Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TorontonianOnlines (talk | contribs) at 04:57, 14 March 2019 (→Menshevik Leadership Statistics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contents of the The Jewish Bolshevism page were merged into Jewish Bolshevism on Oct 7, 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The Jewish Bolshevism was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 October 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jewish Bolshevism. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Bolshevism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Bolshevism at the Reference desk.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Better distinguishing baseline fact from conspiracy

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

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

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

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

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

Yuri Slezkine, a famous and highly respected professor at Stanford, is another academic who has researched Jewish involvement in Bolshevism in mainstream and thoroughly supported ways. He is a Russian Jew and his Jewish grandmother dedicated much of her life to Russian Communism. Franzboas (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two topics: the antisemitic canard that Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution and communist movements -- the subject of this article -- and the historical and perhaps outsize presence of Jews in communist movements. — MShabazz /_Stalk 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@MShabazz: I understand what you're saying and agree. I'm saying that the canard is at its core an exaggeration of a fact (outsize Jewish presence in communist movements), and this article skimps on the baseline facts and statistics. For example, I think it should mention the overwhelming Jewish presence in American communist movements, which was far larger than the Jewish presence in the Soviet Communist Party and the basis for many anti-semitic canards. Franzboas (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

First, you should not post lengthy passages per "Copyright violations". I don't know why you think that the author Carol M. Swain is "left-leaning," other than she is black, an academic and wrote about white nationalism. She describes herself as conservative and been mentioned in the SPLC's "Hatewatch." It says she defended a DVD which "is a hit among white supremacists looking for a smart-sounding defense of their beliefs."

Swain's comments above are her opinion and should not be entered into the article as fact. We may be able to add it as opinion, but first we need to show that it has attracted attention. The types of conclusions she reaches have been analyzed and rejected by mainstream sources.

TFD (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Wow, TIL. I drew my perspective on her politics only from the book, in which she uses a sternly analytical tone, espouses liberal and egalitarian values, seems to favor the center-left perspectives on topics like race and IQ, and frequently challenges the white nationalists in the ways you'd expect. However, the book is a surprisingly fair and well-researched treatment, as opposed to the more facile and openly hostile treatments by groups like the SPLC.

If you think the SPLC offers "facile" treatments, I don't know what to tell you. The SPLC is often referenced in graduate and PhD level material in my experience. Looking at the rest of your comments, it's pretty obvious that your own far right political biases are causing you a lot of confusion. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into it more. Remember, though, that the SPLC is in many regards a partisan and sometimes even a fringe organization. Their article on Charles Murray labels him a "white nationalist" and an "extremist", even though most of his prestigious peers (including the left-leaning and exceptionally famous Robert Putnam) express a deep respect for Murray and the legitimacy of his work. Linda Gottfredson is another well-respected mainstream researcher who the SPLC labels a "white nationalist" and lambastes. There are many more, but those are two egregious examples that first come to mind.

Maybe we should review whether this is an appropriate source, but I object to the suggestion that it's "her opinion and fact". The book's introductory essay is thoroughly cited academic analysis, not op-ed. In response to your question of whether it has "attracted attention": she's a widely read academic, the book was published by Cambridge University Press, and it was reviewed (largely positively) by several prestigious academics, so I don't think there's reason to question its notability. Franzboas (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I read your comments at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory and do not look forward to a lengthy debate. Let's just agree to disagree. TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: That doesn't settle the question of whether this is a quality source, though. I think I can avoid a conflict by taking what I need from Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century, which I doubt you'll find even mildly controversial.

By the way, the conversation at Talk:Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory got heated on both sides, and happened during some nasty policy conflicts. See User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Ethnicity_and_religion_in_living_people.27s_biographies for a civil and constructive (excluding the first message or two) conversation about the kind of work I'm doing here. Franzboas (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to ask about the source at rs/n. Due to the historical significance of the concept, I think the lede could use improvement - right now its basically just a set of links to articles that should be in the See Also section. The role that this played in Nazi propaganda could be given more weight, but I'm not convinced that the content you are suggesting would improve the article. Seraphim System 01:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a quality source, but it advances a controversial opinion. We had a lengthy discussion on sources claiming Jewish "over-representation" in Bolshevism at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination), which you should read, as well as the previous AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism and in the archives of this article's talk page. Unless you have some new argument, I don't see why I should repeat what I already said. And your description of the SPLC as "fringe," when it is routinely mentioned in mainstream media when describing hate groups and Swain as left-wing, when she is a controversial conservative writer, show that you have not researched the issue fully. I suggest you take at least a day to go through the material before presenting new arguments. TFD (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty misguided to pick the SPLC quotes out of the media - in the context of a news article they are presented as one point of view from a biased sourced. Unless other points of view are presented also, it is not a very good news article. SPLC does publish reports that are longer in length and present facts and evidence for the conclusions they state. These may be primary sources, but media reports for them are secondary sources. The reports are of high-quality, but opinion statements to the media should not be cherry-picked from news stories (and we do this a lot with SPLC). Seraphim System 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That said, if I am reading the quotes correctly this is a primary source, it is the authors own idea and not an analysis or synthesis of other cited sources. Has it been cited by any other secondary sources? If it has not, it might not be appropriate for inclusion (I don't really think the SPLC is relevant for this. It's not like we add sources to a blacklist because the SPLC's opinion is that they are a hate group. I don't care who the source is - their analysis needs to have thorough citations and evidence for the statements - the personal opinions of scholars and lawyers are distinguished from their written, published work. WP:RS is not entirely based on someone's profession - there are also considerations of whether the source is secondary. As far as news reports go, the quotes are secondary only as part of the analysis in a news story, new stories are not a secondary source for the quotes (which are primary) - I've seen too many cases where SPLC is quoted from a news story, and all the conflicting opinions are left out. Not good practice.) - the relevant policy here for exclusion is due weight.Seraphim System 03:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @Seraphim System: I agree that I should do more research before making major changes. However, I'm already confident that adding reliable statistics about Jewish presence in Communist Party USA next to the corresponding Soviet Communist Party statistics is valuable and notable. I've looked at about four sources so far, and all referenced the impressively high percentage of Jews in CPUSA.

This isn't the place to start a long-winded SPLC discussion, but I've seen a lot of evidence that they've become a partisan organization in the past few years and groups like federal law enforcement are distancing themselves as a result. Relatedly, their pages on "white nationalist" academics often demonstrate serious ignorance of the basic scientific premises of the controversies involved. I mean "didn't read the first three sentences of the Misplaced Pages article" levels of ignorance. For example, in their "extremist file" for Linda Gottfredson, they open with a quote of Linda about the fact that white Americans have an average IQ of ~100, while black Americans have an average IQ of ~85. They apparently think this is some shocking opener, and they reiterate this belief of hers in the bio's body, but that's been rock solid scientific consensus for many decades. (The debate involves how much of that discrepancy, if any, is genetic.) They consistently demonstrate that they don't understand the basic facts that both sides of these controversies accept.

You're jumping to conclusions by assuming that IQ measures not only an individual's innate ability, but an entire race's innate ability. Nothing has ever indicated that this is the case, and the "science" you think you're upholding isn't actually science at all. If you'd actually read the science on the matter instead of fascist propaganda (and you can't argue that this isn't the case--it very obviously is) you would know that race realism is not a scientific stance. You would know that psychologists who design psychometric tests themselves would tell you that IQ isn't an innate characteristic of race. You are literally regurgitating white supremacist and fascist propaganda, whether or not you're intelligent enough to be aware of it. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If these are the views that you are here to promote, I think eventually the editors are going to decide you are WP:NOTHERE. IQ is not a particularly meaningful measure of anything. It does not a measure of analytical ability - it tests how fast you can do things like unscramble a word. Wow. That you represent this as a "genetics" debate is pretty revealing that you are here with a certain POV. There isn't even consensus about what IQ tests measure. I have tried to be fair because I know editors here can get heated about opinions they don't like, but this really isn't the place to promote white nationalist views or try to legitimize fringe ideas through WP:OR. These articles could be improved, but not like this. Seraphim System 04:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: "IQ is not a particularly meaningful measure of anything. It does not a measure of analytical ability". Your claim flatly contradicts the scholarly consensus. Why would you lie so blatantly? 160.39.234.227 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'm not trying to start an argument here, but if you look at the race and IQ article and its citations, it is indeed a fact that black Americans average ~85 and white Americans average ~100. The importance and generality of IQ is debated, but that too is a controversy separate from the the established fact that IQ is defined by performance on a standard IQ test and different races have different average scores. Obviously, this is all off-topic, but it's a prime example of a "white nationalist view" that is long-established scientific fact and is recognized as such in academia (and in the corresponding Misplaced Pages articles). The controversies lie elsewhere (e.g. how much does IQ matter, how much of the race discrepency is genetic), although those who haven't looked into the topic usually don't know that. Franzboas (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to state that I have not looked into this - I've looked into controversies over intelligence measures like the fact that IQ tests are next to impossible to do well on once you are college-aged, which is one of the measures many obvious flaws. The white nationalist spin on this is that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, this is actually not an established scientific fact. This is a pretty good example of the problems with some of the edits you have proposed recently - other editors have already warned you about WP:OR and misrepresenting WP:RS. It seems like your stated purpose is to legitimize certain fringe views - that isn't how we write articles. If you want to improve the articles you need to stick to the sources. Seraphim System 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC seems like a solid source for objective facts about actual terror and hate groups, but I don't know how anyone could read a bio like Gottfredson's and think that they reliably appraise academics. Franzboas (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is some analysis in her work, as there is with almost all academic social science writing, but it is data-focused and thoroughly cited (the floating numbers 102, 103, and 104 are citations in the passage I pasted). Franzboas (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is if you want to make obviously controversial edits to obvious controversial articles, you should have more then one source ready. If she has cited sources for her statements you can look at some of those, or if other sources have cited her you might want to look at those as well. I think this is WP:EXTRAORDINARY - not least of all in its treatment of Karl Marx's background as relevant and the claim that Marx hated Jews as much as any "Gentile anti-semite." It doesn't seem she gives any sources for statements like this, so I agree with other editors who have commented here.Seraphim System 03:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The book has a lengthy footnote with quotes from Marx supporting her argument. It didn't survive the copy-paste. I agree that it's a bit of a hyperbole, but the things he said were in fact very classically and aggressively anti-semitic. Franzboas (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's cited scholarly work published by CUP it should not be excluded, even if it a minority view. Seraphim System 03:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

@The Four Deuces: I've been reading them, but they're both monstrous. Can you recall any parts that were particularly relevant? Franzboas (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It sounds like it was badly written but that there should be an article on it...including Moses Hess Seraphim System 05:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I said in the second AfD for Jews and Communism that there were no studies connecting the two except in individual countries. Similary "Jews and Hollywood, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood and "Jews and Money" (See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.) Anyway, the far right today does not say tht the Jews created Bolshevism, control Hollywood, are greedy, etc., but that there is some truth that lies behind the prejudice. That is a controversial point of view and therefore can only be presented in conformance with policy.

Also, even if we look at the evidence presented, there is no connection between the popularity of the tiny Communist Party of the USA among Jews in the 20s and 30s and the Russian Revolution in 1917. And their children who became activists in the 60s did not join the Communist Party. AFAIK there were very few of them anyway.

Anyway, whatever happens, you probably won't persuade editors to say that the Jews are behind the Communist conspiracy or blacks are inferior to whites etc. standard textbooks don't say that. If you are suspicious of textbooks, then you need to get policy changed.

TFD (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And if Jews had created Bolshevism, or been influential in its ideological development, what would the significance of that be? Is being a member of the Communist Party of the USA a bad thing? Considering how left wing Germany was and the documented evidence that its Christian writers at the time were left wing, and even some of the high-ranking Nazis - it's in no way a settled question whether Bolshevism incited hatred of the Jews, or anti-Semitsm incited a self-destructive hatred of the left wing. Jews were influential in the development of socialist, anarchist and communist ideology. There are definitely sources about this, as was noted in the AfD. There is nothing anti-semitic about the topic per se - but it would have to be written neutrally with secondary sources and of course, avoid WP:OR.Seraphim System 06:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I don't know whether it's worth responding to this at length: "you probably won't persuade editors to say that the Jews are behind the Communist conspiracy or blacks are inferior to whites etc.", but I don't believe those things, and I would hope that my grounded and rigorous approach shows that. My problem is that it's almost impossible to make factuality and POV improvements to these topics on Misplaced Pages without being attacked and blockaded. Franzboas (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem you face is that you disagree with how most reliable sources treat this topic and want to change the article to reflect your view. That is contrary to policy and will lead you into conflict. If you think that the topic is not adequately addressed in the mainstream, then you would be bettered advised to place your efforts elsewhere. TFD (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"The problem you face is that you disagree with how most reliable sources treat this topic and want to change the article to reflect your view." I don't think that's the case. I'm saying that I think the statistics included in this article were cherry-picked to downplay Jewish involvement in communist movements, and that reliable sources such as The Jewish Century include statistics that demonstrate a much larger presence. Franzboas (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a legitimate question why this article describes Jewish Bolshevism as an "anti-semitic canard" - when it was a real thing. Shlomo Aronson uses the term in an entirely normal historical context. Seraphim System 20:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Where? TFD (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Here - discussing American views - from the context it sounds that in at least in some cases, it was more anti-left then anti-semitic (an issue that has been previously raised on this talk page.) Also here discussing in more detail the complex identity of Jewish Bolsheviks - I don't know that much about it but it sounds more complicated then an "anti-semitic canard" - a canard is an unfounded rumor or story - based on these sources, the attacks on Jewish Bolshevism (not only in Nazi germany, but in Israel's early history as well) seem more like straightforward propaganda, then a canard Seraphim System 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, as long as we retain information about the exaggerations made by some. The article Jewish anarchism seems like very similar to what you're suggesting. Franzboas (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Aronson used the term when referring to the conspiracy theories of anti-Semites, in which he did not happen to believe. I don't see the term in Pipe's book, do you have a page no.? BTW, we already have information about Jews in the CPSU in Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. TFD (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I know Aronson is using it in context, but he seems to be referring to it not as a conspiracy theory, but as anti-leftist. Where he says "quite a few points of prophecy" he is saying basically that it was true - Nathan Yellin-Mor who he mentions by name and the "left-flank of Lehi" or Semitic Action Seraphim System 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I think you may be confusing the CPSU with the CPUSA, which is what I was proposing adding data about. Franzboas (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no I mean CPSU - the section is about Jews in the CPSU. There's nothing about the U.S. in the article. TFD (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: There isn't currently a section about the US, but there are a few mentions of the canard being used in the US, and there is an "Outside Nazi Germany" section with a subsection about the UK. Also, many of the notable examples of the canard given at the end of the article considered Communist movements throughout the world. Therefore, it seems relevant to mention the statistics from the United States. Franzboas (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

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

@The Four Deuces: Is the source I quote in this section's original post what you're imagining? Franzboas (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You have to find an article about the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory not something that mentions white nationalists in passing. Think about it. If this were an article about parakeets, we would get books about parakeets or chapters about them or articles about parakeets. We wouldn't look for books that mentioned them in passing and put together an article. TFD (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Are you confident that there are entire books on this topic? The passage I included above is only a small except of a well-researched, thoroughly cited section that was several pages long. (In fact, you can probably find much of that section in this talk page's history; I deleted most of it out of copyright concerns.)

I'll look for other sources too, though. Franzboas (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No there are not and it limits what we can put into the article. While you may think the fact that there were lots of Jews in the NKVD bolsters the theory that Communism was a Jewish plot, you have to show that the literature on Jewish Bolshevism does that. TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If somebody could find a legitimate source that points out the representation of Jewish people in the Bolshevik party - particularly in their leadership, I believe that would be highly helpful.

Naturally, it cannot be claimed that *all* communist movements had a significant Jewish presence, but the one in Russia undeniably did and I’d imagine that there are numerous sources that confirm this. As such, it’s not wholly an “anti semitic canard” as this article rather misleadingly alleges. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've spent the morning reading about WW2 and wanted to understand why Hitler would hate Jews so much, and while researching this came across this, which I found quite interesting:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

It looks like this sort of information is fuel for anti-Semites though, so is challenged by censors whenever it's seen. 212.92.104.143 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing bad information from an encyclopedia isn't "censorship", it's just "editing". In addition to being antisemitic, IHR.org is also pseudoscience. The Institute for Historical Review is a Holocaust denial organization with ties to neo-Nazi groups, such as the National Alliance, where the author of that link used to work. If you want a reputable source from real historians, there a libraries full of books on this topic. Category:Historians of the Holocaust might be a useful starting point, and perhaps the WP:Reference desk might offer suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems pretty well sourced and while quite obviously biased, are you saying that the facts presented are untrue? Surely the people who would know the most about the reasons for antisemitism would be antisemites themselves. Also, this has nothing to do with science or the Holocaust. 212.92.104.143 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The IHR is overwhelmingly rejected by reputable historians. It does not have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" required of Misplaced Pages's reliable sources guidelines. Since this isn't reliable as a source for statements of fact, saying it is "well sourced" is missing the point. This canard is based on cherry-picking and misrepresentation of historical context. The problem is not the sources (although IHR should not be trusted to compile them) it is the conclusions that are drawn from these sources. Finding sources to support a prior assumption isn't necessarily difficult, and it's also not particularly persuasive to a skeptical reader. In this case the canard was intentionally fabricated by people who were actively ignoring context. Buying into that deception is a big mistake and is also fundamentally opposed to Misplaced Pages's goals as an encyclopedia. This is about pseudoscience to the extent that history is a social science, but no matter how it's categorized, IHR is still garbage. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It may be that the facts are true and could be sourced to reliable sources. However, they still cannot be introduced into the article unless a reliable source relates them to this topic. BTW, the author of the IHR article is banned from the UK. TFD (talk) 18:27, 7 July 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 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

1. https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Was-the-Russian-Revolution-Jewish-514323

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 thay is not quitw there.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

1. Hanebrink, Paul (2018-11-05). A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism. Belknap Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780674047686.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles