Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The article logic is is upside down

An important historical consideration is completely missing.

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

I missed this post, but I agree with you completely. This is mostly anti-communist propaganda. The most historically significant use of this theme was during Operation Barbarossa as a pseudo-rationale for invading the Soviet Union. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Biased and Buzzworded Intro

I heavily question the language used in the introduction of the article. Not only is 'canard' a very loaded word, but it is also grossly inaccurate when describing the Bolsheviks that did indeed at least have significant Jewish elements as the article itself goes on to state.

"Over-representation of a group in a political movement does not prove either that the movement was "dominated" by that group or that it primarily serves that group’s interests. The idea that communist oppression was somehow Jewish in nature is belied by the record of communist regimes in countries like China, North Korea, and Cambodia, where the Jewish presence was and is minuscule."

This quote itself shows that the Jewish group was indeed over-represented and this is admitted by somebody who is heavily biased the other way. Not all Communist movements are Jewish, clearly, but the Bolshevik party did indeed feature a significant amount of Jewish elements.

Edit: Would also like to raise a question about the omission of key information about the nine key members of the early party - of particular interest are Kamenev, Sverdlov, and Zinovyev.

TorontonianOnlines (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Lev Kamenev was from a mixed parentage background; half-Russian, half-Jewish, never belonged to Judaism and attended non-Jewish Russian education establishments. He was exactly the same percentage Russian as he was Jewish (50%), so how do we get to randomly decide that he is not a Russian? Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If he is 50% Jewish and 50% Russian, he is as Jewish as he is Russian, therefore showing that Jewish involvement in Bolshevism is indeed legitimate, in this case specifically.

TorontonianOnlines (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the theory Anti-Communist or Anti-Semitic?

The main aim of this theory is to attempt to discredit the Russian Revolution and Marxist-Leninism by claiming that it was all secretly a "Jewish conspiracy" and that all the non-Jewish revolutionaries (ie - the majority of the participants) were simply "Jewish pawns" or something along those lines. The main purpose of this theme is not to just attack Jews (who are attacked under numerous other conspiracy theories anyway) but as an apologia for the reactionary Tsarist regime and to try and somehow cast a shadow over the real gains the working-class made under the Soviet Union. Even in the 1950s, where there were very few (ethnic) Jews involved in the Soviet government, crude red scare propaganda tried to somehow suggest it was all "Jewish controlled". The article does not mention anywhere how this is just a lazy form of anti-communism, a lowest common denominator card that reactionary anti-communists play to avoid addressing the theoretical basis of Marxist-Leninism. IMO the article needs to be re-written to address how this is mainly anti-communist. - Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that? It's part of a larger theory, the international Jewish conspiracy, that pre-dates Bolshevism and has outlasted it. TFD (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a vast oversimplification of the available historical sources - but a real answer to this question may be too complex for Wikipedia - I don't know if there is an established scholarly consensus on this question: it's complicated Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential secondary source

Before I start reading it: do people consider this a citable source? https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine-ebook/dp/B005646E32/ I would expect so. Yuri Slezkine is a respected mainstream academic. Franzboas (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Is Jewish Bolshevism really just a "canard"?

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

As I said, major changes need agreement. My views aren't that relevant, and I can't recall if I was even part of the discussion that led to the consensus on this. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The change I made wasn't a major one. Wikipedia isn't supposed to report Wikipedians' consensus view of what the truth is. Instead, we are supposed to summarize the views held by the literature. As it stands this article is disseminating blatant disinformation by labeling this a "canard". I am not the only one who thinks this is not a canard. Look at these two edits: [1] [2] Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of these edits were made by IPs, who have made no other edits at all to Wikipedia. They hardly constitute a new consensus. RolandR (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia doesn't report Wikipedians' consensus view of the truth. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The term canard means "an unfounded rumor or story," which is an accurate description. That the Jews planned and executed the Russian Revolution and then proceeded to dominate international Communism enjoys no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What about Kevin MacDonald? Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And it's a fact that there are many racists who think Jews control the world. Some of them edit here as IPs, some get accounts and rant using repulsive language. One was blocked last week. That doesn't affect this. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't about Jews controlling the world. It's about Jewish culpability for Communism. Yasmo3333 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And you've completely missed my point. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is? Yasmo3333 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory that has been brought up and disregarded here (as it should be) more times than I can count. This is an old Nazi propaganda line (see Bartov, Hitler's Army, 1991) that has never died - just like the bogus Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "Leuchter Report" are still cited by the fringe. GAB^gab 16:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• @Yasmo3333: Please explain your understanding your difference of "antisemitic canard" vs. "antisemitic theme". - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• @GeneralizationsAreBad: Please explain your understanding your difference of "antisemitic canard" vs. "antisemitic conspiracy theory". - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• which scholarly scholarly sources describe it as 'canard' or 'conspiracy theory'? - üser:Altenmann >t 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Kevin B. MacDonald in the The Occidental Quarterly writes, "A persistent theme among critics of Jews—particularly those on the pre-World War II right—has been that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was dominated by Jews." He provides Adolf Hitler among others as a proponent of this view. He then says, "This long tradition stands in sharp contradiction to the official view...." It could be that the official view is wrong, but Wikipedia policy says that we treat it as right, just as we do in articles about evolution, climate change, the moon landing and reptilian shape-shifters. If you think Wikipedia articles should explain what really happened rather than what standard textbooks tell us what happened, you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/kevin-macdonald . --Galassi (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is clear MacDonald is being sarcastic when he says the "official view". Read the remainder of the article. Yasmo3333 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

He says the "official view" is "promulgated by Jewish organizations and almost all contemporary historians." How is he being sarcastic when he says that? Does he actually mean that almost all modern historians do not hold that view? TFD (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And just because MacDonald says it is the official view does not mean that it actually is the official view. If we trusted everything he says then we'd have to also trust his view that the Jews actually are responsible for Communism. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't have a problem with saying that such-and-such source says that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard. What I have a problem with is stating it as if it is the commonly accepted truth and without ascribing it to any particular source. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You wrote, "Take a look at this and tell me if you still think this is a canard." If the author is saying that his views are not accepted by mainstream historians then you cannot use his article as a source for his opinions. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If MacDonald's article is not a reliable source then you have no reason to mention it. We say that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard because no reliable sources say otherwise. TFD (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Saying it is widely considered a antisemitic canard would be one thing, but stating that it is one (i.e. a "false belief or rumor") inherently lacks neutrality.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

See Explanation of the neutral point of view: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." TFD (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, let's take a look at that: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." While this belief can't be proven, it can't necessarily be disproven. Nor is it our place to attempt such a thing, but rather to neutrally describe notable beliefs, while clearly expressing the majority view on the matter.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Jewish Bolshevism, also known as Judeo-Bolshevism, asserts that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks. It is widely considered an antisemitic canard." or "Jewish Bolshevism (also known as Judeo-Bolshevism), which is widely considered an antisemitic canard, asserts that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks."; Either of those would remedy the issue at hand.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: This is hardly an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion". Yasmo3333 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"...widely considered" is euphemistic and creates the impression of doubt far beyond what's supported by reliable sources. It should, as it currently does, simply say it's a canard without bending over backwards to accommodate unnamed fringe perspectives. Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: If the views this article describes was based on "unnamed fringe perspectives" (not to conflate what you said, but draw a parrelel; otherwise this should be called something along the lines of "Criticism of Jewish Bolshevism", which would have its own policy based problems, but I'm not going to get into that) then we wouldn't describe them, and this article wouldn't exist. Wikipedia's voice should not state that controversial theories/beliefs are true or false. However, it should very clearly state the level of acceptance, and the evidence or lack thereof to support them.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What WP:FRINGE get's at is that we clearly state the level of acceptance by using plain language. That's what the article does by saying it's a canard, and equivocating would be misrepresenting that level of acceptance. There is a difference between "fringe" and "controversial". Fringe perspectives are by definition characterized by the vast majority of sources as being wrong, so that's how we treat them. Presenting it as "controversial" only legitimizes the fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the leads at of any of the examples that guideline gives of notable fringe theories. We don't call any of them patently false, which is what canard does. Saying it is "widely considered" an antisemitic canard wouldn't be equivocating, it would be maintaining the neutral point of view of Wikipedia. Furthermore, "canard" is a rather obscure English word, so the plain language argument doesn't really apply anyway.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard is an established term with its own sourced article. Comparisons to other articles are rarely productive, and those examples were selected to explain notability guidelines, which has nothing to do with this discussion. That said, all of those examples, in different ways as appropriate, make their lack of acceptance clear. None of those arbitrarily selected examples strain to give credibility to proponents of the theories they describe. I see no benefit to your proposed change, as it would introduce exactly such a strain for no real benefit. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I did not see support for the removal of "canard" from the hatnote, unless I'm mistaken. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My reasons are clearly explained in edit summary: Bundism cannot possibly confused with Communism, therefore this dab hatnote is misplaced. Not to say it is false: Bundism is hardly the main article about involvement of the Jews in Russian revolution. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Good question! Anyone? Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yasmo3333, if you do not think it is uncontested, please provide a reliable source where it is contested. TFD (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Kevin MacDonald. See his book The Culture of Critique, preface and Chapter 3 for example. Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources, as requested: Jeffrey Herf notes in Holocaust and Genocide Studies how the concept of "Jewish Bolshevism" was part of a grand conspiracy theory invoked in Nazi propaganda: "[Nazi propaganda] presented the [D-day] invasion as further proof that a world Jewish conspiracy was directing the war and that Roosevelt and Churchill were Stalin’s dupes in a “Jewish-Bolshevik plot” to dominate Europe..." (59). Behrends says much the same: "Goebbels went on to read a long list of crimes that he attributed to Soviet Russia’s rulers and their communist allies abroad... he set out to convince the German population and the European public that the Comintern was a 'Jewish conspiracy.' The speech showed Nazism’s proclivity for viewing the world in conspiratorial terms... With the construction of “Jewish Bolshevism,” internal and external threats could be fused and the leadership’s conspiratorial perspective on politics could be promoted... The USSR was now portrayed as one part of a global conspiracy of Jews against Germany." Gerrits: "Few historians would deny that 'Jewish Communism,' a variant of the 'Jewish World Conspiracy,' has been one of the most powerful and destructive myths in early-20th century Europe... [It] was a powerful and persistent myth." Bartov, as cited above, has some good detail on how this thought spread to the Wehrmacht. GAB^gab 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And we're not citing McDonald as if he were an established academic churning out books we should accept as reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some interesting quotes:

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

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

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

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

Kevin B. MacDonald isn't a reputable academic historian or any other kind of reliable source. Not even close. Treating him as such is a dead end and a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald, professor of psychology at Cal State University, is the leading authority on Jews and anti-semitism.Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

MacDonald's self-published book Culture of Critique is not a reliable source. Furthermore, his opinions are not accepted in the mainstream, which he himself says. None of the other sources support your claim. They are merely recounting what some conspiracy theorists believe, not endorsing them. TFD (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The book isn't self-published -- it's published by Praeger! Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Conservatives throughout Europe and the United States believed... The Jewish role in leftist political movements was a common source of anti-Jewish attitudes,... such attitudes were common." This is authors attributing beliefs. And... the rest is MacDonald. GAB^gab 04:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point I think I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not a canard. As such, I will be disputing the factual accuracy of this article. Yasmo3333 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Wikipedia isn't a court of law, so that isn't a standard we use here. There are an ample number of sources calling it a canard, with many, many more available. Your source seems to be the self-published works of a single discredited academic. This is a fringe claim, and Wikipedia doesn't present those as legitimately debated controversies. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

While the original book was published in hardcover by Praeger, the paperback reprint was self-published using 1stBooks.[3] The self-published book contains the preface which is quoted here as a source, but it fails rs. But even if the preface were rs, it clearly states that the academic consensus is that Jewish Bolshevism is an anti-Semitic canard. TFD (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike three

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

[4][5][6][7][8][9], etc. etc. etc. We shouldn't ignore the mountain of sources that plainly refer to it as a canard to accommodate a tiny fringe that disputes this. Canard implies that some people believe it, and some promote it without believing it. We would need a lot more than a handful of examples disputing that characterization to ignore the countless sources which take it as a given. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If these refs are so abundant, then why did you chat for such a long time instead of just adding footnotes in the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I found the same sources as Grayfell by typing in "jewish bolshevism"+"canard" in Google books search. I did not immediately respond because I think we have spent too much time on this discussion. You know that there is no support in academic literature for theories about the international Jewish conspiracy and the intro to MacDonald's book presented above says that. TFD (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are nowhere near as notable as MacDonald's book. But if you think you have sources, then why not have the article say such-and-such source says that this is a canard? I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it is the uncontested truth. The number of IP address and other editors who have been trying to remove the word "canard" from the article indicates that it isn't. Yasmo3333 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable is not the same as reliable. MacDonald isn't reliable, and neither are Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, saying "reliable sources characterize it as a canard" is just a verbose way of saying "it's a canard", which is a perfectly fine way to describe it. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf are far more notable books expounding Jewish Bolshevism than MacDonald's. Yet neither are reliable sources. And the Preface is not part of MacDonald's notable book, which was published by Praeger, but part of his self-published paperback version. TFD (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors aren't reliable then we should be able to assume that you, The Four Deuces, and GAB aren't reliable either. And there's a big difference between phrasing something in Wikipedia's voice and saying that a certain source says it is true. Yasmo3333 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, we're not reliable. That's what WP:OR and WP:V are about. It's not "a certain source" we are talking about, here. This is the academic consensus based on more sources than we can count. Wikipedia treats that differently than a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where I pretended to be a reliable source. What statement are we talking about? And yes if reliable secondary sources say something is true, so can we. We do not say for example, "Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945, according to Smith. He was born in Austria, according to Jones. He wrote Mein Kampf, according to Doe." TFD (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The difference between statements like "Hitler was born in Austria" and "Jewish Bolshevism is a canard" is that nobody disputes that Hitler was born in Austria. But quite a few people have been disputing that Jewish Bolshevism is a canard. Yasmo3333 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Quite a few" is meaningless. Quite a few people dispute many widely accepted positions, but Wikipedia reflects the academic consensus without giving undue weight to disgraced conspiracy theorists or misconceptions fermented in anonymous forums. I'm sure there are people disputing Hitler's birth location. There's a theory that he's secretly José Rizal lovechild, so I'd be very surprised if there weren't groups who think he's secretly from somewhere else. The idea that this isn't a canard is only very slightly less ridiculous than that. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is hardly the academic consensus that this is a canard. Even some Jewish sources admit Jewish culpability for Communism (see above quote from Stalin's Willing Executioners). Yasmo3333 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This one quote from 1924, taking out of context by a discredited author, from a book review in an unreliable white nationalist magazine, which is edited by the person who wrote the review, cannot be used to cast doubt on the modern academic consensus. "Stalin's Willing Executioners" still isn't a reliable source, and MacDonald still isn't a reputable academic. MacDonald doesn't even clearly explain where the quote comes from in that article. I think it's supposed to be from Россія и евреи : сборникъ первый, and I think the Bikerman quoted is Elias Joseph Bickerman, but this is so deep into the most obscure, weakly supported nonsense that it's downright comical. The only remotely credible discussion of this source I could find was this article, which says it was likely never translated into English, German, or French. It's occasional cited by neo-Nazis and similar (something called "The Mein Kampf Project"), and is otherwise only infrequently cited as being of historical interest. So this refutes the academic consensus? No. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The name of the 1923 publication that that came from is "Russia and the Jews". Where does it say in Wikipedia policy that it is acceptable to phrase something in Wikipedia's voice if you believe that you have "academic consensus" (which you don't)? This page is currently violating WP:A. Yasmo3333 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) What is the point of an encyclopedia if not to represent the academic consensus of a topic? That means the modern consensus, not discredited theories that might have once been more acceptable. If the only refutation you can come up with is MacDonald and his cherry-picked quotes from an obscure 92-year old essay compilation, then you do not have a refutation worth taking seriously.

The consensus is that this is a canard. Introducing doubt based on unreliable sources would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE. Summarizing dozens of sources by saying "it's a canard" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's stance on attribution. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Grayfell: I've just realised that Yasmo3333 is a single purpose account who made 10 edits, the last being to create a blank user page, and since then has only edited this article and talk page and the antisemitism template. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bad memory, I knew it was an SPA when he made his first, see my edit summary then. Presumably related to the IP socks this article has had. Anyway, Bishonen blocked him. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding a sentence about baseline truth to the lead

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

Not phrased like that, no. There is a historical connection between the two things, but we should not frame this as the "baseline truth" because that's missing the entire point of the canard. We shouldn't casually grant legitimacy to the idea that "The Jews", as a unified, shadowy, monolithic group, controlled Communism in Russia. It's not about the historical fact that some Jews were also, for various reasons, Communists. It's not just about degree, but about a more substantial ignorance/warping of reality.

"Heavily over-represented" is not going to work, because it could be read to imply that the canard is in some ways reasonable. "Exaggerate" is also inappropriate, since it's implying that this is a matter of mere degree, instead of something molded from that statistic for purposes of fear-mongering and antisemitism. This canard is propagated as a canard because it can be propped-up by an ignorant/prejudiced reading of history. It's not a coincidence, and this article is about the canard, not the real history of Bolshevism.

"Fringe commentators" is okay for a talk page because WP:FRINGE has given it a bit more weight, but it's euphemistic for the article itself, and if such language were included it would have to state in clear language that these commentators are pushing a canard/falsehood/conspiracy theory/etc. I don't see a strong need for this at all, though. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't casually grant legitimacy to the idea that "The Jews", as a unified, shadowy, monolithic group, controlled Communism in Russia. It's not about the historical fact that some Jews were also, for various reasons, Communists. It's not just about degree, but about a more substantial ignorance/warping of reality. Jews are, however, a group, and a strongly identified one. They have group interests, and those interests are sometimes at odds with those who they live amongst. As I said in my response to TFD below, this doesn't imply a conspiracy. However, it's necessary to distinguish a canard or conspiracy theory from people's factual acknowledgement of or concern with the fact that Jews were strikingly overrepresented in many communist movements. Franzboas (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas has been blocked indefinitely. In the unlikely event they get unblocked or someone else wants to continue this: antisemitic canards lumps all Jews together as having the same motives and interest, which is childishly simplistic. Speculating on whether or not those interest are "at odds" with others is, among other serious problems, original research. Being "concerned" with the ratio is POV-pushing, and finding this representation "striking" is something we should leave to sources. If they do not emphasize it or find it a cause for concern, then obviously neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. As I have repeatedly said to you, how topics are covered in Wikipedia articles must reflect how they are covered in reliable sources about the topic. If sources about Jewish Bolshevism don't lead out with this piece of information, we cannot either. While it may seem important to you, it is not important to people who write about anti-Semitism. They believe that there is no truth whatsoever in the theory that the Jews set up Communism or they control the banks or are trying to control the world. If you want to change how mainstream scholarship treats this topic, then you are going to have to get them to change and we will reflect that change here. TFD (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: To the contrary, many mainstream sources (e.g. Carol M. Swain, Yuri Slezkine, Harvey Klehr, Nathan Glazer) acknowledge the significant overrepresentation of Jews in some communist movements and their striking overrepresentation in others. For example, Klehr's works suggest that at least a third of CPUSA committee members (often more than 40%) were Jewish, and Glazer's work suggested that at least half of CPUSA members were Jewish in the 1950's. (I can give specific citations tomorrow.) Jews constitute ~2.5% of the US population, and may have been an even smaller proportion in the 50's. This is striking overrepresentation. Again, these numbers don't imply a conspiracy, and I'm open to counterarguments. However, as I've said before, I think that the statistics in this article don't fully acknowledge the legitimate mainstream statistics, and the lead doesn't accurately represent even what's already in the body. Franzboas (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not listening to me. None of those people wrote articles about Jewish Bolshevism. Unless they did, we cannot mention what they said per policy. TFD (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I am listening to you. Carol M. Swain has written about Jewish Bolshevism. I cite and quote that source in the section "Better distinguishing baseline fact from conspiracy" above. The other writers I mention may have written about Jewish Bolshevism as well. I can look into it tomorrow. Franzboas (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Our Jewish Communist past

https://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/our-jewish-communist-past-1.27923

This provides zero sources, is it original information? If so, why is it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.241.99 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Assassination of Uritsky and attempt on Lenin

Is it worth mentioning here that Leonid Kannegisser (probably a British agent) who assassinated Moisei Uritsky and Fanny Kaplan who attempted to assassinate Vladimir Lenin, were Jewish? Same with "Sidney Reilly" (the inspiration for James Bond) who under the auspices of British ambassador R. H. Bruce Lockhart, was involved in plans to kill Lenin. This would at least demonstrate counter-evidence to the dubious narrative that Jews all back the Bolsheviks. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source that tied it to the subject. TFD (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What where the religious trappings of those in the initial revolution?

I don't care what they are but it would slay this beast if we just outlined the religion of the primary players, would it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.163.231 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Basic facts

Jews were certainly overrepresented (compared to their proportion of the overall population of Russia) in the Tsarist era Bolshevik party -- and this was a natural consequence of their being both highly oppressed and highly educated (a historically unusual combination of circumstances). However, the Jews in the party did not really group together or look out for Jewish interests in any meaningful way, and they were ultimately pathetically incapable of preventing Stalin from seizing absolute power (leading to the dismantlement of most Jewish cultural institutions in the late 1930s, and eventually the Night of the Murdered Poets and the Doctors' plot). AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but this article is about the Jewish Bolshevism canard, not the demographics of the Tsarist era Bolshevik party, or the socioeconomics of Russian Jews. Focusing on the points you've raised inevitably invites original research intended to prove that the canard is true. At least that's what has consistently happened since the article was created. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Many stereotypes have a little kernel of fact, however it has come to be distorted or presented out of context. For "Jewish Bolshevism", the fact was that there was a greater percentage of Jews in the Bolshevik party than the percentage of Jews in the overall population of the Tsarist Russian empire. However, this was not for the reasons that the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiratists imagined, but instead was almost entirely due to the Jews' anomalous status as a minority which was both highly persecuted and highly educated, something which pretty much guaranteed Jewish support for a variety of anti-Tsarist ideologies. (The disproportionate Jewish membership of the Menshevik faction was much greater than the disproportionate Jewish membership of the Bolshevik faction, so it wasn't that Jews were attracted into Bolshevism only.) And of course, the Jews in the party did not really group together or look out for Jewish interests in any meaningful way, and were ultimately pathetically incapable of preventing Stalin from seizing absolute power, with many negative consequences for Jews both inside and outside the party... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Did you want to make changes to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any direct reputable sources, so I was hoping that others would. That Jews were highly-educated under Tsarism, and that prominent Bolsheviks of Jewish background (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc.) were rather inept in maneuvering against Stalin, are matters of common knowledge... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Of course, to avoid original research, any new sources or material would have to be specifically about the Jewish Bolshevism canard, not just about Bolshevik party membership, or the socio-economics of Russian Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is actually covered in Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. In fact at the time of the Russian revolution, Jews were underrepresented in the Bolshevik party, considering that they represented 2 to 4 percent of the Russian population but only 1.6% of Bolshevik party membership. Conspiracy theories do not have kernels of truth, but are a means of scapegoating vulnerable minorities for adverse events. It uses circular reasoning: since Communism is a Jewish movement, Communists must be Jews. Agree with Jayig that if we want to expand the section, we will need sources actually about Jewish Bolshevism. TFD (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a source for you: According to Richard Pipes The Russian Revolution, in 1907, 10 percent of the Bolshevik party and 20% of the Menshevik party were Jews. (Later on, many Mensheviks would join the Bolshevik party.)

That shows an overrepresentation compared to the Jewish share of the population in general.

(The 1.6% source in the article is rather dubious imho)

I also see several comments expressing something to the fact that: "Well, Jews may have been overrepresented, but they were better educated and oppressed so..."

This is a typical stereotype about Jews that isnt always based in fact. Yes, some Jews were well educated, but in the Czars Russia they were just as likely, or more likely, to be poor and uneducated.

If you take someone like Lazar Kaganovich, Stalins second in command for a while, his upbringing was probably more common than not. Kaganovich was one of six children of a poor cobbler, and started his own apprenticeship as a shoemaker before he was 15. With few opportunities in the local village, both him and his older brother moved to a big city to get a job at a leatherfactory while they were srill teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.231 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

New source

This scholarly article by Brian Crim may be worth adding. I may not have the time this week, but if anyone else is interested... GAB^gab 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's another source: an in depth article on the subject at the Jerusalem Post. Hopefully the J'lem Post is not considered too anti-semitic around these parts? If there are no objections, material from it might be useful for the Jewish involvement in Russian Communism section. XavierItzm (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Dubious/unreliable source

In the article, there is a section where the number of Jewish members of the Bolshevik party in 1917 is given at 1.6% (360 out of over 20.000)

Here's the problem with that section. The only reference for that, is this link: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/39.html

Which is an art exhibition that doesnt provide a source for that number.

Since the PR bureau of an art exhibition/museum is hardly a reputable/reliable source of historical information, I would suggest that we remove that section unless a better source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.231 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, anyone with a different view is welcome to opine. Challenged material should stay out until consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• well the statement seems reasonable because vast majority of bolshewik jews before the october revolt were members of other leftist parties starting with smartass trotsky. After all, jews had Bund to band. That said, I agree the source must be solid. However I suggest a middle ground : leave the statement but rm the dubious ref and place the cn-tag. If unref for amonth, done with it complelely. - Altenmann >talk 04:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Article lacking statistics on the make-up of the early Bolsjevik government

I noticed that the article ( more specifically the section titled Jewish Involvement in Russian Communism, only mentions how the statistical make-up for the party-membership looked like, but does not mention what the statistical make-up of the actual government looked like. I therefore recalled the following document from the 9th of June, 1919, a report from US military intelligence officer Montgomery Schuyler Montgomery_Schuyler_Jr., presenting the statistical make-up of the Soviet governmentof the mentioned year: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AiUtD6FDatY/UUtZ_YPmLzI/AAAAAAAAED4/jRot8zvWENE/s640/390px-US_Telegram_03.jpg

Simply just click "CTRL and + " to enlarge the document for better reading.

As the reader can see, it says that Jews were very dramatically overrepresented in the government, concluding that; "A table made up in 1918, by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows at that time there were 384 commissars including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government."

So, of 384 comissars, 300 of those were Jewish. Given the mentioned fact that no statistics of the early Soviet government are mentioned in the article, this obviously deserves inclusion for a complete statistial view of both party membership and governmental statistics of the early Bolsjevik government.

Or would that be inaproppriate and be considered as "confirming the anti-Semitic view"?

Thank you för reading. - Okama-San (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The US cable from Omsk is quoting Robert Wilton - a well known antisemite and promoter of blood libel in Russia.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a good reason to avoid unreliable primary sources. This source is wrong. There were in fact only 17 commissars (you can find a list of them at "Original People's Commissars"), only one of whom, Trotsky, was Jewish. TFD (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Menshevik Leadership Statistics

Hi there,

I have been informed by Grayfell that he would like to gain consensus on the inclusion of the following: "Specifically in regard to the Menshevik faction, Paul Hanebrink notes that in 1917, “Jews made up 50 percent of the leadership of the Mensheviks.""

The source is certainly reliable and the composition of the ethnic leadership of the Menshevik party certainly strikes me as significant for inclusion on a page that discusses the ethnic composition of the early Russian communist movement. As I'm sure we are all aware, the Menshevik and the Bolshevik factions united.

TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This source specifically contextualizes this as an alternative to the Bolshevik party. "Even among Jewish socialists, Bolshevism was only one choice among many, and by no means the most popular one." It also emphasizes that this rate was "far higher" than the Bolsheviks, and that these parties were "deeply divided". Introducing this statistic from 1917, without any of its accompanying context, and before introducing a separate and more complete statistic from several years later, is potentially misleading. This article isn't about the Mensheviks, so I do not see how this simplistic factoid is useful here. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

They did not unite. The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Social Democratic Labor Party that split from the Mensheviks. In any case, we can't just add random facts, their significance must be explained. TFD (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Rather some of them became Bolsheviks after, but anyway that is a moot point. The line in the article prior to the one I added introduces the Menshevik Party as part of the Communist movement. Therefore, the fact that 50% of their leadership were in fact Jewish is relevant as this shows that Jews were heavily involved in Russian communism and that this is not solely a 'canard.' TorontonianOnlines (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The title of the book is The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism. This source describes this as a myth, and the specific page cited goes into specific detail that this is a myth. Attempting to torture a source into saying something it very clearly doesn't is WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. Do not attempt to add this content again. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it or is it not true that Jews made up 50% of the leadership of the Mensheviks? Also, I do not appreciate your tone. No synthesis is being conducted as this is a single source stating a simple fact. If anyone is guilty of violating WP:POV here, it's you. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CHERRYPICKING statistics to paint a picture they do not quite support here.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For your reference, here is a more complete quote: "Even among Jewish socialists, Bolshevism was only one choice among many, and by no means the most popular one [...] By far, the majority supported Zionist parties; of those who turned to socialism, most chose alternatives to Lenin, opting instead for the Mensheviks or the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (SR) or the Jewish Bund. In 1917 Jews made up 50 percent of the leadership of the Mensheviks, a far higher figure than that for the Bolsheviks (six of twenty-one Bolshevik leaders were Jewish, according to historian Oleg Budnitskii). 50% is an enormous number, obviously. This is important to note and to not do so would be an intentional omission. At the very least, it is important to note the latter figure (6/21=29%).TorontonianOnlines (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Why is it important to note? This article is about Jewish Bolshevism, not Jewish opponents of Bolshevism. And why do you find it significant that most members of the Jewish Bund were Jewish? TFD (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact: the article is about Jewish Bolshevism, and not about Jewish Menshevism.--Galassi (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Churchill and the "Jewish Bolshevik"

Churchill excoriated the "Jewish Bolshevik" not for Jewish origin, but instead for abandoning Judaism, a religion for which the future Prime Minister had much empathy. That monster had sold out Jewish virtues for a ruthless cause hostile to capitalism and all religions. For Churchill the solution for "Jewish Bolshevism" was a return to Judaism and Jewish traditions that Churchill saw as fundamentally decent and benign. Thus Churchill saw the Jewish Bolshevik at fault not for being 'racially' Jewish as contemporary antisemites saw a Jew of any kind, but instead for not being Jewish enough.Pbrower2a (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It think that is already clear the way the article is phrased. TFD (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)