Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

summary of most important factors

The article as it now stands doesn't really directly bring together the two explanatory facts that under the Tsarist regime, the Jews were both highly oppressed and highly educated, which fairly naturally led to the result that they were significantly represented in most opposition groups that had any kind of somewhat congenial ideology...

Also, for a number of decades (certainly as late as the 1960s, perhaps beyond), if there was any distinctively Saudi approach to Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, it was that pretty much all Zionists or Zionist leaders were Communists who wanted to "Bolshevize" the middle east... AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

addressing the first part of what you are saying - Jews in the Tsarist regime, -episode 4? or 3? of Simon Schamas History of the Jews had interesting things to say about the conflation of Jews and revolutionary politics -for example, apparently one female revolutionary involved in the assassination of Alexander III was Jewish and this led to a particularly bad pogrom in a town - near the Black sea I think, - his book and dvd could be used to fill this history out near the beginning of the article.Sayerslle (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on Subject of Article

Based on the closed discussion above, I believe there is a clear consensus that the subject of this article is:

"1.the theory that Bolshevism was the product of a supposed international Jewish conspiracy to run the world,"

Does anyone have a basis for disagreement that such is the consensus, based on the discussion? John2510 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Image of Trotsky

How is the demonic depiction of Trotsky at the head of this page relevant to the article? As far as I can see, there is no mention of Jews in the poster. Zero^talk 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the pentagram around his neck is being confused for a Star of David? The point of that would seem to be to suggest that Bolsheviks are satanic, not Jewish. Unless I'm also missing something, I agree there's nothing that directly makes any linkage (and even if there was, it would be better if we had some third party verification, for example that this was a "classic image of .." etc or somesuch, rather than our own assertion/assumption of any such link). N-HH talk/edits 13:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it a bit more, and at the full-size image, if anything it seems to be suggesting that the Bolshevik ranks are full of Chinese, not Jews (see the scene at the bottom right). N-HH talk/edits 13:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. After looking at the image and it's description page I've removed it here and at Economic antisemitism. If anyone can find a reliable source that it's a typical image for anti-Semitism then replace it with the source. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The facial traits of Trotsky in the image is clearly an anti-Semitic stereotype. I suggest returning the image to the article. --Soman (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a legitimate conclusion to draw but we don't have any explicit or definitive imagery here and, as noted, we'd be better off anyway with some reliable third-party source asserting that, especially for the lead image on a page. N-HH talk/edits 16:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The picture appears to be inspired by the Jewish Bolshevik stereotype. For an explanation of the Chinese, see Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. However, I agree we should not use images unless sources connect them to the subject. "The Jewish Bolshevism" article in Metapedia and their main article on Jewish Bolshevism has other images that might be useful. TFD (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The artist could have easy added a Jewish aspect if that was the intention. It looks to me like a caricature of Trotsky as a demon. The fact that Jewish stereotypes can share some of the features may be because they are also caricatured as demons, rather than the other way around. Zero^talk 23:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No one aware of anti-Semitism and the White Russians would interpret it that way. TFD (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How about [1] ? --Soman (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Same thing. You need a source that connects it. TFD (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree a source explicitly making the link would be ideal but the proposed alternative is far less ambiguous than the previous image. It has a Star of David under the hammer and sickle and the caption reads (I assume) "Bolshevism unmasked". Sometimes we can exercise a bit of judgment of our own and just go with the obvious, although something confirming that this was a prevalent propaganda image might help. N-HH talk/edits 11:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the meaning of the image is obvious. My lack of satisfaction with it is that it seems to be a Nazi image. Isn't it? Everyone knows that Nazis associated Jews and Bolsheviks, so it isn't all that interesting. A Russian one would be lot better for the article. Zero^talk 11:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people associated Marxism with Jews besides the Nazis (mostly because, well - Marx was Jewish). Most conservatives and ultra-conservatives did, including Russian Whites - and Winston Churchill, apparently. The idea even survived the Nazis, manifesting itself (though in somewhat subdued form) during the McCarthyism period, when many Soviet spies turned out to be Jews etc. (such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg). The conspiracy theory far predates Nazism and Nazis.

The idea behind the pentagram is that the Jews are satanists, which was a classic line in the more idiotic streak of ultranationalist propaganda against the Jews. Such as the idea that they drink the blood of gentiles, murder children, etc... And the antisemitic/exaggerated depiction of Trotsky is red because that's the color of communism, the fact that its the colour associated with demons is just a "plus". Imo its silly to think that the offensive "Jew caricature" of the really no.1 historical communist of Jewish descent, in red, can mean anything other than to imply the connection between Jews and communists.

@Dougweller, as far as I can see there's no consensus for removing the image in the first place. Aren't we going at this the other way around? -- Director (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists do not look for evidence and form an opinion, instead they form an opinion and look for evidence. TFD (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh.. ok? What does that have to do with the image? -- Director (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a polite reply to your previous posting, which began, "A lot of people associated Marxism with Jews... (mostly because, well - Marx was Jewish)." Wrong. They associated everything they did not like with Jews, then looked for connections. TFD (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. And what would be the "impolite" answer, I wonder? You know, its one thing to say "this conspiracy theory is wrong", but to say "no fact can possibly contribute to a conspiracy theory" is the same kind of thinking that dreams up these sort of convoluted ideas. So yes, some people, driven by hatred of the Jews and Marxism, thought this thing up. But that does not somehow indicate that the fact that Marx was Jewish didn't greatly contribute to, or even perhaps engender, these ideas among such people. In fact, I doubt that Jewish people would have been included in these sort of theories if there really weren't quite a disproportionate few within Marxist movements. So there one must differentiate between "there was disproportionate representation of Jewish people in communist movements", and "communism is a conspiracy by the Jews to take over the world".

Also, one might say that its only the stupid conspiracy theories that are compounded through such a backward thinking process. Its far from necessary that a "conspiracy theory" be invented by biased or bigoted people. Or even that biased or bigoted people must by necessity use said thinking process in developing such theories. In fact, the sheer law of probability would suggest that at least some of the less-cockamamie theories might even be correct (though I wouldn't say this particular one counts among these). -- Director (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

To get back on subject, I oppose the removal of the image and would like to see the article returned to the status quo ante in this regard. -- Director (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions have been raised and not satisfactorily answered about the image in question. Constructing our own chain of argument about how it might be illustrative of the topic is not good enough. The connection has either got to be uncontroversial and/or reliably evidenced in sources. And if we're going to look at "consensus", I count four people in favour of removing the image, at least for now, one OK with keeping it but also offering an alternative, and only one person unambiguously asking for its retention. WP doesn't work by retaining material whose relevance and accuracy is disputed, simply because it's been there for a long time and someone tries to veto its removal. N-HH talk/edits 18:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should use it without a suitable source tying it explicitly to the article subject. Also, the Chinese in the image are simply going to create confusion in the mind of the average reader. There is no explanation in this article of what the Chinese are doing there it would probably be off-topic to add one. Zero^talk 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We had an image a blind man can see is suitable for the subject - and now we have no lead image. Or perhaps the problem's that its "too suitable"? Call me crazy, but I think we should either replace the file or use the old one. Not diminish the article's quality for the sake of really quite absurd nitpicking objections.

And N-HH, I really don't mean any offense, but I think you're missing just a couple thousand contributions around here before trying to clarify Wikipedia's functionings to me. Though I do thank you for your efforts. -- Director (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have four fairly knowledgeable and, I assume, well-sighted people who dispute the image is necessarily suitable, or are at least asking for a reliable third-party source to confirm the connection. Interpretation of images is an inherently subjective issue. And I'll happily keep explaining how WP works – and pointing out, for example, that "it's obvious to me that this image is fine" is not how WP works – when people seem to be missing the point, however many contributions they have (no offence taken, or intended either btw). N-HH talk/edits 15:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, after discussing it with someone who is very knowledgable in such matters, I'm now reasonably convinced that the artist intended Trotsky to look like a Jew. However, I still think that that interpretation is on the OR side of the barrier between "common sense" and "original research", and I still think the Chinese aspect will make the image more mystifying than informative for non-expert readers. As an example of something on the CS side of the barrier: I wouldn't demand a source to verify that the person in the image is Trotsky, even though (I think) it doesn't name him. Zero^talk 05:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it probably does represent an anti-Semitic caricature (as have most of here of course), but at the same time that it falls the wrong side of the divide you describe. I'd still back the alternative image Soman suggested, which requires a bit less OR interpretation on our part, assuming we can use it (ideally with a source too). I'd argue that the fact that the Nazis are well known for propagating the theory makes it better as a lead image rather being a reason against using it. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to the Nazi image being used, though I might argue for its replacement if a usable Russian one comes along. Zero^talk 09:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lenin was partly Jewish

Please stop removing the edit. The source is Time Magazine. Lenin was partly Jewish. Also the Wikipedia article on Lenin states -- "Lenin's father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, had come from a serf background but had studied physics and maths at Kazan State University before teaching at the Penza Institute for the Nobility.[2] Introduced to Maria Alexandrovna Blank, they married in the summer of 1863.[3] From a relatively prosperous background, Maria was the daughter of a Russian Jewish physician."

So to say that he was not Jewish in this article is a lie. He did have Jewish ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

accuracy of using term "ethnic" jew?

I'm confused about what this means stated throughout this page regarding % of jews in army at different times: Judaism is not an ethnicity - it's a religion, so why different categories? and how do we know accuracy...did russian soldiers who were jewish check a box that said "jew" or "russian"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.191.108 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is ethnicity.--Lute88 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@76.166.191.108: While Judaism is a religion, throughout history Jews have neither intermarried outside of their tribe nor accepted converts in the ways many gentiles have. To that end, some Jews can be considered part of a Semitic ethnic group.

Jews living in places like Russia often retained their distinctive traditions through the Middle Ages and were seen by Europeans as an 'other' outside of European society, hence the pogroms against Jews. Ashkenazim, constructed in the mind of Europeans as an other, sought secular national movements like communism as a means of integration into European gentile society. This article describes those ethnic Jews who, abandoning their religion, embraced communism. While many people around the world have (and still do) espouse socialist beliefs, there was an unusual spike in Marxist tendencies of thinkers like Marx, Engels, etc. that were of Jewish descent. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know where the source gets its numbers. This source says there the CPSU conducted a census in 1922, and there were 964 Jewish members who had joined before 1917. Many people of Jewish ancestry self-identify as ethnically Jewish, even if they are not religious. And yes, it was fairly typical of armies to ask soldiers their names, date and place of birth and religion. Engels was not of Jewish descent and I question a lot else said, but it is not relevant to improving the article. TFD (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions Should clear things up--198.151.130.239 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This Jewish ethnic divisions article actually say the opposite - that there are many Jewish groups, not a single unified one (even if all identify as part of a "Jewish people/nation", there are some obvious cultural or other differences between them). Yuvn86 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New article

See Jews and Communism, seemingly a WP:FORK of what has been discussed at length here. --Soman (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. TFD (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soman. The subject covered in the new article has been "discussed at length" on this talkpage - and the conclusion was that it doesn't belong here. That doesn't make the new article a FORK. In fact, it makes it not a FORK. By definition. The same user who posted the RfC arguing the scope of this article does not extend over that topic - has just nominated the new article for deletion on grounds that its a FORK of this one.. the same article that he argued does not cover the topic. Could I drive this home any more? And the fellow has, along the way, managed to again pretty much accuse an established Wikipedian of being an antisemite. -- Director (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not possible to collaborate on charged topics. That communism had appeal to the Jewish intellectual tradition is a worthwhile topic, as (mis-)representation of that forms the basis for the "Jewish Bolshevism" meme. But as long as this article focuses on the mem, any rational discussion of cultural aspects of communism's appeal--and this would apply to the Latvians as well, for example--needs to be elsewhere. Small "c" for communism would help differentiate, BTW, to avoid editors casting aspersions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I'm sure an impossible-to-dislodge clique will form on the article soon enough, expanding it and controlling its content, discouraging any dissenting voices with unanimous reaction. That's the Wikipedia way :) -- Director (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Germane-ness

There's an issue over the sentence: According to Hannah Arendt, herself the daughter of Jews and the wife of a Marxist, it was "the most efficient fiction of Nazi Propaganda" specifically the issue of how germane the fact that Arendt was the daughter of Jews and the spouse of a Marxist. It would seem to me that this article is about this confluence of ethnic Jews and Marxism and Arendt is another example of this phenomena. I'm not sure if the concern is that including the "daughter of... wife of..." phrase seemingly detracts from her quote or if some editors think this inclusion smacks of pro-Nazi antisemitism. I think it should be included. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

tag and run behavior

68.34.91.226 (talk · contribs) The neutrality of this article has been discussed before. You're welcome to discuss it again, although I recommend you bring reliable sources with you. Otherwise, discontinue using the edit summary to justify tagging the page without defending your charge here. Also, please show me these "standards" you claim we have here at Wikipedia and which ones you think we're violating. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have applied for semi-protection, although there is a backlog. TFD (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do people agree that this article should be semi-protected? I will gladly do it myself, if there is consensus.--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As the article history indicates, there have been a lot of disruptive edits from IPs and new users. I support semi-protection. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is now semi-protected until November. TFD (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The only way to cure the inaccuracies in this article would be to remove it completely, and start from scratch. Literally every paragraph is poisoned with bias. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be edited by people? This reads like an AIPAC member's wet dream from start to finish. Complete revisionist garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.63.45 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain why you have that opinion by showing how it is treated differently in reliable sources, for example books and articles in mainstream publishers. You also need to stop offending other editors. TFD (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You can always discuss issues before being bold

To editor Altenmann: One cannot replace a sourced paragraph with a single unsourced sentence under the claim of "summarizing." Chris Troutman (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not. I moved the sourced paragraph into a separate section. All references are preserved. And the purpose of the intro is exactly summarizing. And intro summary does not need refs, if they are in the article body. -No.Altenmann >t 08:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Altenmann: My mistake. I didn't notice you had moved that content into another section. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Error about Lenin

I would like to add: Though Lenin had Jewish roots.[2] The article as it exists contains a factual error. When I correct the article someone keeps erasing my correction. Why does someone want to preserve this error?!Jimjilin (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you not yet learned how to read the history of the article? The authenticity of the letter is disputed. The source itself wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for this, we'd need an academic book or peer reviewed article. It's also irrelevant. It doesn't make Lenin Jewish, it's simply an allegation that he may be of 1/4 Jewish ancestry. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a hefty academic source for this, a tome by Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, but it would be WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK, as Lenin was only 1/4 Jewish.--Lute88 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

While the suggesiot by the IP is indeed irrelevant in this article, the issue itself would be neiter undue, nor coatrack, if he secondary sources mention that the proponents of "JeBo" tried to exploit Lenin's Jewish roots (and they did), hence direct relevance to this article. -No.Altenmann >t 03:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Now someone thinks mentioning the Jewish roots of the most important Bolshevik leader does not belong in an article about Jewish Bolshevism!Jimjilin (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to explain the relevance of this very important information? 1/4 Jewish, 3/4 something else, please explain the importance of 25% and 75% equally, with sources to back up your claim, and then everyone will understand, not just you. USchick (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read the Petrovsky book, and it makes no mention of JeBo. So much for that.--Galassi (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jimjilin, the article is about "Jewish Bolshevism" not about people with Jewish roots who happened to be Bolsheviks. They are only revlevant to the degree that they are mentioned in Jewish Bolshevism. TFD (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding the same edit that has been rejected on the Talk page. Someone also seems to believe this is not an article about Antisemitic canards, despite the description in the lede and the huge infobox on the right. So please provide sources why Lenin having a grandparent that might have been Jewish is important to this article. Dave Dial (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to archive settings

The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Jewish Bolshevism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

I have changed them to:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Jewish Bolshevism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 7.4 KB I have set the time setting to a relatively moderate 30 days but a higher value might be considered. Gregkaye (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to add that I appreciate that some admin type Wikipedia pages have low level settings in "minthreadsleft" and, in this context, I can understand how a low level setting might have been installed here.
  

In my pov, talk pages like this connect to subjects to which a wide variety of views may be ascribed. It seems to me that adequate space should be given for the address of relevant issues and by a variety of editors. Gregkaye (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

I would request that the line "Scholars dismiss this theory" either be cited or deleted. I'm not arguing that Jewish Bolshevism is not an antisemitic canard, I am arguing that such an authoritative statement demands citation. 71.74.155.212 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Error about 364 Jews

There were acutally 964 Jews. See here: http://books.google.de/books?id=dLdhSUZI-AYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=964+jews+communist+party&source=bl&ots=xY3_70voRk&sig=M_Zwa-PQ7Ecv2HWN6kyc7pd7gXI&hl=de&sa=X&ei=45WAVKK5DIXEPfPDgaAF&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=964%20jews%20communist%20party&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.206.146 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP ARTICLE "Judeo-Bolshevism" TAINTED and RIDICULOUS

This whole article could be called one big euphemism, but it is more than that. It is a play with words, nuances and selected details and facts, that misleads the reader. The one-sided presentation is on the verge of sophistry! As person with relevant knowledge and background, especially that of an academic I find this yellow journalism offensive, even more so when it is presented in Wikipedia which goes under the banner of good encyclopedic standards. This article must been cleaned up! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Let us do it step by step. Which statements you find incorrect or misrepresenting the "relevant knowledge"? Simply shouting "wikipedia is bullshit" will not lead to improvements. BTW, teh article as called "Jewish Bolshevism" -M.Altenmann >t 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be specific. TFD (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

one-sided

A lot of info, but one-sided, if not slanted, because there are good reasons for taking the alliance of Jews with anti-aristocratic movements seriously. They were part of the "democracy" and remain so to this day. While it can be, and has been, argued that they took up money-lending, etc because they were outcasts, they had long been a commercial people, and still largely are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

PLease take a notice that wikipedia talk pages are not the same as "Reader's comments" in blogs. They are intended for discussion of how the article may be improved based on published reliable sources. -M.Altenmann >t 04:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Scholars

The two links to scholars listed after the sentence "Scholars dismiss this theory".[3] [4]. Both link to Jewish owned sites and a Jewish writer. Are there no impartial "scholars"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.31.231 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dismissal of the concept

The sentences "Researchers in the topic, such as Polish philosopher Stanisław Krajewski "[3] or André Gerrits, [4] denounce the concept of "Jewish Bolshevism" as a prejudice. Law professor Ilya Somin agrees, and compares Jewish involvement in other communist countries." Lists three Jewish researchers, are their no impartial? Maybe remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.31.231 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Downplays the evidence

This article downplays the evidence of Jewish involvement in Communism. It shows statistics of mass-party membership and the rubber stamp Congress of Soviets to claim Jews were not overrepresented, but the charge has always been that people of Jewish or partial Jewish descent were the leaders of the Bolsheviks. The first Soviet politburo for example contained four Jews or part-Jews (Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Krestinsky) and one gentile (Stalin). Considering that Jews were only 4% of the Russian Empire's population the chances of 80% of the politburo having a Jewish background by chance alone is nil.

Also, Jewish involvement in other countries Communist Parties is ignored, for example 33% of Communist Party USA Central Committee members were Jewish. Jews were also the primary victims of the McCarthy era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.73.113 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even lenins Jewish Family seems to be forgotten even though he is mentioned in this regard in other places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_people_of_Jewish_descent Eisenstein as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_people_of_German-Jewish_descent

Another point would be that the German Revolution deserves sepparate mention, without jumping straight to nazi germany. It is a cheap oversimplification in order to prove the established conclusion, that it is simply a cheap invention. Many of the leaders of the german revolutionaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319 , including all the most prominent leaders, Luxemburg, Radek, Zetkin, Levin, Levi, and Liebknecht, were of Jewish decent. The Revolution in germany, and the political constilations of the weimar republic deserve mention, it will demonstrate a large amout of jews, that were later harrassed and arrested by the nazis, also in part lending validity to nazi claims,. You might not like that, but noting is born out of a vacume. 77.87.48.144 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.48.144 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 

Many official sources claimed Jewish predominance in the Bolshevik Revolution

Winston Churchill said openly that the Russian revolution was lead by international jews.

The American intelligence officer in Russia at the time, Captain Schuyler, wrote of it official reports: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greatest type..." Link to actual image of the report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Telegram_02a.jpg

"The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution" - David Francis, American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the Revolution - U.S. National Archives

There are numerous other official and mainstream sources from this time period attesting to the Jews' lead role in the Bolshevik Revolution.

It's hard to see how the matter is even controversial with so much historical evidence. 72.73.109.108 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the article? -M.Altenmann >t 05:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You should read the AfD for Jews and Communism. These are obscure sources and only anti-Semitic sources have put them together in that manner. TFD (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I read the article... it's rather ridiculous. You guys are just taking anyone, no matter how prominent, that claimed a Jewish link with Bolshevism and saying it's a "myth" or "anti-semitic".

Of course Schuyler's report is ignored where it was stated that of the total 384 commissars running the Soviet Union, more than 300 were Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Telegram_02a.jpg

I guess official Army intelligence reports must be "anti-semitic" as well. 72.73.121.75 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a source stating that this report is neutral and reliable. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Schuyler's telegram does not make any claims, it merely quotes the anti-Semitic journalist Robert Wilton. Subsequent writers, with the exception of David Duke, Jew Watch and others on the far right, have ignored it. You need reliable sources that corroborate the claim. For that matter, do you have any sources that say there were 384 commissars, or that there were 2 blacks and 15 Chinese?

Schuyler quoted Wilton on the numbers. But this statement is Schuyler's: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greatest type..." That is coming from Army intelligence.

And, by the way, whether or not Robert Wilton has an "anti-Semite" label attached to him, is pretty much irrelevant... actually it is laughably circular in this case as apparently making the claim that Jews were heavily involved Bolshevism makes one automatically anti-Semitic.

Here is another source which repeats Schuyler's claims and adds more:

World Association of International Studies - Stanford.edu

http://wais.stanford.edu/Russia/russia_JewsAndCommunism%28110403%29.html

While Christian Leitz claims that only a few Soviet leaders and official were Jewish, Robert Witton,of The London Times, wrote in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs, that around 1920 no less than 90% of the Soviet regime was composed of Jews. Victor Mardsen, correspondent of The London Morning Post, went further and compiled a list of 545 Bolshevik officials. Of these, according to Mardsen, 454 were Jews. An American Senate subcomittee stated in the Congressional Eecord that by December 1919, under the presidency of the Jew Zinoniev, out of 388 members of the Bolshevik central government 371 were Jews.

More interesting yet are two reports US military intelligence officer Captain Montgomery Schuyler sent to Washington between March and June 1919. According to Schuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews". In addition, "More than 300 Jews are (Bolshevik) commissars. Of this number 264 had come from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial government" (Reportedly these commentaries are available at US National Archives in Washington).

I don't understand what your counter position is. Do you believe it is all a big conspiracy by Army intelligence and journalists to make people believe Bolsheviks were run by Jews?

Anyways these sources seem sufficient. (Though I doubt any amount of sources will matter to the editors of this article.) 72.73.111.191 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another prominent source, David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister:

"The Germans were equally alive to the fact that the Jews of Russia wielded considerable influence in Bolshevik circles.The Zionist Movement was exceptionally strong in Russia and America. The Germans were, therefore, engaged actively in courting favour with that Movement all over the world. A friendly Russia would mean not only more food and raw material for Germany and Austria, but fewer German and Austrian troops on the Eastern front and, therefore, more available for the West. These considerations were brought to our notice by the Foreign Office, and reported to the War Cabinet. "

David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1939; chapter XXIII, pg.724

Is he also part of the anti-Semitic conspiracy? 72.73.111.191 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter whether conspiracy or stupidity. A politician may utter any opinion. A scientist needs proof. And wikipedia needs references to researched proofs, not to random blurbs of politicians. So far the consensus is that the influence of the Jews is exaggerated. I.e. no, it is not Anti-semitic conspiracy, it is a n i=anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. -M.Altenmann >t 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think the article should say the Jews are behind the Bolshevik revolution, you need secondary sources that say that. Of course you can find lots of people that said that, but what acceptance do those views have? TFD (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have 2 British prime ministers, a U.S. Ambassador to Russia, American Military Intelligence, and several prominent journalists all converging on the position that Jewish elements were dominating the Bolshevik movement. More than enough sources to legitimize the claim.

Look at your sources for "dismissal of the concept"... you have a "Polish philosopher" and a Law professor. And that is supposed to trump the aforementioned. Laughable. 72.73.111.191 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A professor trumps an ambassador in some areas (and vice versa). Please read the wikipedia rules how to identify reliable sources. -M.Altenmann >t

This is a bit of a ridiculous discussion. The "sources" listed here show us that some contemporary observers, most of whom were relative outsiders towards what they were talking about, repeated antisemitic claims about Jewish Bolshevik influence. Today's historians, triangulating an array of sources, are able to give us a better account of whether this was true or not. For example, Churchill's newspaper article and Lloyd George's memoirs need to be read in the context of what sources they had access to about what was going on in Russia, the antisemitic common senes of the time, and ideas of racial nationalism that British politicians embraced in the period. This has been discussed by several historians, such as Sharman Kadish and James Renton, and it would be better to use well-researched secondary sources in this article than for us to attempt to provide an amateur synthesis WP:SYN of original research WP:OR based on unreliable internet reproductions of contemporary primary texts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, and although the relevant section could probably be expanded[3], CHurchill already has 3 paragraphs in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am the guy putting in the Yuri Slezkine/Hillel Halkin link from Commentary Magazine, the right-wing Jewish magazine. Yuri and Hillel are both Jewish. The statistic about Jews making up a disproportionate amount of the Bolshevik leadership is coming from them. So I really don't think it's anti-Semitic.Shaco77 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories as much a matter of how one frames the question as of statistics

The article seems to center on statistical data: What percentage of Bolsheviks were Jewish? How does that compare with the proportion of Jews in the general population?

It seems to me a crucial component is missing, namely noting that the central point of the conspiracy theorists is that these were not just individuals who happened to be Jewish, they were part of an organized Jewry who were acting in a concerted manner according to a plan to advance some sort of global Jewish enterprise.

This is a kind of sleight of hand. The passage from Jewish individuals to an organized global Jewish enterprise is only implicitly (not to say subliminally) suggested, never explicitly stated, let alone proven. Yet this particular spin is the central element of those conspiracy theories.

If someone started counting baldies or redheads among Bolsheviks and then based on that put forward a theory that Bolshevism was a "baldy" or "redhead" conspiracy, one wouldn't necessarily answer such theories by just counting baldies and redheads in turn and showing that the conspiracy theorists actually overestimated the number of baldies or redheads.

One would counter them by showing that the idea of a group of people somehow acting together in a concerted manner just because they all happen to be bald or have red hair is silly to begin with, or at least requires proof.

Why is this missing here?

No sources?

Contact Basemetal here 19:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Squarely WP:SYNTH.--Galassi (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Squarely WP:SYNTH". Pretty surreal. Don't know what else to say. Contact Basemetal here 23:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the Jewish religious concepts of tzedekah, gemilut hasadim, and tikkun olam kind of revolutionary/radical/progressive? My view is that Jewish people who became Communists did so by taking out God from their religious equation, but still continued to pursue the mitzvots of Judaism in their own way. Redheads and baldies don't have that religious background that followers of Judaism have, or in this case, former followers of Judaism have.Shaco77 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And so it follows all Jews act in a concerted, organized manner, that "the Jews" are some kind of conspiratorial organization, right?

I feel like this whole page's premise has an anti-Semitic feeling to it, so I can understand the hostility to its existence. But I still think people should be made aware of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik movement, just like how Jewish Americans like Philip Weiss talk about Jewish membership in the Democratic Party. We can talk about Jewish participation in the Bolshevik movement in a respectful way, it doesn't have to automatically be a slander.Shaco77 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a special place to read and write about this: History of the Jews in Russia, section "Jews in the revolutionary movement", and others, which put the question into an overall historical context. This article is about a conspiracy theory -M.Altenmann >t 02:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

lithuanian antisemitic image

File:Nazi Lithuanian poster.JPG. Some time ago I added a more detailed translation of poster's text (what was readable to me) in the image page. You may see that the poster is antisemitic and says that jews and bolsheviks acted in concert, but it does not "equate" stalinism with jews. neither it suggests that bolshevism is a jewish invention. Therefore I conclude the picture has no direct relevance to article subject. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Eh, it's quite obvious that the poster is combining anti-semitic and anti-communist discourse. Clearly relevant for the article. --Soman (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How this combining is relevant to the article subject, i.e. to the idea that communsim is Jewish conspiracy? It is quite possible to have two completely unrelated enemies. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Would you say the same for the Trotsky image used in this article as well, then? – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Trotsky is both a Jew and a Bolshevik leader, i.e., a trump card, a "poster boy" :-) for "Judeobolshevism". - üser:Altenmann >t 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed the discussion. So why was this relevant image removed from the article back then, if you seem to agree here to include it? Zezen (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dismissal of concept

Is it correct to write of the concept being "dismissed" by researchers 'in' the topic who denounce the concept of "Jewish Bolshevism" as a prejudice? The suggestion that they 'denounce' the concept indicates a degree of bias and prejudice. Surely there are also researchers who are undecided or find the theory proven. As a very large number of revolutionaries were jewish, it is at least arguable that the revolution would not have occurred without them.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct. I fixed it to criticism. Also, the blurb says "This paper studies the problem of Jews, communism and Jewish communists, primarily with a Jewish audience in mind.." so heavily POV. Zezen (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to examine the source, so I don't have an opinion on it. However, all sources are written with some audience in mind. It isn't an argument against reliability or balance to say that something was written for a Jewish audience. It might just refer to what background knowledge the writer assumes of the readers. There is no reason that a perfectly scholarly and balanced article can't be written for a Jewish audience. If you want to argue against the balance, you need better reasons. Zero^talk 08:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You are convinced me again Zero, and thank you for your civility (I noticed you've been editing since 2004, so kudos). I left the source, but added a verbatim quote about the background and the target audience, to alert the readers. Please note that already the books' blurb somehow disclaims the purport of this article ("antisemitic canard" in the lead, by now removed for better NPOV), and the publisher "Covenant" is not "perfectly scholarly" academic:

A quarterly journal, Covenant is delivered free via email to subscribers worldwide, who may read articles on screen or print them out. Contributions deal with the modern world, culture, history, politics, and religion, and include up to date reporting on situations around the world, as well as fiction from Jewish writers both known and unknown. Covenant is interested in both topical and thematic contributions, discussed in accessible and engaging ways. ... Covenant is aimed at a general but sophisticated audience, Jews seeking new ideas about the world, and answers to questions that press on us in old and new ways. source
Zezen (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, here is this professor's scope of Academia public publications: maths, logic and Holocaust.Zezen (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Moskovskiy Komsomolets

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

• Trotsky was also a member (or "Narkom") of the ruling Council of People's Commissars.

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

References

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

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

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

This number 7.1% has been brought up before. I don't know what they're looking at this time, but last time it was a calculation error. Please post the entire paragraph of text and not just a broken link. USchick (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot post the entire paragraph (I assume you mean from Mos Kom article by Deutsch/Deitsch?) since I cannot locate it. As you said, the link is broken. The point I was making is that using the article to support the numbers seems like a misuse of a source, since the article in question appeared to be about Solzhenitsyn and his work (Two Hundred Years Together), and only tangentially about demographic composition of the communist party in revolutionary Russia. This source, in turn, cannot be located and what it said is not known.

If I were to handle it, I would remove the source (Deutsch/Deitsch) and replace the references with . If better source cannot be provided, these statements then should be removed. But this seems like a contentious area, I wanted to post about this on the Talk page first. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean you K.e.coffman, the person who wants to use it needs to post the entire paragraph from the original source. The article is an opinion piece and not considered a reliable source. USchick (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I did locate the article in question by doing a Russian language google search. As the Sputnik News said, it is a harshly critical review of Two Hundred Years Together and has no place being the source of the numbers cited in the Jewish Bolshevism article.

In Russian: Бесстыжий классик: Александр Солженицын как зеркало русской ксенофобии by Марк Дейч. The author appears as Mark Deutch in English Wikipedia.

Deutch is a critic of the "Jewish Bolshevism" canard and his use in the context of supporting the numbers is inappropriate. Once the dust settles on the "Trotsky poster" edit wars and there's a stable version of the article, I will remove this source. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Trotsky as narkom is a hard fact, reference should be easy to replace. %% does require assurance that it comes from scholarly source. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Being critical review has nothing to do with source reliability. Especially if the review is busy with nailing down factual errors. This would, in part, mean due diligence with facts for critique to hold, if the critic is not stupid. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• .. and in this particular case Deutch cites his source (and since he does this, we may consider him reliable source as well), and our footnote may be written as "Deutch....., citing Д.А.Чугаев, «Коммунистическая партия — организатор СССР". - üser:Altenmann >t 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (quote: В 1922 году «гвардейцев» было 44148 человек. Из них подавляющее большинство — русские (65%). Евреев же — 3146 (7,1%). («гвардейцев»=Bolshevik Old Guard, i.e pre-Ocrober 1917 bolsheviks))
• At the same time these numbers contradict Kara-murza, discussed in the talk section below, who alse speaks of pre-Ocrober numbers. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So instead of citing an exact percentage in the article, would it be more appropriate to say that the exact number is contradictory? USchick (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Sergey Kara-Murza

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

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

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

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

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

you need sources which say that to do this. I don't know what kind of scientist Karamurza is, but he expresses a popular observation that a high number of buzzword Russian oligarchs are Jews: Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Alex Konanykhin, Mikhail Fridman, Anatoly Chubais, Vladimir Gusinsky, Vitaly Malkin, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich, Alexander Abramov, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Fridman, Mikhail Prokhorov, Alisher Usmanov, German Khan, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonid Michelson, Vagit Alekperov, Pyotr Aven, Len Blavatnik, Eugene Shvidler, Alexander Knaster, Konstantin Kagalovsky - do Jew-counting (no article for this redlink???) yourself. Compare with Ukrainian oligarchs - üser:Altenmann >t 16:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Popular observations without any explanations are not very helpful. I could also make the observation that Jews were driven out of Ukraine in large numbers, and the ones who were left in Ukraine had access to Jewish friends and relatives all over the world, and that's why they were more successful than the Ukrainian oligarchs who didn't have as much access to the outside world. Connectivity works all the time everywhere, just like the Internet, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand this. Here's a source that explains Jewish connectivity of micro-regions in the Mediterranean basin [4]. I'm sure it works the same way in the modern world, except faster. USchick (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Medieval antisemitism explains how Jews throughout history were restricted by law to do only tax collecting and money lending. So why is it a surprise that they are bankers? USchick (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

He seems to be a scholar, so his views are relevant. I support moving it to Works propagating Jewish Bolshevism canard. However, an academic study of his would be a better source than a book of his personal opinions. USchick (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of scholar his is, or how prominent he is. His English wiki page is rather mild compared to the Russian version. For example, I linked off to a critique by Mikhail Veller offered here (this is a progressive radio station, but nothing rabid-anti-communist about it) -- http://echo.msk.ru/blog/weller_michael/633070-echo/, where Veller refers to him as "a professional liar, a paid KGB snitch and a pro-Soviet propagandist for hire." He also refers to him as a "crazy toxicologist", (I assume) alluding to his initial education as a chemist.

I personally would not feel comfortable putting him into the article, even as a representative of the canard, because I know nothing about him or his work. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Mikhail Veller's background, I can see why he would say that, and that's why there's currently a war. Let's see what other editors say. USchick (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Sergey Kara-Murza is not the best source on these numbers. If anyone can provide a better source which provides the same, please do. However, simply removing the source with numbers would not be justified. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. My proposal: (1) Keep the content as is for now; (2) Remove Kara-Murza as source; (3) Add to the statement being supported by the Kara-Murza work. Works? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Trotsky image

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

• https://books.google.com/books?id=BIiiAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA460&dq=trotsky+%22jewish+bolshevism%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigy63jjaXJAhWHMIgKHdTcBYIQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=trotsky%20%22jewish%20bolshevism%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
• "trotsky... symbol of jewish bolshevism

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

I appreciate the links. They talk about Trotsky representing Jewish Bolshevism. I wouldn't mind a photo of Trotsky if someone wants to make that comparison. My question is specific to this poster. It's not discussed in the article an it's not clear what it's supposed to illustrate. Can you please explain? USchick (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this for the image caption?

• Representative of the attitudes held by those who subscribe to the Jewish Bolshevism canard, this White movement propaganda poster from the Russian Civil War era (1919) depicts a caricature of Leon Trotsky as a red devil wearing the Star of David. Below him are Chinese soldiers with braids and blue and gold uniforms.

Since this article is about a conspiracy theory, it may be relevant to include the imagery used by the followers of the theory in question. I don't feel strongly one way or another, but I believe the suggested caption above explains what the poster is doing in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Star of David is not what he's wearing. Therefore the confusion about what this poster represents from people who aren't reading what the poster actually says. It's a statement against Sovdepiya, just like this poster File:WorkerSovdepiya.jpg and has nothing to do with Jews. To make the claim that this poster relates to something Jewish, a source would be most helpful. USchick (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry about my mistake. I see that he's wearing a 'red star' (symbol of the revolution). But then my question - was the star made intentionally to look like the Star of David? I'm leaving towards that theory, as the red stars were never worn in such manner. (If you do a google image search for "star of david on chain" you get a lot of hits in jewelry; google "red star on chain" and you get nothing).

Revised suggested caption:

• Representative of the attitudes held by those who subscribe to the Jewish Bolshevism canard, this White movement propaganda poster from the Russian Civil War era (1919) depicts a caricature of Leon Trotsky as a red devil. Note that the red star (symbol often associated with communist ideology) he is wearing around his neck is stylized to resemble the Star of David. Below him are Chinese soldiers with braids and blue and gold uniforms.

In any case, this is beginning to look like conjecture, so I would let people more experienced with the subject comment.--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the words on the poster, it's propaganda against Sovdepia. If there's a scholarly source that claims a different message, let's see the source please. USchick (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, that's propaganda against Sovdepia - the poster says "Peace and freedom in Sovdepia" and depicts a "judeo-bolshevik devil" and "asiatic hordes" killing White (?) soldiers, at least that's how it looks to me.

Here's what I was able to find on the connection between "Sovdepia" and "Judeo Bolshevism" (although not specifically Trotsky): The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, 1978 - the statement is footnoted to another source, which I cannot see.

This one comes directly from the timeframe in question: 1920 book by George Gustav Telberg The Last Days of the Romanovs. I believe his bona fides as a nationalist (& prob a virulent anti-semite) can be established by the recommendation of his work alongside Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth, and Disbandment by John C. Lester, Daniel Love Wilson on a white supremacy forum. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PS - Trotsky also mentioned in the Telberg book, including a statement of him being more powerful than Lenin.

PPS - In any case, I don't feel strongly about the inclusion (or not) of this poster in the article. I was interesting (for me personally) to find such "Judeo-Bolshevik" messaging from the timeframe of the Russian civil war. I had previously assumed it was more of a Nazi Germany concept. I'm neutral on the subject of this particular poster itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You have a source that says the poster represents "sovdepia" (which means areas under Communist control) and another sources that says some people thought the Communists were Jews and conclude the poster represents the Communists as Jews. Maybe that was the message in the poster, but you need a reliable source that makes the connection. And again, we do not even know if the subject is supposed to be Trotsky. TFD (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct; I don't have specific arguments for having this poster in the article. I'm neither pro or against keeping it the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sovdepia" is a very derogatory term. The language used on the poster is not Russian. Ukrainian? The message on both posters is about slavery, Jews, Russians, European (all outsiders) pose a threat because they will conquer and enslave the local population. There may be other references tying Jews to Communists, but there is no such reference in this poster. USchick (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI - the language in the poster is Russian, in the pre-reform orthography. See more details here: The post-revolution reform. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks! So the meaning is even less clear about who is the intended audience for this propaganda. The only thing for sure is that they will all become slaves. USchick (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the use of the pre-reform orthography does not change the meaning. I read it as: the so-called "Peace and Freedom in Sovdepia" means death, enslavement and "godliness." As you said, the "Judeo-Bolshevik" connection is less clear. Re: orthography -- poster may have been printed prior to the reform having taken place. More likely explanation is that the White forces continued to use the old orthography for a while, since it was a "communist reform". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the meaning written on the poster does not change. However, if this poster was used in different locations, the local population would have different reactions to it, ranging form being mildly annoyed to organizing a local defense army. So how the poster was being used becomes increasingly important. USchick (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If following the wikilawyering logic you applied to trotsky's poster, we cannot. Stalinism is not the same as Bolshevism. Also the statement that Stalin and Jews are in the same band of scum does not mean they are the the same. Compare: "Nazists and fascists are the same band of scum". 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source for this one. And that article provides no sources that refer to Jewish Bolshevism. I do not know if the Stalinism ≠ Bolshevism is accurate, but its a possible objection and we would require a source that determines that the poster falls within "Jewish Bolshevism." TFD (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

In case you didn't notice I started this conversation and still talking. Would you like to remember that some people, even former wikiholics have real life, and sometimes Q&A may take time. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As for Trotsky image, I provided references, including in image caption, which say, in most direct way possible, that Trotsky is a prime example of the idea of Jewish Bolshevism. I find it ridiculous that someone disputes that this is a picture of Trotsky, but I don't care to argue. Just put your favorite photo of Trotsky instead. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian poster: this is me who provided translation (partial; lazy) of the poster from Lithuanian and I can assure you that the whole text blames Stalinist atrocities in Lithuania on Jews. Ie, the poster is 100% anti-Semitic. However nowhere in this poster there is a direct indication that Jews are blamed for Communism/Bolshevism/ etc. We know Nazis do this. But not in this poster. Finally, please notice this poster is non-free, and it will be impossible to apply wikipedia fair use policy to use it in this article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I restored the long-standing image. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes absolutely what? You can't just tag-team without explaining. Everyone including Altenmann agreed to the photo instead of a poster. USchick (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tag-teaming with whom? Please explain. My reading of the discussion above is that there is no consensus to remove the image, and it is in the public domain, hence it can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read it again. You are the only one insisting on the poster. Everyone else has agreed that the photo is more appropriate. USchick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The poster is a MUCH better illustration of the concept in question, and the straightforward photo lends undue weight to the canard.--Galassi (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please explain how this poster relates to something Jewish. USchick (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind using the poster if some sort of context can be established for it. I found sources that provide context. Does anyone have a problem with these sources? [5], [6][7] [8]. USchick (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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

See also section

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

See also section

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

Solzhenitsyn

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

Here's a review from Sputnik News:

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

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

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

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

Are there any sources which describe the book as "Works propagating the Jewish Bolshevism canard"? - üser:Altenmann >t 03:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Regardless, Sputnik News is a non-neutral source for this question. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

PPS. Sorry, I didn't notice your second part. It is widely recognized that this book of Solzhenitsyn is not a reliable reference, to put it mildly. So I am removing it from the recommended reading. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Books should not be mentioned unless academic sources say they are primarily about promoting the Jewish Bolshevism theory. TFD (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal from Further Reading which Altenmann has already implemented. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

After glancing at this thread I can only assume that if a book makes an indisputable argument that most top Bolsheviks were Jews, then you don't want to hear about it. Perhaps you should follow the Soviet example of destroying any documents that aren't to your liking.71.174.127.111 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

""Most top" is nonsense measure. In any case, for serious research in Jewish involvement in Russian Revolution, we have an article "History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union", while the the article "Jewish Bolshevism is about a conspiracy theory. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

"Esau's Tears" quote

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

“ The Red Terror—a Jewish terror?

In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population.

The pattern of employing non-Slavic ethnic minorities in the Cheka was duplicated in many other areas of Russia. George Leggett, the most recent and authoritative historian of the Russian secret police, speculates that the use of outsiders may have been a conscious policy, since such “detached elements could be better trusted not to sympathize with the repressed local population.”

It is instructive that the high percentage of Jews in the secret police continued well in the 1930s, when the population of Jews gradually diminished in most other areas of the Soviet and party cadres. The extent to which both Cheka and Gestapo leaders prided themselves in being an elite corps, characterized by unyielding toughness—unmoved by sympathy for their often innocent victims and willing to carry out the most stomach-turning atrocities in the name of an ideal—is striking.

The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking. These many Jewish terrorists helped to nurture, even when they killed Jewish Chekists, the belief that Jews, especially once they had broken from the confines of their traditional faith, turned naturally to fanaticism and anarchistic destructiveness.

An even more important institution than the Cheka in defending the revolution was the Red Army, and, again, Jews played a key role in its leadership.

Trotsky fascinated a broad public inside and outside Russia. In Hungary, a Jewish observer who was in fact hostile to the Bolsheviks nonetheless write: “The evolutionary flame which has burned beneath the surface of world history is now blazing up for the first time in a Jewish genius: Leo Trotsky!” According to Paul Johnson,

It was Trotsky who personally organized and led the armed uprising which actually overthrew the Provisional Government and placed the Bolsheviks in power. It was Trotsky who created the Red Army, and who ensured the physical survival of the new Communist regime during the Civil War.

Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied; Johnson’s views even if exaggerated, underline how powerful and durable has been the mystique around Trotsky’s name. He was second to Lenin, but a strong second. There was no Jew in modern times, at least until the creation of the state of Israel, to rival him.

It has been claimed that the actual proportion of Jews in top party and state positions in the 1930s did not notably drop from the 1920s. However, “visible” Jewish leaders, comparable to Trotsky, Zinoviev, or Uritsky, diminished in numbers and would continue to do so in subsequent years, so that by the mid-twentieth century there were almost no Jews among the highest officials in the Soviet Union.

To state the obvious, Jews were never purged explicitly as Jews in the Soviet Union, and millions survived the worst years of Stalin’s terror.

”

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

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

MCMeekin

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

According to the reference section McMeekin is McMeekin, Sean (2012). The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power. Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0674064324 He is a well known historian who for some reason has an article on de.wiki bipartisan not here. BUT I hadn't realised that the original wording was the wording I reverted, although it still sounds wrong. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds weird either way, and "Zionism role" sounds like an outright innuendo.--Lute88 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you read the pages referenced (and those immediately preceding them) in the source originally quoted in the article (McMeekin):

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

Where does it say that Zionism has a role in the war?.--Lute88 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

see above ** so closely aligning German Zionists with the war effort ** Clivemacd (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Aligning with is not the same thing as a role in. The latter implies a lot of things contrary to the nature of this article.--Lute88 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipedia articles have a 'nature', but if they do, the nature of the article has to be driven by the facts/evidence/sources, not the other way round. It's difficult to argue that Zionism had no role when the President of the German Zionist federation is making political proposals to the German General Staff and to the foreign ministry (McMeekin, p344), which result in them taking specific actions (the leaflet drop - p345), albeit actions which Bodenheimer immediately regretted, but if the word 'role' is causing a problem, I propose the alternative 'activities' instead, thus 'A recent history of the activities of Islamic jihad and European Zionism in World War I....' The text 'A recent history of the intended use of world religions' is opaque and inaccurate for the reasons previously stated.Clivemacd (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Recent edit by IP

Since they are refusing to open a section, which is simple, I have done so. Please discuss your edits here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks i don't want to revert this but someone does, they didn't say why and now its being deleted, what should i do know, do i make a complaint? or report them?

this is the change i made

Bolshevik Party, they held important posts in the leadership and were close associates of Lenin.

thanks 91.125.132.147 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

First of all, you should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your current behavior is disruptive, and you're one step away from a block. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for stealing the words out of my mouth Favonian. I'll ping the initial user in a moment and I'll look at the edit in a moment as well. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi i read that an it says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see)." but there was nothing on talk page and no reason given thanks91.125.132.147 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks i don't want to revert this but someone does, they didn't say why and now its being deleted, what should i do know, do i make a complaint? or report them?

this is the change i made

"In April 1917, three of the nine members of the Central Committee were Jews: Kamenev, Zinovyev and Sverdlov so despite the relatively small number of Jews in the Bolshevik Party, they held important posts in the leadership and were close associates of Lenin." and then a link i copied from the screen to The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority- Cambridge University

I was reading The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust and google sent me to this wikipedia page which had a link to it, the book The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority- Cambridge University is referenced by Herf and is the source for your reference " According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jew"

i thought it was interesting and so edidted the article, mainly copy and pasting. Then it got deleted and nobody said why and i couldn't understand if i was meant to argue against myself? or seomthing thanks 91.125.132.147 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)