplace to deport these left-wingers to. They were "all" Americans! :) In the earlier scare, people had just immigrated from Italy, Russia and other European countries. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the "foreign" in quotes is intended to impart that the ideologies were portrayed as foreign, regardless of their provenance. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In lieu of actually checking the reference, I think the sentence may either have been misquoted, or else the original author may have lumped the two together someplace as an introduction or something. But not a good idea here where they are separate. And no, Roosevelt and Truman were both liberals. Socialism definitely was not "foreign" during the 1940s. I'm going to try to move half (!) the sentence back. Check me out! Student7 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Since the article is entirely focused on the US, wouldn't be "Anti-communism in the United States" a better title? I think too many articles on American topics are not properly named and the reader expects to find a general article, that covers the whole world in many cases. Hobartimus (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that first red scare, while it might have been differently named, was experienced in England, France and other Western, and maybe Eastern, Europeans countries. The second one was probably uniquely American, so you may have a point. I agree that editors should be more careful in naming. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, as in most political articles, it's deliberately WP:POV - labeling. Since Americans aren't dead or speaking Russian, QED, it was merely a "scare" and not the real thing. i.e. it was all just hype. It is retroactive labeling since it certainly wasn't called that at the time. Student7 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Targets extended well beyond communists. Richard Myers (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That may be. The intent of the true believers, however, was the threat to national security by communism and "fellow travelers", whom were presumed to be as threatening, as they were believed to be "fifth columnists. "Sleepers", in modern parlance. The target was not socialists nor left-wingers per se, though clearly they felt politically threatened. China had been overthrown and was fully cooperating with Stalin/USSR, as had Eastern Europe. Italy and France were threatened by the ballot box and presumably (after the example of Eastern Europe) be overthrown as well. It pretty much looked like 1939 all over again, but with the USSR/China assuming a much more eminent place (and imminent threat) than Germany/Japan ever had.Student7 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Another little problem that arises with pov names, is attracting vandals. With a non pov name, they might pick on another article. The title may catch the readers eye, but it also attracts "flies" as it were! Student7 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Enjoying the vandals? This will continue "forever" until you select a title that is npov and does not attract them.
"Red menace" is at least more accurate, consistent with the post WWII time. I don't know what the post-WW I era one was called at the time. But reverting to accurate, npov titles might help a bit.
Selecting post facto names that are deliberately pov does not seem like a good idea to me. Student7 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The article title is acceptable and appropriate. I repair an average of 20 vandalisms per week, such is no reason at all to change the title of the article. Richard Myers (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I watch a few articles myself. Some of those don't get up to 20 vandalisms per week. Those are mostly entitled npov. Student7 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a recommendation for a title that you feel would be more neutral? If so, we can discuss it or you could formally request a rename. If not, we're at a stalemate until there's an actual proposal. Doniago (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Red Menace" would be somewhat more accurate and somewhat less pov for the 1940s one. And yes, it too would attract vandals. I don't know what the earlier one was really called at the time. Hoping someone could find a source. It included all forms of socialism as well as Russian Bolshevism and was therefore considerably different than the second. Someone, deliberately being derisive, lumped the two together. And, after the fact, there was no single "scapegoat" singled out by the media as there was for the second one (McCarthy). The media was quite understandably happy to have such a pitiable fault-laden strawman to attack. That was lacking (and the media was on the other side) in the first one. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Research question

I have a couple of questions:

1. Does anyone have an accurate name for the anti-socialism reaction of the early 1920s? What was it called then?

2. The reaction against communism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was called the "Red Menace" by people who were worried (nearly everyone). After Herblock drew his famous cartoon, it was called "McCarthyism" by disbelieving liberals. When was the term "Red scare" first coined?

3. When were the two very different eras: anti-socialism of the 1920s and anti-communism of the 1950s first lumped together? (In other words, is there a scholarly un--WP:BIASed WP:RELY source for having both in this article? Student7 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that the post-WWI stuff isn't a bit overdone. The problem with any article is how do you measure the impact of the event. Not sure that there was much to measure. The Bolsheviks really did want to overthrow all the democracies as soon as possible. Same, pretty much after WWII, except they had already done just that to Eastern Europe and China. Did the US over-react?
A EB (1977) says that there were 150,000 members of the Socialist party in America in 1912. That year they polled 876,000 for president, or 6% of the of the national total. This hardly presaged suppression.
Did the US react after the Bolsheviks slaughtered the Czar and his family and took over the Russian Empire? Yes. Every democracy did. To call this a "Red Scare" is WP:POV IMO. It is like saying that Roosevelt's arming for WWII was a "Nazi Scare." Or a "Yellow Peril Scare," as a put-down. Making it seem racist as well as stupid. The only problem is that Roosevelt's re-armament didn't work well enough and there was a war. When a reaction works well-enough to prevent a major war, then it is demoted to a mere "scare?" That does not make sense to me. Student7 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

A respected editor rm the following material: "Some evidence suggests, however, that the term "Red Scare" is itself biased in favor of those who stress a leftist interpretation of history. Although the Nazis' atrocities are well-documented, one rarely hears the term "Fascist Scare" used to describe those who oppose fascism, nor do their beliefs tend to be framed as "fear," "hysteria," or "paranoia." Extensive evidence demonstrates that the Second "Red Scare" coincided with the existence of Maoist and Stalinist governments that were killing people in the tens of millions.Black Book of Communism."

The above may be true but needs rewording. The rebuttal goes on the attack with a counterexample which is perhaps not allowable in this context. Seems stated as "fact" rather than author's opinion. Appears WP:OR as written. Footnote should be from the book directly, not from Wikipedia. (There may be other issues that dissenting editors may have  :). Good luck!  :) Student7 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"intensely patriotic" as description of WWI era

The expression "intensely patriotic" fits fairly well as a description of the WWI era. Here's just one example:

[excerpt] “Sailor Wounds Spectator Disrespectful of Flag”: The Red Scare, 1919–1921
The climate of repression established in the name of wartime security during World War I continued after the war as the U.S. government focused on communists, Bolsheviks, and “reds.” The Red Scare reached its height in the years between 1919 and 1921. Encouraged by Congress, which had refused to seat the duly elected Wisconsin trade unionist and socialist Victor Berger, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer began a series of showy and well-publicized raids against radicals and leftists. Striking without warning and without warrants, Palmer’s men smashed union offices and the headquarters of Communist and Socialist organizations. The Washington Post of May 7, 1919, noted approvingly that a sailor shot a Chicago man merely for failing to rise during the national anthem.
Chicagoans Cheer Tar Who Shot Man
Sailor Wounds Pageant Spectator Disrespectful to Flag.
Chicago, May 6—Disrespect for the American flag and a show of resentment toward the thousands who participated in a victory loan pageant here tonight may cost George Goddard his life. He was shot down by a sailor of the United States navy when he did not stand and remove his hat while the band was playing the “Star-Spangled Banner.”
Goddard had a seat of vantage in the open amphitheater. When he failed to stand he was the most conspicuous figure among the throng. When he fell at the report of the “sailor’s” gun the crowd burst into cheers and hand-clapping. [...]
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4981/

State and federal anti-syndicalist and anti-espionage laws were used to justify serious infractions of people's rights. People were thrown in jail for expressing any anti-war sentiment whatsoever. As evidence, see this:

http://www.seditionproject.net/index.html

And also, this:

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/8/5/nashville_now_and_then_you_watch_your_mouth

"Intensely patriotic" is quite neutral language for the sentiments of the period. I would opt for stronger language, if i were writing this history. But also, this referenced sentence follows immediately, and clearly offers support for the expression:

Historian Murray B. Levin wrote that the "Red Scare" was "a nation-wide anti-radical hysteria provoked by a mounting fear and anxiety that a Bolshevik revolution in America was imminent — a revolution that would change Church, home, marriage, civility, and the American way of Life."

The existing expression should be kept and/or improved, not deleted. Richard Myers (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the intent of the entire article is to portray reaction against a very real communist threat with nonsense. Particularly in this paragraph the intent seems to be to equate patriotism for war against Germany (mainly) with the post-war negative adjective "radical hysteria" against Bolshevism, which emanated from Russia, a former ally. It seems to me that the paragraph fails to make this connection between the two; that the main intent was to equate patriotism with hysteria, a pov assertion and WP:OR IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosenbergs

Calling the Rosenbergs spies overstates the case. It is evident that Julius was a spy; there appears to be no hard evidence that Ethel was involved, or even aware of the details. The text referring to their trial is non-controversial, and adequate. There is no point in casting collective responsibility, when there is so much uncertainty about one of the two individuals. Richard Myers (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time, fellow travelers tried to insinuate that their trial was deliberate antisemitism, a bit hard with the judge being Jewish. The jury found them both guilty of spying. The media can redact this until they are blue in the face. They are both spies until the President pardons one or both, no matter how much complaining or "investigating" the media does. Juries determine facts, not the media. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarifying origin of terms: first, second red scare

When choosing article titles on Wikipedia, "[t]here will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."

An example in actual practice: In spite of the fact that an event in Colorado had been referred to simply as the Columbine Massacre for seven decades, the article title Columbine Mine massacre was satisfactorily explained, after some back and forth editing, with this first sentence: "The first Columbine Massacre, sometimes called the Columbine Mine massacre to distinguish it from the Columbine High School massacre, occurred in 1927..."

My point in making this observation: IF the terms FIRST red scare and SECOND red scare originated here on Wikipedia for clarification purposes, or if they did not originate here, but are not in common usage, then i think that fact should similarly be briefly mentioned in the article, with a similar clarification about the reason for this usage. (I'm not sure if this information has been included anywhere aside from talk pages.)

A related issue: there may be some confusion about the articles as well as misunderstanding about the (presumed) origins of the terminology, for the main article link for the First Red Scare (1919–20) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled First Red Scare, but the main article link for the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled McCarthyism. Then the Second Red Scare link from the McCarthyism article links back to the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article.

Curiously, there is no similar link from the First Red Scare article to the Red Scare article.

This seems a little convoluted and possibly confusing. Similar titling and linking treatment for the two external articles might make more sense. And i think reworking these links/titles might fit in with what Bmclaughlin envisions above. Richard Myers (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First Red Scare beginning -- 1919, or 1917?

I note that there has been disagreement concerning what year the First Red Scare started. I invite commentary on that question.

Personally, i believe it should date from 1917, when the IWW was first attacked across the U.S., and also in Australia and Canada, by a combination of government/corporate/vigilante action. I believe this coincided with fears related to what was happening in Russia at the time, although there didn't seem to be any significant relationship between the IWW and the Bolsheviks (Haywood excepted, of course, but that was later...) Richard Myers (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you find that reference works in U.S. history and historians of various political viewpoints (including as far left as Paul Avrich) use 1919-1920. You may find a rare instance of 1918 as the start date. The Red Scare does not refer to government suppression of radical activity, either of the IWW or of those on the left who were sent to prison for failure to support the war. It refers to a period of national hysteria that takes off very much in concert with the Seattle General Strike. If we start counting citations for how historians use the term Red Scare and how they date it, we will end up with 1919-1920, even if we can find our own evidence of what we think is scary talk and overreaction earlier or later. After all, we're supposed to be reflecting consensus.
It would be good if we had a different article on government suppression of dissent in the WWI period -- perhaps, more neutrally, something like "Civil liberties in the US during WWI." Or lack thereof. But changing the dates puts wikipedia at odds with historical consensus in 2 ways: first, what the term "Red Scare" refers to and then the dates that are appropriate to it.
As for the term "Red Scare", I don't believe that anyone outside of wikipedia -- again allowing for a rare exception -- uses the term "Second Red Scare". The way this entry for "Red Scare" has developed, it appears that contributors think that "Red Scare" is a generic term for fear of Bolshevism or Communism rather than a term historians use to describe a very specific, post-WWI phenomenon. The entry we now have called "Red Scare" would be better if it were called "Anti-communism in the U.S." and then we could really grow it to describe a broad phenomenon that extends from attacks on the IWW, the Red Scare of 1919-20, red-baiting in the union movement, the reaction of the American left to Stalin, and on to McCarthyism and beyond. It could allow room for Cardinal Spellman and the role of the Catholic Church; refugee and immigrant communities like the Hungarians and the Cubans; J. Edgar Hoover of course, and Nixon vs. Helen Douglas. And I'm just getting started. I imagine something like the great (IMHO) article on the Cold War, which as lots of short paragraphs, each of which summarizes a longer entry that provides more depth. But we're a long way from that when we have an entry called "Red Scare" that devotes half its text to McCarthyism. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. On the other hand, some who were most famously targeted during the Red Scare period were not communists, but rather, anarchists, Wobblies, and left socialists. It also seems to me that Wobblies and others of the period who were not communists were sometimes referred to as "reds". Many of those who "saw red", so to speak, didn't often make distinctions -- anyone who questioned, or didn't support the existing economic system was suspect, and all were frequently lumped together as supposed enemies.
The idea of a different article on government suppression of dissent in the WWI period appeals to me. But then it also seems that having one high level overview article that ties together all of the repression and dissent of the period would be helpful, otherwise we will have several somewhat overlapping and related articles. Not sure if this is what you're suggesting in reference to the format of the Cold War article, but i'd welcome that. (Oh, and by the way, Bmclaughlin, i think you have made some great contributions here.) best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
First you are absolutely right: "Anti-communism in the U.S." is simply wrong. How about re-naming this article "Anti-radicalism in the U.S."? That would cover the range you mention, I think. And we could interpret it to cover people who were seen as or labeled as radicals, even if hardly radical themselves.
Second I don't think the idea of overlapping articles is problematic if they are well managed. It takes time to build the various pieces, but it works as the building blocks get put in place. For example, the article Elaine Race Riot is quickly summarized in Red Summer of 1919, which is itself summarized in First Red Scare. But Elaine Race Riot would also be a building lock for a thematic article on "race relations in Arkansas" or "unionizing sharecroppers in the U.S." or "Supreme Court decisions on defendants' rights". What doesn't work is people writing about either the 1919-1920 events or the 1947-1957 events for this entry as if the entries now called "First Red Scare" and "McCarthyism" didn't exist. Ideally, people who have an argument about, for example, what to call the Rosenbergs, should settle that at the building block level of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or use language that reflects the consensus established there, rather than trying to make their case in a more general article like the one we have now called "Red Scare". In the absence of building blocks (detailed articles) we all just have to do the best we can, but it seems unfair to ignore detailed articles and the specialists who have provided all that detail and worked out many such issues. Closer to home, the details of Centralia Massacre (Washington) could/should be cited in articles on the history of the IWW, the history of labor in Washington, the American Legion, vigilantism in U.S. history, etc. The last is something I hope to work on, starting with an article on "Slacker raids".
I guess my point is that "several somewhat overlapping and related articles" don't trouble me if they respect the building blocks. There are many thematic ways to slice and dice history, and respect for the building blocks will guarantee at least some level of consistency between and among more thematic or higher-level articles.
As for what you suggest -- one high level overview article that ties together all of the repression and dissent of the period -- no reason we can't have that, too. Just need to define the period in a suitable way. "Repression and dissent during the Wilson administration" would cover a lot: labor activity, Debs and Emma Goldman, Wilson's attacks on hyphenated Americans, prohibition on teaching German, etc. I like it partly because it brings in all the pre-war attacks on Irish-Americans who had no love for Great Britain when defining the period as WWI might not. And we might need room for a bright spot, like the first recognition of conscientious objectors in the US military in WWI. Is the title "Repression and dissent during the Wilson administration" sufficiently NPOV? I once though of an article called "Enforced conformity during WWI" that would cover slacker raids, vigilantism, and ante-immigrant/nativist activity, but cold never satisfy myself that "enforced conformity" was suitably NPOV. There are lots of ways to go.
My principal concern in all of this is nailing the fact that "Red scare" is not a generic term, as the earlier discussion on this page of a "third red scare" occurring right now imagines, but a time-specific one limited to the years following WWI.
And thanks for the compliment. I've learned a lot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, a lot to think about. I think i'd like to hear what others think.
My one immediate feedback would be, i'm not fond of tying this directly to the Wilson administration through the article title, mainly because that would cause some to conclude that he was primarily responsible. In my view this would be erroneous, for example, because the repression of the IWW occurred in Canada and Australia as well, and possibly in other countries. The Sydney Twelve were in the news in late 1916 for their anti-war views and opposition to conscription, and at least some would consider that and surrounding events an early example of repression, or at least over-reaction.
I think such an article title is better tied to the events of the period, perhaps something coinciding with, during and after, or as a result of WWI. Part of the reason for my reaction to relating it to Wilson is that the repression of the IWW was in part due to political and economic considerations, including the fact that the IWW sought a fundamental change in the economic system, and in 1916-17 the IWW had just organized a hundred thousand workers into the Agricultural Workers Organization (AWO). The organization was ascendant, and therefore perceived as a threat to the status quo, so the IWW's anti-war stance was used as an excuse.
Certainly, Wilson's authorization for the initial significant crackdown on the IWW was key in 1917. But considering events in other countries, i think WWI and aftermath (including fears relating to the October Revolution) probably played a larger role than did Wilson as president. Put another way, it was more economic and political forces exacerbated by the war, than it was a general backlash prompted or initiated by Wilson. (Hope that makes sense, sorry it isn't more concise...) best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I take your point but I'm not trying to tie anything at all to the Wilson administration. I don't think saying during the Wilson administration is much different from saying 1912-1920. I'm trying to state a period of time in a concise way and adhere to the wiki guideline be encyclopedic. "Repression and dissent in the U.S." plus some range of years isn't encyclopedic to me. Maybe "Repression and dissent in the U.S. during the WWI era" ? The word "era" let's us cheat a little and include before, during, and after.
I do like that better. Hope someone else weighs in, i'd like to hear what others think. thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Rather than attributing these events to individuals, (like "McCarthy" or "Wilson") this was really a frightened public taking matters into their own hands. In the second case, China, a highly publicized (probably wrongly publicized, but nevertheless) ally, fell to Mao in 1948. For the West, one day China was part of "the Western Alliance", the next, it was colored Red! This was quite a shock. In retrospect, the media had skipped its job with the pressure of WWII. The country had no idea of what conditions were like under Chiang-ki-Chek. nor what areas his government really controlled. But to the uninformed public, it looked like Communism had gobbled up a major country in a matter or weeks! Pretty much like Hitler's blitzkreig!
I have no first-hand insight into the 1920 scare, but they appear to be locally driven as well. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial comes to mind.
Editor Bmclaughlin9 appears to have no axe to grind and appears to be objective. If we are looking for objectivity here, and an article that can be respected, we need to consider his suggestions IMO. Naming an article or event with no precedent outside of Wikipedia is not good scholarship IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Student7, let me get this straight. You claim to "have no first-hand insight into the 1920 scare", yet you pronounce that "[r]ather than attributing these events to individuals, (like 'McCarthy' or 'Wilson') this was really a frightened public taking matters into their own hands."
Shall we ignore repression cheerleaders like U.S. Attorney General Palmer, who hyperventilated about an anarchist insurrection that never materialized, and Senator King, who in 1917 in a major spread in the New York Times made the absurd defamatory claim that the IWW would side with the Germans if they invaded America?
How about the tireless attacks of Senator Miles Poindexter, who equated the IWW with the Bolsheviks, describing the union as "arrogant, insolent, and tyrannical", and declaring that "the suppression" of the IWW was the "greatest issue that confronts not only the American people, but the western world"?
McCarthy used his senatorial pulpit to relentlessly attack people. During the first red scare, Senators Poindexter and King did likewise. The first red scare had plenty of McCarthys.
Indeed, the parallels don't stop there. Consider that when Senator Joseph McCarthy was confronted by Edward R. Murrow for his many abuses of power, McCarthy followed the examples of Senators Miles and Poindexter by using the IWW as a foil, falsely claiming that "Mr. Murrow, by his own admission, was a member of the IWW, a terrorist organization..."
May we now dispense with the idea that the public concludes on its own that it needs to be frightened, and rise up to smack the alleged godless atheistic labor-socialist perpetrators who, in the hyperbolic words of Senator Poindexter, "have made war on their own creator"? Richard Myers (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Good edit on Levin, it is relevant in this article. Richard Myers (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A random look at Google for 'red scare' find many non-WP related instances of the term being used both for the post World War I events and the McCarthyism (not just McCarthy) events. Maybe they are not referred to as 'first' and 'second'; they are distinguished by time period and the word McCarthyism. Much work needed here, anyway. Hmains (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The real problem will the Levin quote is that what he says is not worth quoting. It's a non-controversial characterization of the events of the Red Scare, his language is not particularly distinctive, and he is no more recognized a scholar than many others who write better. (My bias is also in favor of historians over political scientists.) If you took his words out of the quotes, you could back up the same words up with citations from a dozen other scholars, starting with Murray's 1955 classic. Instead we now have a description of the Red Scare that is attributed to an expert (Levin) with an implication of bias (ex-Communist) and we then provide no other broad assessment to modify, qualify, or expand on that characterization. A first-time or naive reader is sure to be puzzled. But then I have a quarrel with much of the paragraph anyway.
On the question of re-naming wiki entries: The above discussion was rather free-wheeling and decidedly ad hoc. I will make a proposal when I am ready to do so under a new heading. It will not be based on "a random look at Google." Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't have a problem with changing the Levin quotation. My point in agreement with Student is, IF we use his quotation, then the background is relevant because of the subject matter. Richard Myers (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I personally would like to see treatment that takes in an even broader history of the philosophical opposition to radicalism. Certainly this would overlap somewhat with the History of union busting in the United States. But that article focuses on unions per se; some attacks were more broad, attacking socialists, anarchists, and itinerant workers as well as unions, and thus, possibly moreso under the purview of the "red scare" subject matter.
For example, C. W. Post was a very visible industrialist who was predominantly responsible for creating the climate that altered the public perception of working people with the progressive desire for fairness on the job in the 1900-1905 period. There isn't yet anything anywhere on Wikipedia about C. W. Post's diatribe, in which he tried to turn all home owners against the "discontented, surly and botch workman tramping from one job to another." According to one source, Post's article "They're After You" was self-financed, and "has been in almost every paper in the country." [3] [4]
Post at one point expressed satisfaction that the propaganda campaign to vilify radicals, thereby maintaining the status quo, had been dramatically successful.
However, i don't know if extending the time frame of the proposed anti-radical period is the best way to incorporate that. In 1903-04 there weren't many constraints on outright use of military solutions (often supported by the Citizens' Alliance) to destroy radicalism; for example, see Colorado Labor Wars. Richard Myers (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed false statement

I removed a statement which falsely asserted the loss of membership by the communists and the IWW. I don't know the history of the communists, but i do know the history of the IWW. The IWW continued to grow until 1923, which was after the first red scare had ended. The IWW lost membership after 1924, primarily due to a split. Richard Myers (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I researched and wrote that article, and this overstates what the article says.
The article also states,
In spite of "anti-radical hysteria" during and just after the war years, the IWW continued to grow. The IWW's peak membership probably occurred in 1923. --Daniel Earl Saros, Labor, industry, and regulation during the progressive era, Taylor & Francis US, 2009, page 63
In my view, the article as currently written makes a very misleading statement. It strongly implies the organization's membership was decreasing, when it was, in fact, increasing. The split didn't occur until well after the Red Scare, and even the Palmer Raids had ended -- depending on how you measure it, 3-4 years after.
At one time, i assumed the membership of the IWW dropped during the period 1917-1923. The historic record demonstrates that it continued to grow during this period. If someone has a source that definitively states something different, i'd like to hear about it. Richard Myers (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I now have a source which explicitly supports my earlier observation. Rosemont specifically refutes the claim on page 14 of "Joe Hill, The IWW & the Making of a Revolutionary Workingclass Counterculture", Kerr, 2003. I will remove the erroneous and unsupported claim in the text. Richard Myers (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Venona project

An editor reverted the following material germane to the Vermona project without giving a reason why. "In 1995, the American government revealed details of the Venona Project indicating intelligence gathering by Americans for the benefit of the Soviet Union from 1940 through 1980. While some have argued that people involved were clearly spying, others believe that these people had no malicious intent."

Why was this reverted? It is germane to the topic and verifiable. Student7 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Provided you mean the material you recently added, it appears to have been removed because it was unsourced. At least, that was the reason provided in the edit summary. Simply linking to Verona Project would not, to my understanding, constitute sufficient sourcing, for what it's worth. Doniago (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll offer another reason to look at this closely. In an edit summary, you (Student7) referred to this as the VERONA project. Here, you've called it the VERMONA project. It is neither of these, it is the VENONA project. If you don't know the name of what you're talking about, how can other editors be convinced that you have a full comprehension of what you're adding to this article? I'm familiar with your edits over a period of time, and i judge them to be ideological. I understand that; we all have our own points of view, although we need to limit the extent to which point of view colors our efforts here. In this particular case i strongly suspect that you're adding this information primarily because it supports your conservative philosophy, and not because you are intimately familiar with the content. Richard Myers (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I have a vision problem. I will try to be more careful. Nevertheless, the project existed at the highest level of government and is well-documented and should be allowed whatever the temporary referential and misspellings occur. Spying was real. Student7 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Student7... in addition to the repeated misspellings of VENONA, intelligence gathering by Americans for the benefit of the Soviet Union from 1940 through 1980 is also dead wrong. If you have a vision issue, you can use large type features. On balance in an arena as complex & sensitive as VENONA, I would strongly suggest editing what you write. DEddy (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Venona project?

Should there not be mention of the Venona project, which proves that the "Red Scare" was not as "Over Blown" as previously thought? I guess we don't want to offend far left liberals, I mean, communists.

"....Among this group we now know to have been working for the KGB and its predecessors, and for the GRU - Soviet military intelligence - were prominent Americans who in the war years infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government, from the State and Treasury Departments to the Manhattan Project.

The Venona project files - thousands of decrypted 1940s cables between the KGB in Moscow and its agents in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, only released to the public beginning in 1995 - makes the evidence overwhelming. Thanks to Venona, we have definitive proof of the guilt of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, as well as the most important American atomic spy, Theodore Hall.

thousands of decrypted 1940s from memory I think it was approximately 6,000 cables of which approximately 2,000 were partially decrypted. I've never seen an assessment of how many of the (partially readable) cables were routine administrivia ("Did we pay Ivan?") vs direct meetings with American sources vs passing information along. Is anyone aware of a classification by purpose for the VENONA collection? DEddy (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But Venona also revealed that the KGB had among its agents such people as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White; the chief of the State Department's Division of American Republics, Laurence Duggan; the head of the State Department's Latin American Division, Maurice Halperin; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative aide and State Department liaison to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.

Can't tell when or who posted this. Can someone point to where VENONA proves that Harry Dexter White & Lauchlin Currie were passing sensitive/secret information to the Soviets? I think I've read the various VENONA mentions of these men & the cables are ambiguous at best. What I see is many saying that since White/Currie were mentioned in VENONA is is proof they were spies. Roosevelt & Churchill were mentioned in VENONA & I don't think they've been tagged as spies.
I'd seriously question if Currie were liaison to Truman. DEddy (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Venona in fact confirmed what anti-Communists had argued at the time, and which their detractors, the anti anti-Communists, had always denied: There was a successful and dangerous Soviet penetration of our government, as well as a network of spies working for the KGB.

It also has been established that many of them were recruited directly out of the ranks of the American Communist Party. Contrary to what the left of the time had maintained - that the Communists were small, insignificant and hardly a danger - there was in fact good reason to view them not simply as members of an unpopular but legal political party, but as potential spies in waiting. The CP-USA was, as scholars Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have written, 'indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the Cold War.'..."

The Red 'Scare' Was Real By Ronald Radosh

The New York Post July 10, 2002

Of all the newspapers in the world, you had to choose the Murdoch Post.

End of Second Red Scare?

Please cite How did it end in 1957? I don't see why this date is so definitive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I find this article to reflect a clearly non-neutral, largely right-wing, point of view. Where are the mentions of the massive negative social consequences, such as decades of large-scale, organised suppression of social dissent? What about the use of this ideologically-driven fear stirred up in the populace as a tool to fight against the civil rights movement, feminism, gay rights, and the expansion of the social safety net? Sixty years later, right-wing politicians still regularly attempt to use "socialist" as a slur to create fear to try to get people to close their ears and minds to the arguments and perspectives of their political opponents. Let's have some mention of these things in the article! As it stands now, I find it colossally unbalanced. It reads like a well-scripted justification for those attitudes and actions, without real mention of their very substantial negative effects or of the often-militant ideology which underlay them. (Or can only authoritarian communists have a militant, expansionist ideology?) Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


I propose a section entitled Negative Social and Political Consequences or even just Social and Political Consequences. I think, too, that another section might be desirable: The Red Scare as a Moral Panic, with a link in the first line to Moral panic. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"God" and the red scare

Could someone add the fact that the only reason god was added to our money and our pledge is because of the red scare ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.86.119 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1930s Red Scare?

A report in The New York Times of 19 May 1930, carries the headline “’Red Scare’ Protest Issued by Liberals”. The article refers to “100 Writers, Educators and artists [who warn] of Dangers in ‘Hysteria’ and ‘Persecution’”, and “Says 1,600 Have Been Wrongfully Arrested in 2 months”. Can anyone explain why isn't this dealt with here? Rwood128 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly studies comment

This whole article is a POV that has an emotional appeal to certain segments of society. The scolarly content is suspect due to vague, narrow secondary sources used. Witness the constant re-editing of different people (including myself) to try to balance the article.

The revisionist writers quoted for the most part have a specific agenda they wish to promote. The article is reduced to a propaganda piece for the left. -- runchummey 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I wouldn't say "Left", so much as I'd say that the usual useful idiots, Anti-American elements and Terrorist Sympathizers are tied up in a persecutory narrative wherein the USA is automatically the bad guy and that all the people prosecuted as spies were prosecuted because of their national origin, race or religion. The reality is otherwise. Most everyone prosecuted was a spy and a Stalinist. I actually lean Left Neo-Keynesian/Democratic Socialist, so I'm mildly sympathetic to some of the claims of Analytical, Humanist, and other Libertarian Marxisms sans the LTV and other obvious inconsistencies, but Soviet infiltration of the CPUSA and most Marxist-Leninist parties was a reality, even if this sentiment was additionally mobilized for political purposes. The Soviets also had massive amounts of front groups including most of the "Peace" groups. It's corroborated by multiple sources, Soviet, American, and various other countries (UK, Germany). You have Mitrokhin, Venona, the various Ex-communists (e.g. Whittaker, Budenz), file after file after the fall of the USSR, the actual publications coming out of of some of the labor unions controlled by fringe elements and party publications which we were rehashing the Stalinist line, etc. William Z. Foster has shout-outs to Stalin on the dedication page of half his books. The Trotskyists (who were completely uninvolved in any of this) also report all the spying that the Stalinists were doing on them. It's pretty much indisputable that trivializing the hunt for subversive elements as "The Red Scare" is bad history. Guinness4life (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro graf edits today by me

I'm always too lazy to log in until after, when I decide to let the editors know at least who's responsible. Aside from the intentionally snarky "citation needed" I hope these edits are seen as more in-line with what's reflected in the related articles. Anyway -- The language I found in the intro squarely strove to dignify that era's toxic nationalistic paranoia, which has, in basically all other places, been thoroughly discredited by history. People scanning this lede and moving on would think they'd learned that we saved ourselves from Soviet government invasion 100 years ago rather than barely, eventually, putting the brakes on a misguided and destructive political witch hunt. I mean fer eff-sakes, it said the Red Scare was a time when the country was protecting itself against a threat from the American labor movement. Apparently a Kochtopus was here before me. Nathan hawks (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

? Fringe of 3rd Red Scare ?

Is there any discussion yet of the possible start of the third Red Scare? There has been a lot in our media in the recent year or two about communists running our government, communist/socialism agenda's being pushed in our government that are viewed as a threat. These messages have been effective as well. There are major Media Outlets such as FoxNews along with their commentator Glenn Beck who has endorsed McCarthy and talks consistently of Communism in government. (Youtube: FoxNews June 25, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfq6URia1Zw). I am not scholarly but it seems something that is worth at least discussion. There have been common place portrayals of our president as being socialist. (http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/dems-socialist-health-plan-saps-obamas.html) The Tea Party Movement often has rally depicting Obama as a Marxist or Socialist who is destroying our country. Obama has defended his record as not being socialist himself after facing questions circulating that he is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist (http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/09/obama-i-am-not-a-socialist-bec)

Questions to ask are we in the 3rd Red Scare? If so When did it begin? What are the underlying factors behind the discussion on communism in our media today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To make this discussion relevant to this Talk page on Wikipedia, i'm going to assume that you are referring to starting such a "discussion" here, aimed at inclusion in an article of the phenomena you've observed. (Otherwise, such a political discussion would not be an appropriate use of this space.) So i'll respond to the presumed question, would it be appropriate to create an article (or new article section) referencing a third red scare? Unfortunately this sounds like what Wikipedians would refer to as Original Research, which is generally prohibited. That doesn't necessarily mean that such a subject is impossible.
Before such an article could be expected to survive a Deletion challenge, we would need to find sources (referred to as secondary sources) which already present such a discussion, and then source the article on those sources. It is possible that such already do exist, but i haven't seen such to date. Richard Myers (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I spent just a few minutes exploring the current discussion. There are some possible sources; for example,
However, none of these refer explicitly to a "third red scare". Note also that all of these modern day red scare references focus on a phenomenon for which there already is a Wikipedia article, which is Islamophobia. I think one could argue that technically that isn't "red baiting".
My take is that someone would need to uncover other sources using additional research before any possibility of creating a survivable "third red scare" article. And note that a Google news search for "third red scare" doesn't come back with any hits. Richard Myers (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are not many good sources regarding the idea of another wave of the red scare, however I think it is more so due to the fact that it is a fresh debate. None the less wikipedia is not ready to host the debate at this time. The only page I found on google was http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/63802/the-modern-red-scare. (not very scholarly)...or a google search of "red scare modern "glenn beck"". Although I didn't review these articles before launching this discussion, thus proving to me that the debate is not limited to my imagination there certainly is not enough (worthy) sources for such a article. Maybe we are in the midst of history, maybe it is a fluke flashback that will be short lived. What I can say for sure is something is going on out there. The only part of where you comment I disagree with is the focus on xenoism and the Muslim faith. I don't think I was intending to direct the discussion in that rout but to instead solely focus on the communist references in modern media of political leaders, of actions of government, and of commentary. (opinion to follow) Although I can see the comparison between the rise of Hitlers fears of communist take over of Germany and his linkage to blaming "Jews" for the communists and national issues as a flimsy at best link to the anti-communist leaders of today such as Glenn Beck and his xenophobia towards Muslims to practice their freedom of religion and instilling a fear of impending sharia law in America. All in all if communist fear were to take a more mainstream presence maybe at that point there would be more sources to site and a article to become practical. Perhaps that is just a fear of mine. At least hopefully someone enjoyed the discussion and gained some ideas for other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the same spirit that there's a wiki page for World War III for a hypothetical future World War, and publications' usage of the term, I think there's enough material to support a potential article documenting ongoing anti-communist rhetoric in the USA entitled "Third Red Scare" Mapmaker345 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Scare/Archive_1&oldid=1137118237"