Jump to content

Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Antisemitism

Is every single topic involving Jews on Wikipedia automatically classified under Antisemitism? For example how is this topic Jewish Bolshevism applied to Anti-Semitism? Where is the mention of the Tsar Family Massacre? Nice touch adding the Polish translation in the opening line & leaving out Russian, German, Dutch or any other country for that matter. You are rewriting & spinning History, this is absurd on so many levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.17.205 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The theory that the Jews are behind Communism is considered to be anti-Semitic. To turn your question around, is nothing classified as anti-Semitism? TFD (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Classifying EVERYTHING anti-semitism indeed makes nothing anti-semitism. So congrats on destroying the entire meaning of that phrase. Was Marx a Jew? Was Lenin a Jew? Grigoriy Klimov - "Protocoles of Soviet Sages". He claims that among 545 chieftains of Soviet revolution there were 447 Jews. Keep living in the dark & throwing your useless 'Anti-S around everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.17.205 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, making everything anti-semitism would mean nothing is anti-semitism. that said its more like the theory that gentiles and non jews are behind communism is considered anti-non semetic and anti non-jewish. thus whatever "RS" that says what The four deuces talks about is not considered RS, since they are racist by the very definition they try to portray others to be. now saying things WITHOUT basis(the basis can be wrong but its still basis) is anti-semitism. just like without basis saying that non jews were behind it.

Sources stating that jews wanted equality and thus was drawned by the equality itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.3.90 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Why would you think Grigoriy Klimov meets Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements on this topic? Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Why would you think Grigoriy Klimov does NOT meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements on this topic? if there is no reason, then obviously it is safe to say reliable.79.138.2.201 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide details of the book, including the publisher, and we can post it to RSN. My immediate reaction is that is a personal reflection, not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Klimov was in fact a rabid antisemite. Thankfully unknown outside Russia.--Galassi (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is almost amusing the frequency with which the article flip-flops between denying a specific Jewish role in early Bolshevism, and seamingly attempting to justify that role by recounting the plight of Jews in Russia at the time.

Suggesting that there was a significant inolvement in the movement by Jews isn't inherently anti-semetic, any more than is suggesting that Jews are behind zionism. It may simply be a fact. The motive behind the person asserting the claim doesn't alter the facts, such as they are.

I also find it disturbing that this (alleged) connection is labeled a "consipracy theory" - a dismissive non-NPOV label excessively and carelessly used within WP, IMHO. John2510 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The belief that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution is a conspiracy theory while that individual Jews were Bolsheviks is a fact. Unfortunately this article mixes the two concepts and pushes the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe splitting hairs. I guess any time one refers to "the Jews" doing something, it comes across (rightly so) as an anti-semetic conspiracy theory. On the other hand, suggesting that some Bolsheviks were coincidentally Jewish doesn't accurately or fully reflect the dynamics of the situation either. The fact is that the circumstances of eastern European Jewery led to their disproportionate involvement in the establishment of Bolshevism. It certainly wasn't universal to all eastern European Jews, or to "the Jews" as a whole, but ignoring the fact, and the reasons, is disengenuous. John2510 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Improper image

The image is improper. There is nothing to suggest Judaism in it. The pentagram in it suggests, rather, that Communists are doing the work of Satan. I know, in traditional religions, the pentagram is a symbol of harmony and the natural order and Satan would be represented by a reversed pentagram, but that's besides the point, as the pentagram was at the time and still is perceived to be a symbol of the devil (by certain people such as... I don't know Russian "Whites"). The people of the time had no problem at all depicting the Star of David in a pejorative manner and if suggesting the Judaeo-Boshevik "connection" had been the intent of this poster, they would have depicted a Star of David, and not a pentagram. Not onlt would they not had a problem depicting the Star of David in a pejorative manner, but unfortunately at the time most of the population would have had no problem perceiving the Star of David in such a way. So the fact that there isn't a Star of David in this poster, but rather a pentagram means that this poster does not suggest any alleged Judaeo-Bolshevik "connection" (regardless of what Trotsky's ethnicity might have been), but rather just that Communism is evil. Ironically, by asserting that this poster suggests that Communism is related to Judaism, when all this poster does is to suggest that Communism is evil, we are promoting the very conspiracy theory that Judaism and Communism are connecting, playing into subconscious ideas that had been propagated about Jews by antisemites such as: "worship of Satan, Judaism, what's the difference?", "Star of David, pentagram... close enough", "Suggesting that Communism is evil obviously suggest that it's Jewish, since Jews are evil", etc.

So, please, there are so many propaganda works including the Star of David. Let's not propagate these anti-semitic ideas by using an unclear poster and let's show the insanity that used to be. For example there is a poster in which a Jew held money in a hand (capitalism) and the hammer and sickle in the other (communism). People will then clearly see the insanity of the common beliefs at the time (things that don't make any sense such as "The Jews are behind both Communism and Capitalism"). Posters such as the one presented here only confuse the situation, since there are plenty of people who are not anti-semites, do not believe Communism has anything to do with Judaism, but do believe that both Communism and Trotsky were evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.59.241 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

This edit tells: "Central Committee, the Politburo's new name". Is that correct? In addition, this piece about Jewish representation, is it based on any RS? My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Joel Slovo

I've removed all the material added by Joel Slovo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of banned editor Blastikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per WP:PROXYING. As a side note, looking briefly at the material it appears that is consisted almost entirely of original research, as none of the sources actually mentioned "Jewish Bolshevism", which is the topic of this article. It seems that, as usual, User:Blastikus was trying to prove the canard of Jewish Bolshevism by yellow badging and doing Jew counts. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I especially like this: "Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews". And what exactly Stalin did with Aleksei Kapler, first love of his daughter Svetlana? Yes, he did not kill him, but only sent to Gulag. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If sending to gulag justifies slapping a tag on Stalin, then he was staunch Russophobe, Polonophobe, Baltophobe, Romanophobe, Germanophobe, Kabardin-Balkarophobe, ...., etc., etc., and of cource a little bit of anti-Semite. Many like counting % of Jews in Poliburo chairs. Did anybody count their % in Gulag barracks? I guess not. Name counting will not help. - Altenmann >t 02:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Stalin's attitude to Jews, which was inserted by the sockpuppet account, is not really relevant in this article. We have Stalin and antisemitism. Obviously, Stalin sent Kapler to Gulag not because he did not like Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the opinion about Joel Slovo contribs applies in full to the whole section Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish involvement in Russian Communism. It is not about the canard of 'Jewish Bolshevism'. It is about ..er.. Jewish involvement In Russian Communism. Which is a rather poor, biased, confusing and misleading title. I started poking aroud to see where to move this content (and trim it here severely), but to my dismay I noticed that the article History of the Jews in the Soviet Union is even more poor and misleading. By the way, Russian Communism - what the heck is this? (trick question) - Altenmann >t 02:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no secret regarding Stalin's attitude. Jews deported to the Gulag were sent to the worst circumstances, harsher than those reserved for any other identifiable group. Khrushchev, Stalin's intimate, described him as a rabid anti-Semite. One must be careful not to confuse the abstract intellectual appeal of Bolshevism and its (non-practicing with regard to any religion) adherents with the notion that, for example, the practice of Judaism and execution of Bolshevik policy are somehow intertwined. The latter is, of course, what anti-Semites maintain but it is in no way a legitimate contention. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"Worst circumstances" - nonsense. There was no "Good" circumstances in gulag. Jews which landed into Gulag got themselves "worse" circumstances because unlike kulaks, Latvians, Estonians, Poles, Romanians, Tatars, etc., they were not used to physical labor. Your second issue (about "intertwining") is unclear: is it described in wikipedia? - Altenmann >t 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it's well documented Jews (first Soviet mass deportations in the Baltics) were deported to the harshest conditions. The second "issue" is that historical evidence of radical Jewish intelligentsia gravitating to Communism (every stereotype has some seed) has nothing to do with the religion of Judaism or Judaic traditions or teachings--a connection which anti-Semites contend exists. It should be possible to examine both aspects in this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU MAKE ESPECIALLY PROMINENT THE POLISH CONCEPT OF "ZYDOKOMUNA"?

To the author of the entry. - You mention the concept of "Zydokomuna" right at the beginning of the entry, and it seems to be exceptionally prominent in the rest of the entry. Why? Do you say that this concept is worse than, for example, the Russian Soviet or German Nazi anti-Jewish concepts? Why would you pick on Poland and the Poles? Isn't it RACIST on your part? You condemn "antisemitism" but spread Polonophobia, ie. anti-Polish racism? Would you also deny that you're a racist hypocrite? What is your nationality, ethnicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.76.37 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote by Putin

Putin'd opinion about the issue is irrelevant, since he is not an expert in the subject. It also cannot be used as an "example" of anything, because such an example will be WP:NOR of a wikipedia (example of what?). Examples of this kind must come from scholar sources which explain what exactly this example is about. - Altenmann >t 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Аgree 100%.--Galassi (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The President of a country's understanding regarding that country's formative history is meaningful, even in the absence of scholarly/academic qualifications. I would place Putin's qualification to opine on the history of the Soviet Union over that of some random author who got a book published. Further, the reverting editor argued that the article is about the "stereotype" versus the actual composition of early soviet government. If true, then certainly the current President's perception (or, if you prefer, buy-in of the "conspiracty theory" as the article labels itself) is incredibly meaningful. Either way, it should stay. John2510 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We quote government officials on issues all the time. Of course, in this case, the question is, what is the purpose of Putin's contention (or, how does the news article position it)?
"Jewish" could mean intellectual (radical) tradition, religious tradition, or both. There's ample evidence that historical circumstances are the former—I haven't read any reputable contention that any of those "%", regardless of the actual number, were religiously observing Jews. Can't say that's what Putin meant, for all we know he might be saying don't blame the Russians for Soviet atrocities. I'd hope not, of course.
It seems to me that contemporary Russian attitudes have a direct bearing on perceptions of the Bolshevik revolution and leadership of Soviet Russia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course Putin's statement on the subject is important. He's the head of the country and as such, would know more about his country than foreigners or Wikipedia's guardians of falsehoods. Unless you're going to claim this former communist is actually an anti-semitic NAZI and liar? But just as important as that, the most important communist newspaper since its founding in 1912, PRAVDA, called Putin's statement a fact. Regarding Jewish domination of the party, PRAVDA said "These facts were treated, at best, silently, and often, for some unknown reason, were regarded as rabid anti-Semitism." But of course there is nothing new about covering up these truths. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote "200 Years Together" which discusses in great detail Jews major role in the communist party and their major role in atrocities carried out against Ukrainians and Russians. And this book has been censored in the USA and England. It has never been translated into English due to Wikipedians and their ilk. Prior to that there were many reliable and well documented papers on the major role that Jews played in communism, all written by "anti-semites" of course; please; you've lost all credibility." Even Jews big ally and hero Winston Churchill wrote an article on Jews dominating the party.

Pravda article "Putin smiled to Jews. Will Jews smile back?" http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/17-06-2013/124852-putin_jews-0/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.245.161 (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any statement added must be supported by a secondary source that the subject was speaking about "Jewish Bolshevism, otherwise it is OR." I do not see how Putin's support of a Jewish library has anything to do with the article. TFD (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"It has never been translated into English due to Wikipedians and their ilk." What do you mean by that statement exactly? Does it fit in nicely with the comment you made here?Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Between the comments here and the editing, there appears to be a consensus, however mild, to have some reference to this remain. Consistent with the article's current structure, I've created a separate block within "Outside Nazi Germany" for "Russia." Whether Putin's comment should be taken as evidence of the validity of the "conspiracy theory" or as an example of its persistency in modern times, and at the highest levels of government, is for the reader to determine. John2510 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus. Also, you need a source that links Putin's comments to the conspiracy theory. My reading is that he said despite most of the leaders being Jewish they did nothing for Jews rather than the revolution was part of a Jewish conspiracy, in league with Jewish bankers, to dominate the world. TFD (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You're attempting to redefine the subject of the article. The opening line of the article provides the following definition: "Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism is the conspiracy theory that Jews have been the driving force behind Communist movements, or more specifically Soviet Bolshevism." Bankers and world domination aren't the issue. President Putin's statement that that the first Soviet government was "...was 80-85 percent Jewish" suggests that the perception of the role of Jews in the formation of the Soviet Union persists to this day, and at the very highest level of Russian government. Nothing could be more relevant to the article. John2510 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Note the key term "conspiracy theory". It is not the theory that most Communists were Jews, but the conspiracy theory that the Jews were the driving force behind Communism. Furthermore it is original research to interpret Putin's words as if he were defending the conspiracy theory unless a source says he was. And yes "Jewish Bolshevism" is part of the larger Jewish conspiracy theory that has Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish bankers working together. TFD (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Jews" as opposed to "Jews" (the language this article definition contains). You seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. When someone specifically notes that 80-85% of an originating group were part of a relatively small minority, then it means that they were a driving force. It speaks clearly for itself without the need for research or interpretation, and none was offered or required. If the quote remains, WP readers may draw their own conclusions about the significance of the statement. Without it, a signficant observation by the country's President is concealed. It's interesting to contrast this article with the article on the History of Jews in Russia. It's as though a strawman argument is being made here and then carefully protected from any conflicting information that doesn't fit the hypthesis (e.g., that the President believes that Jews played a major role in the Russian communist revoloution). John2510 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You do not appear to understand the concept of the article. It is a conspiracy theory that the Jews (i.e., all the Jews) were behind Communism, not necessarily that Communists were Jews. For example most signers of the U.S. declaration were Masons, but that does not mean they were part of the (alleged) Masonic conspiracy. TFD (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitic?

What is this nonsense that adding reliably sourced information concerning Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik party and Soviet Union is antisemitic? After all what more appropriate article is there to discuss it than the "Jewish Bolshevism" article? You cannot just proclaim information, largely figures, that you disagree with as antisemitic while leaving that you favor in. The majority of the works cited happen to be written by Jewish scholars by the way. Most notably Slezkine. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is called WP:COATRACK. THis article is about a STEREOTYPE/MYTH, not about supposed (over)representation. Mixing the two is also WP:SYNTH.--21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What information that has been added is supposedly COATRACK while the information already present isn't? Both discuss total representation and roles in leadership/revolution which are fundamental to the article's topic of whether "Jews have been the driving force behind Communist movements". I have noted your previous ownership like behavior in the article's history. You are coming up with whatever possible reason to exclude information not conforming to your preferred point of view. This "STEREOTYPE/MYTH" is then perpetuated by historian Norman Cantor who says "Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s, Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll assume WP:GOODFAITH. Your edit would be appropriate in a different article, such as Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement. This article about a MYTH, as stated in the lede. You certainly wouldn't want to turn that myth into reality, would you?--Galassi (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
My edit is most appropriate in this article. What information have I included that isn't an extension of the type of information already in the article? Why is it ok to mention, for example, that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent"? I can't turn a myth into a reality from my keyboard, but I can add reliably sourced information that is pertinent to an article's topic and that is exactly what I am doing. The article is about a THEORY. We are not limited to only adding information in support of it being a myth. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The word THEORY in this context is an antisemitic FALLACY. The subject of this article is specifically called a STEREOTYPE by all the Reliable Sources, and I see no reason to take as good faith any attempt to dilute that.--Galassi (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A "STEREOTYPE" as our very own Wikipedia points out is a belief that "may or may not accurately reflect reality". Let the readers judge for themselves. Again you fail to answer my questions. Why is it ok to mention that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent"? Why does the latter constitute a "coatrack", but not the former? The information is not a "dilution" and is on topic just as much as the other information. You first said it was "antisemitic POV" (numbers can apparently be antisemitic) and called it undue weight or a coatrack (despite the fact the information directly addresses the subject just like the already present information). Shoving your cherrypicked quotes into the lead and formulating the article in a way that would permit you to remove any and all statistics not supporting it as a myth is absolutely inappropriate. You have, at the very least, historians Norman Cantor stating Jews played a "disproportionately important role" in Bolshevism/Communism, Yuri Slezkine saying they controlled a "high proportion of the most sensitive positions" in regimes abroad, Zvi Gitelman saying they had a "high visibility" in the Bolshevik regime, and Albert Lindemann saying its "beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews". The former three are Jewish to rub the point home. Don't remove statistics and information (sourced largely from Jewish historians) that does not conform to your POV and baselessly call them antisemitic in process. I note you've consistently crippled any attempts to expand the article since at least 2011. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This objectively has nothing to do with WP:COATRACK. If this article is about a stereotype (is it?), even so I don't see any basis for omitting historical facts upon which its based, however inaccurate the stereotype itself may be. -- Director (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism is not based on facts, any more than any other conspiracy theory is. It is not our role to persuade readers that the theory is true, merely to explain how it i discussed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but there's the rub. The article repeatedly attempts to distance Jewish involvement from the Bolshevik Revolution, as though to discredit the theory - while editors disallow evidence of Jewish involvement (on a variety of questionable grounds) - e.g., the Putin quote discussed above. I remain unclear on what the supposed conspiracy theory here really is, and suggest that needs to be redefined. If it's that Bolshevism was the product of a worldwide conspiracy among jews to take over the world, then that's one thing (and I think easy proved to be a true "consipracy theory") If the theory is, on the other hand, that the revolution disproportionately involved Jews, whose involvement was critical to its success, then I think that's a whole other theory - and probably not a valid "conspiracy theory." Nor is it antisemetic. Many Jews, and certainly communist Jews, are quite proud of their involvement in the revolution. It was their (quite successful) action to end the opression Jews faced under the Czar. Also, I think when an article declares something a "conspiracy theory" then intellectual honesty and the reader's better understanding demand the presentation of the best arguments supporting the theory - no matter how invalid (or even wacko) they may be. Only by that may the reader understand the basis for the belief. John2510 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an absurd blank statement. Some conspiracy theories carry more or less credibility than others as with any type of theory, conspiracy related or not. Purposely shaping the article, especially the lead, to enable information solely in support of it being a myth to be added is in severe opposition to NPOV. It's not our role to keep in statistics and information that supports the idea of it being a myth all the while ignoring that which may do the contrary (as has been attempted and succeeded since 2011). The role of Jews in Bolshevism and Communism must be discussed as its fundamental to the article. The fact you have many historians stating the above is more than enough to justify the information that's going in. No amount of fancy footwork and policy shopping will get you around that. A reader can only begin to understand the theory if all the information is availed to him/her. I note Galassi continues to push his policy shopping nonsense without continuing discussion [1] and note he's already received an indef topic ban due to similar conduct in other Eastern European articles (incidentally also conspiracy related) [2].--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is called "Jewish Bolshevism". Removing relevant, reliably sourced data on actual Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik party is in my opinion ridiculous.. The idea that this article is not about the actual involvement of Jewish people in the Party, but solely about the perception regarding said involvement, seems equally absurd.. and sounds kind of like a POV-pushing excuse. With all due respect Galassi, but perhaps you're not the most objective observer here (being a Jewish person from the former USSR). Personally I find it completely logical and unsurprising that significant numbers of Jewish people were involved in revolutionary movements seeking to overthrow the anti-semitic Tsarist regime (with all the pogroms and relocations etc). -- Director (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the last TFD comment on the "Putin Quote" section above. It applies here too. --Galassi (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It was wrong there, and it's wrong here too. John2510 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is not only only about Russia, but the purported Jewish overrepresentation in all revolutions, which makes current debacle fall under WP:WEIGHT.--Galassi (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Um.. no. No, it doesn't. You're just (rather transparently) fishing for excuses now, and that's obvious: WP:WEIGHT is the standard excuse of last resort for POV-pushers, as anything can be claimed to be "undue". You're personally set on removing information that bothers you. See WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:POVPUSH, and stop edit-warring. -- Director (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You have several concepts of what this article is about, none of which conforms to the article's self-definition. Maybe there should be an article about "Global Jewish Conspiracies" - but this isn't it. This one's about Bolshevism (or at least the Russian communist revolution). John2510 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for one week, so you can have a talk page discussion rather than edit warring. May be we need a sort of WP:RFC to discuss whether this article should include materials of real over-representation of Jews in the early Soviet Government or the article is solely devoted to the myth. 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is not only only about Russia, but the purported Jewish overrepresentation in all revolutions, which makes current debacle fall under WP:WEIGHT.--Galassi (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, no undue weight here.. -- Director (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I tactfully disagree. Probably RfC is the way go.--Galassi (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, you could consider inclusion of the material of (over)-representation of Jews in the ruling Soviet elite in the History of the Jews in Russia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that we first need to agree on defining the myth/theory/argument at the core. Are we talking about: 1) the notion that Bolshevism was the product of a supposed global Jewish conspiracy to run the world; or 2) the notion that Jews were overrepresented among Russian communist revolutionaries? They are two very different things that are blended here. I'm starting to conclude that the theory that there's a conspiracy theory going on is, itself, a conspiracy theory.John2510 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather than being "absurd", the idea that the article is about the conspiracy theory and Nazi propaganda concept, and as applied to communism as a whole, not just Russia and the USSR, is explicitly set out in the lead, from the opening sentence on – which defines the topic in those very terms. Those arguing for the inclusion of the disputed material are going to have to get agreement to change that basic point first rather than trying to justify it on the basis that it's somehow directly related to the page as currently set up. Rather than just dumping all these numbers here, you'd need to show and rely on a third-party source that explicitly cites and/or analyses them in the context of the propaganda term. Otherwise it looks simply like a bid to construct an original argument by association or inference on Wikipedia, which is of course a form of synthesis. N-HH talk/edits 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
My sentiment exactly.--Galassi (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thus far I have heard the arguments of it being antisemitic, WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT, and now WP:SYNTHESIS. You cannot justify excluding statistics and information on your personal arbitrary requirement that it be in the "context of the propaganda term". How can one mention that "in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364", but not that "in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent" on that account? It is absurd to require the article to exist in such a way that only information in support of it being propaganda may only be included and that the second opposing figures are included they are "an original argument by association or inference". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Allowing only numbers presented in the context of discussing the supposed conspiracy theory is no more than an artifice to allow one side of an argument (that it's a conspiracy theory) while disallowing the other (that there is validity to whatever that theory may be). It isn't intellectually honest. Either the numbers have meaning or they don't. John2510 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As noted below in response and also elsewhere previously, the page here is not a forum for random WP editors to try to fling loads of numbers onto the page in a bid to work out between us whether there were lots of Jews among the Bolsheviks or, conversely, not very many and hence whether an allegation of "over-representation" is fair or not (whatever that would mean anyway). First, WP pages are about topics, not about proving or disproving arguments, and secondly, the topic is here is the Nazi propaganda concept/conspiracy theory not the actual numbers of Russian communist Jews (nor is the Nazi propaganda theme itself simply about numbers anyway). If the raw figures are indeed relevant to the topic, I am sure you or anyone else can find a reliable source that makes that link or cites such numbers as relevant context and thereby include that information here if you really wish to. That is, after all, how pages here are written according to the most basic policies. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think its mutually exclusive. The over-representation of Jews manifested itself in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik party, the Soviet Union, and in the regimes abroad. So regardless of whether Bolshevism was a plot to further "International Jewry" or simple over-representation both warrant the information to be included. Having said that the lead will certainly need to be modified. The first line defining the article lacks a proper reference to which page is being cited. The opinions of Hannah Arendt and André Gerrits are cited while that of Norman Cantor, Yuri Slezkine, Zvi Gitelman, and Albert Lindemann are no where to be seen. One is expected to follow the narrative of it solely being "efficient fiction" and a "myth" and the fact that Jews had "high visibility" and a "disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism", ran a "high proportion of the most sensitive positions" in regimes abroad, and composed "close to a majority" of top Bolshevik leadership is to be quickly swept under the rug. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this page on this topic, as currently defined, should not be arguing the toss either way in terms of purported actual numbers. The point is not to try to "prove" or "disprove" the Nazi propaganda concept, or to sweep anything "under the rug", but to explain that concept, how it was used in history and how it has since been analysed in appropriate and relevant sources. In any event, as noted, the propaganda is not merely about numbers but about purported influence and intention, which makes the content in question of even more dubious relevance. As has been pointed out, if you wish to change the topic of the page into a broader one about the actual representation of Jews in communist movements in the USSR and elsewhere, or even create a separate page on that, go ahead and make the case for that if you think you can. But that's not how the topic presented on this page is currently defined nor does have to be changed so that it is so defined. And insisting that information is only included if it is relevant to the context of the topic is not my "personal arbitrary requirement" but a pretty basic principle of writing a page here. N-HH talk/edits 22:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
We need to find sources specifically about the topic. Metapedia presents a fair representation of how the topic is understood, although of course it is not rs. It says, "Jewish Bolshevism is a term used to present the fact that Bolshevism and Marxism were created by the Jews, the Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Jewish banking houses in New York City, the various coups in Europe were instigated by Jews and the system in general is designed explicitly to serve their interests." TFD (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A Google search reveals both its prevalence as a term on neo-Nazi and "revisionist" websites but also that entire books have been written specifically about the topic, which would surely provide useful source material. Eg this one and this one. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem lies exclusively in the nonsensical and overly-negative-sounding title of this article. There is no such thing as a strain of "Bolshevism" known as "Jewish Bolshevism", nor did right-wing propaganda imply such a thing. Not only that, but "bolshevism" is a term that usually refers to Russian communism, and this article has a wider scope. It is precisely the negative-sounding tone of the title that makes adding actual facts here "feel wrong" to people sensitive to such things.
Creating a new article would be a clear violation of policy (WP:FORK). This article should be renamed to Jewish involvement in Communism (or something along those lines), then we can introduce both the objective data, and the history of propagandist abuse of said data, without feeling like we're "vindicating Nazi propaganda" or something. What I'm certain of is that those are not topics for seperate articles. -- Director (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter that the term the nazis used was "nonsensical" and it is not forking to have an article about Jews and Communism given the fact that there were people of Jewish background who became Communists. TFD (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, "Communism is Jewish" is not an exclusively Nazi propaganda theme: its much older than the Nazi party, and was common to many conservative, right-wing, ultranationalist movements in the first half of the 20th century (likely earlier as well). (Ultra)conservatives, fascists, francoists, christian socialists, tsarists/whites, its a long list. The dictatorship in Poland prior to 1939, e.g., was pretty antisemitic and incorporated elements of this theme (having lost a war with the USSR). In fact, you could say most of Europe in the Interbellum was headed by regimes that went by this line to one extent or another.
Secondly, you misunderstand what I mean by "nonsensical". While the right-wing did claim "Bolshevism" was "Jewish", they did not postulate the existence of anything called "Jewish Bolshevism" (as opposed to ordinary "Bolshevism"). The term in and of itself means nothing. So its not that the Nazis used a term and it was nonsensical, its that this title is nonsensical because its not a propaganda line. It denotes some seperate kind of "Bolshevism" that never existed and was never claimed to have existed in anyone's propaganda.. for the nazis all "bolshevism" was "jewish".
I say again that separating an objective phenomenon from its abuse in propaganda is a WP:POVFORK. This article just needs a-renamin'. -- Director (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No one has claimed that "Jewish Bolshevism" was a separate kind of bolshevism. The term implies that Communism is part of the Jewish conspiracy. The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics. TFD (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No. The title implies this article is about an ideology, specifically a variant of Bolshevism. And no, we're not talking about "some Jews becoming communists", we're talking about the phenomenon of Jewish disproportionate representation in communist parties and movements. Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin (he was one quarter Jewish by ancestry and married a Jewish person), and indeed Marx himself, etc. I'm not saying its a negative or a positive thing, but its a very prominent (and reliably-sourced) fact. One that has been exploited in right-wing propaganda. And these are not seperate topics. All we need to do is get rid of the negative connotations in the title and cover the subject here objectively. Not create POVFORKs. -- Director (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No it implies it is about a conspiracy theory which is called Jewish Bolshevism. In this case two words are put together to form a term, whose meaning may not be readily apparent from the conjunction of the two words. "9/11 truth" is not about what actually happened on 9/11, but a conspiracy theory. The "West Indies" are not literally islands off the west coast of India. Red Indians are not people from India who happen to be red. Siamese cats are not cats that were born in Thailand. Sea horses, sea cows, and sea urchins are not horses, cattle and urchins that live in the sea. TFD (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
While I am shocked by all your revelations above, I nevertheless maintain "Jewish Bolshevism" is not a name of any conspiracy, and I challenge you to source that explicitly. No self-respecting scholar would refer to something as "Bolshevism" without it being, well, Bolshevism. The Nazis et. al. may refer to "bolshevism" being "jewish", but not to "Jewish Bolshevism" as a term in and of itself, least of all as the supposed "name" of some conspiracy. The title is a phrase that denotes absolutely nothing. And it would be nice if you fellas could make up your mind as to what exactly this article is supposed to be about.. propaganda line, conspiracy theory..
My second reason to change the title (aside from its nonsensical misleading formulation), are the negative connotations in which it paints Wikipedia's coverage of this subject. I could certainly introduce you to a few people who consider the efforts of the Jewish people in promoting Socialism to be a positive thing about Jews in general. This title could be viewed as precisely promoting the Nazis' negative view on the phenomenon. -- Director (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
People on one side of debate don't necessarily have to agree precisely between themselves for the broad point they are arguing to be valid. That said, all those opposed to introducing this material seem to be on the same overall page here. More pertinently, the other side now seems to be about saying that this page has the wrong title, the wrong topic and the wrong content, which ultimately makes the complaint dissolve in on itself, surely. As to whether something that is described in reliable sources as either or both a conspiracy theory and a theme of Nazi propaganda relating to so-called "Jewish Bolshevism" or "Jewish Communism" exists, please see the links I provided above, and other sources besides; equally, if you think a separate article can be created about the actual facts of Jewish involvement in communist movements – with reference to numbers or any other criteria – on the basis that that concept too features prominently in reliable sources as a discrete topic (including by having whole books devoted to it) and hence has a notability above a random "XX-ish involvement in Communism"-style entry, then go ahead. N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is entirely not the case.. This article is Wikipedia's coverage of Jewish involvement in communism. Its not about a propaganda theme, and its not about a conspiracy specifically. It just has an unfortunate title that makes adding objective information about said involvement seem "antisemitic". quite apart from the necessity of adding said information is the need to correct the silly nonsense title. I'll be waiting for someone to source it as the "name of a conspiracy" (or the name of anything for that matter). -- Director (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What is "entirely not the case"? The article is about a propaganda theme/conspiracy theory/whatever, for the simple reason that that is how the first sentence and the rest of the lead define the topic. Have you read that bit? What you mean is that you want it to be changed to be "Wikipedia's coverage of Jewish involvement in communism". Indeed, that is precisely what we are arguing about. And I've pointed you to some sources. Just to put that in black and white for you, have a look at this book called, er, "The Myth of Jewish Communism", where the author, Andre Gerrits, explicitly says in his introduction "Few historians would deny that 'Jewish Communism', a variant of the 'Jewish World Conspiracy', has been one of the most powerful and destructive political myths in early 20th-century Europe .. The Cry of the Jewish communist conspiracy added new fuel to existing anti-Jewish sentiments .. [it] become the centrepiece of state ideology [in Nazi Germany]". N-HH talk/edits 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ps: you could also look into the other book I linked to, which talks about "Nazi party propagandists" attacking "the 'Jewish-Bolshevik instigators of the world conflagration'". And, finally, in answer to your last question, the actual phrase "Jewish Bolshevism" is also, it would seem, the name of a book by one Alfred Rosenberg. N-HH talk/edits 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) olor="blue">edits]] 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source that calls a "conspiracy theory" by that name. A "myth" is not a conspiracy theory in and of itself. Also, do I take it you are proposing a move to "Jewish Communism"?
More importantly, even if this article were about a "conspiracy theory", on what grounds do you justify the removal of related and relevant background info regarding the facts behind the conspiracy (from high-quality reliable sources). Or do you too consider that "antisemitic"? -- Director (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Jewish Communism" is a synonym for "Jewish Bolshevism." Bolshevism was a more common term when the conspiracy theory was developed. Typically when one writes about a conspiracy theory or other fringe theory, one should not assemble evidence for its support and should restrict sources to those that are specifically about the theory. Most of the detailed information about Jews in the CPUSA is taken from sources that are not about the theory. The article is supposed to describe the theory as it is reported in reliable sources rather than advocate it, or debunk it for that matter. When we write about 9/11 truth for example, we do not try to assemble information to prove the U.S. government was behind the attacks but report what third party sources say. If we want to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, then we should post our views to a truther website. TFD (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Come on, this is getting silly now. If the explicit statement in a book called "The Myth of Jewish Communism" that "Jewish Communism" is a "variant" of the idea that there is a "Jewish World Conspiracy" doesn't do it for you, you could always try Googling the phrases "Jewish Communism" and/or "Jewish Bolshevism" with "conspiracy theory". There's plenty more serious discussion of this out there and I don't see why I should have to spoon-feed it all to you. You're the one that wants this page turned on its head after all, not me. And no, you cannot take it that I want to move this page. The phrases Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Communism are, in this context, fairly obviously alternatives or even synonymous terms for the same thing. Most things have alternative names and we plump for one while making any others a redirect to the same page, as has been done in this case (as the hatnote makes clear). And, finally, I and others have explained ad nauseam the many reasons why the information in question is not relevant as proposed. Sourcing per se is not the issue. N-HH talk/edits 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to concede a few points but I ask again: why are facts behind the supposed conspiracy, facts from which the conspiracy theory stems, not relevant? Because its a slanted article that deliberately attempts to make the conspiracy theory seem less plausible. Even if we all despise White Russians and others who authored it.
Because I cannot help seeing the issue in that light. Sourced facts upon which the conspiracy theory is based on are being omitted because their addition is a change towards making the conspiracy theory seem more plausible (which is not a desirable corse as its proponents included the Nazis). Their addition is referred to as "antisemitism", and they are being removed deliberately to make the conspiracy theory seem less plausible.
I'm sorry, but I see no other explanation other than such POV-pushing. If the sourcing is unchallenged, the relevance of said information to this subject is manifest and simply can not be objectively disputed ("ad nauseam" or otherwise). By all Wiki standards it should be introduced in some form or another. Even if we had a separate article we would still nevertheless be entirely justified in adding the info here as well, in perhaps an abbreviated form -- Director (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory is not based on evidence but is merely an update of the international Jewish conspiracy, which was outlined in the Protocols, by people such as Nesta Helen Webster. Conspiracists dream up theories, not matter how implausible, then assemble whatever evidence in support they can find, even if it is false, and reject evidence that does not support their views. That is not the type of approach we should take in this article. TFD (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The purported definitions are just as varied as the cited policies. First "myth", then "stereotype", then "conspiracy theory", and now "propaganda". The ride never ends. Their representation is relevant to all. The figures are not just simply figures there for the sake of it. When Jews make up the majority (4 of 7) of "leading figures" in the "Makers of the Russian Revolution", as Lindemann notes, that says a lot about them being a "driving force". They didn't stick around for a cup of coffee after all. I've brought up the 1917-June 1917 example three times now. No one has directly addressed it. Both sentences are relevant, no doubt about it, but one should be eliminated purely on account of N-HH's requirement? Surely the portion of Jews in the Bolshevik participants of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets is even more relevant than the overall Bolshevik party. Come on now. Hell if you do follow the personal restriction of requiring the source to discuss it in the context of propaganda then a good half of the article would cease to exist. Where's the propaganda context for the persecution of Jews in the empire, Churchill's analysis, Soviet purges, and Ali Ramin's comments? I see this process of assembling "whatever evidence in support they can find" and rejecting "evidence that does not support their views" being done on the opposite end. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@TFD. Jewish people were disproportionately represented in Communist movements and parties. This is fact. The spurious conspiracy theories based on said facts are another matter. These facts are not "evidence" for the conspiracy theory, but they are manifestly relevant in regard to it. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you appear not to be representing the subject correctly and further discussion seems pointless. TFD (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There may well be a problem with much of the material that is currently there – you seem to have missed the bits where both TFD and I have said this page should not be used to conduct an OR/SYN bid to debunk the concept just as it should not be used to seemingly buttress it – but this is about the bid to add a huge amount of statistical data relating to actual Jewish involvement in Russian/Soviet communism. Further discussion is indeed pointless if indeed we're going to carry on down this road, which is on a par with people turning up at the "Cat" page, asking why it is not entitled "Dog", why it is not about dogs and why they cannot add loads of material from "high-quality sources" about dogs to it, and then complaining and accusing others of arbitrarily excluding it when they are told that such material is, rather obviously one would have thought, not relevant. Sure there's a background to this conspiracy theory/myth/whatever (and, yes, something can have multiple facets and descriptions without that being an ever-shifting "ride") but that background is, as the sources attest, primarily anti-Semitism. To the extent that any underlying real statistics etc are also directly relevant as background to the topic of the page as defined, that can be verified through sources – of which, as noted, there are plenty to choose from – that actually address the primary topic, not by individual WP editors simply grabbing the stats from unrelated sources and then asserting a connection themselves. Most of the above has been pointed out over and over again. N-HH talk/edits 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah. This discussion is indeed pointless but only because POV-pushing is impervious to logical discussion. This is reliably-sourced, unquestionably relevant, related information, and the only reason its being opposed is because some users perceive it as "buttressing a Nazi conspiracy theory". The dog/cat "analogy" could not be more off the mark. And I have to say its strange that wherever I go on this subject TFD & N-HH invariably appear with identical views to WP:STONEWALL any changes.. -- Director (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no stonewalling, just a justified request for maintaining some clarity and focus as to what this page is actually about, as defined in its opening sentence, rather than allowing the addition of a huge mass of detailed statistics, which might superficially appear to be related to the topic but actually are not germane at all, to dominate the page. There was no consensus for such an addition so it didn't happen; that's how WP works I'm afraid. People who object to a proposal don't have to recant that objection just because one or two others keep banging on about it. And as you should have noted, I have happily accepted that some broader reference to the numbers issue would be fine if the sources used for the material link the point to the actual discrete topic at hand. I've even provided links, twice over, to such sources. I've also suggested that you start a page on the topic you and a couple of others seem more interested in rather than trying to reimagine this one.
As for the Dog and Cat analogy, yes it might be a slight exaggeration for effect, but perhaps you might stop and think for a second whether this page would be improved by a mass of figures about the number of children genuinely killed by Jewish perpetrators over the years or this one by the addition of the actual details of contacts between Jews and freemasons. Anyway, I see we now have an RFC below, so perhaps others can have their say. N-HH talk/edits 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
ps: I'm not sure what the accusation of "POV-pushing" is all about either. Nothing I have said or implied reflects a POV about the topic. Assuming it's not a cheap and throwaway ad hom, and you really mean it, I'm afraid it's further evidence that you don't understand the actual nature of the objection or the problem here and/or aren't reading what people are saying. Just to be clear, I'll say this for the third time: I am also not in favour of this page including detailed info that could be seen as part of a bid to rebut the theory. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have set up an RfC below and posted a notice at the NPOV noticeboard. TFD (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence is ungrammatical

Independently of whatever the issue is of the debate above regarding the term "conspiracy theory" (and sorry, I didn't read most of it, TL;DR for now), I must point out that the current lead sentence is semantically and grammatically nonsensical: Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism is the conspiracy theory.... The claim that Jewish Bolshevism existed may be a conspiracy theory, but Jewish Bolshevism itself certainly isn't. The sentence as it stands seems to be claiming that Jewish Bolshevists themselves were conspiracy theorists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs either to be put in quotes, or better still have tha article moved to Jewish Bolshevism (Antisemitic canard).--Galassi (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It may be, but that is the term that the inventors of the conspiracy theory chose, and which is used by scholars. Saying "9/11 truth" is a conspiracy theory is problematic too because the truth is not a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe should start "_The notion_ of JB etc.", or idea/concept.--Galassi (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That is close to saying "the theory of Jewish Bolshevism is a conspiracy theory." I see the distinction between the belief and the object of belief, and would welcome suggestions. TFD (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
'Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism is a portmanteau term that conflates Jews and revolution'. that's my effort - if it is a portmanteau.Sayerslle (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. Linguistically, it's simply a modified noun phrase, or a compound. A "portmanteau" word would be something like "Jewshevism" (just making this up for the sake of illustration). I might go for something based on what is now the second sentence: "The term Jewish Bolshevism is a catchword that has been historically used to express the assertion that ..." – Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
oh - well that's very clearly explained - so the sentence could carry on maybe 'The term Jewish Bolshevism is a compound that has been historically used to express the ascription of an affinity between Jews and revolution - itself a conspiracy theory, that had its roots in the collapse of Tsarist Russia..' - or does this fall into the same trap?Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The title is just silly, imo. -- Director (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, the title? Why the title? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Well imo the problem here stems from the rather unrepresentative title. "Jewish Bolshevism" sounds like Bolshevism in Israel, or a variant of Bolshevism adhered to by Jewish people.. anything but a conspiracy theory about Jews controlling Bolshevism. Sure I suppose some sources do use the term in that sense, but I wonder if they're not a minority among those who cover the subject. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
What do you think the majority of reliable sources call it? TFD (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, I've not read much on this specific subject. As I said, I wonder if such a weird title is the most appropriate. I'm asking folks who have knowledge of source material whether there might be a more representative alternative? -- Director (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, well you've commented quite a lot on it. Google is only a click away. I'm also slightly concerned by the suggestion, not confined to this page, that we can disregard the terms sources use for things if we don't like them or claim they're mysteriously "POV" or "confusing" and argue that we have to come up with something better ourselves, even if it's a total invention. Anyway, as the sources cited on the page and in previous discussion show, "Jewish Bolshevism", "Jewish Communism", "Judeo-Bolshevism" and "Judeo-Communism" all appear pretty frequently as the more or less synonymous main terms used by both proponents of the "theory" and academic third parties analysing it more objectively. You can probably make a case for any one of those as the title, but I don't see how we could go for something entirely different. N-HH talk/edits 09:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
How about downplaying the phrases Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism and emphasising the theory in the lede first sentence. For example:
The conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish conspiracy -- sometimes referred to as Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism -- was a theme of the German Nazi movement and other aggressive nationalistic tendencies in the 20th century and 21st century.
Nazis and other Fascists talked about the alleged connection a lot, but I don't think they settled on commonly used catchphrase ... Otherwise I doubt we would be arguing about it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The term "Jewish Bolshevism" appears to be generally used since the fascist organization Britons Publishing Society came out with the pamphlet The Jewish Bolshevism in 1922/23. The foreward was written by Alfred Rosenberg who next to Hitler was the most important Nazi ideologist, and the term was used by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist, and by Hitler himself. See for example the 1936 United Press article, "In a dramatic scene, [deputy leader Rudolph Hess, addressing the Nazi party congress] carried on the attack began by Adolf Hitler and Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels against what they termed "Jewish Bolshevism.""[3] Below are links to sources which establish the prevalence of the term and its synonyms:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TFD (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong and among conspiratorialists there may be a commonly used phrase. That leaves the problem that the phrase was so little used by everyone else that it might be confused with some kind of Jewish wing of the Communist Party/movement --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Not just people who believe or propagate the theory but in academic sources which write about it objectively at one remove. Arguably a parenthetical addition would be helpful to clarify straight up what this page is actually about, but I'm not sure that's the way we do page titles here, especially in the absence of any current article claiming the same name. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The Jewish Bolshevism is almost the same, and I proposed a merger. USchick (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not supported by sources

Outside Nazi Germany: In the early 1920s, a leading British antisemite, Henry Hamilton Beamish, stated that Bolshevism was the same thing as Judaism.[37] In the same decade, future wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill penned an editorial entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism," which was published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald. In the article, he stated that Jewish involvement in the various recent worldwide revolutionary movements (namely Communism) was a function of their character: {Bolshevism} among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.[38]

This statement is not supported by the source provided and SYNTH as I outlined previously. Just because Beamish said that Bolshevism was the same thing as Judaism, Churchill never said that. In addition, Churchill is being misquoted in this quote. USchick (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I'm going to delete it. USchick (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find you may have got to the point where people aren't responding to you, and I don't think you can take it there are no objections. As to the point in question, I agree it is probably synthesis by association and imputation, and an example of quoting out of context, but it appears to be an accurate direct quote from Churchill in so far as it goes and the piece in question is cited in Gerrits's book. I'd suggest refactoring how it is presented here is probably a better option, especially the claim prefacing the direct quote for example that Churchill suggested that Jewish involvement in communism was a "function of their character". N-HH talk/edits 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a direct quote. This is a direct quote "the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement". USchick (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
So, as soon as someone raises an objection, that's the moment you go ahead and remove the material outright? Yes " .. not a Jewish movement" is a quote but so is the excerpt currently quoted on the page. You can find both here. Denying the latter is untenable. At the same time, as noted, the excerpt highlighted is taken out of context. N-HH talk/edits 08:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
USchick, I have no wish to engage in discussion with you because I do not wish to enable your trolling. Please do not take that as acceptance of your postings. TFD (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The actual quote is "This movement among the Jews is not new." The movement being described is not referring to Bolshevism. It is being misquoted in this article. I have outlined it in the previous discussion above. USchick (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and someone has added "Bolshevism" in square brackets, in a bid for clarity as to what "this movement" refers to, which is of course the standard device in quotations to indicate the actual word does not itself appear in the original but where a quote would make little sense without its addition. Arguably that is a stretch as in fact "this movement" refers back more directly to the words "the schemes of the International Jews .. this sinister confederacy", by which he seems to mean an internationalist revolutionary creed more generally, rather than to any specific mention of the term Bolshevism/Communism. As noted, this material probably needs refactoring, and maybe more than I have given it. You just deleted it, without any agreement. N-HH talk/edits 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Churchill says in his essay that Bolshevism is a "world-wide conspiracy" of the "international Jews." That is by definition a Jewish conspiracy theory, however he qualifies it. TFD (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding anything to a direct quote is WP:SYNTH especially when you take it out of context and place it right next to another point you're trying to make. Perhaps an RfC from uninvolved editors would clear things up? It's clear that he's not talking about Bolshevism when he includes Spartacus-Weishaupt, who was not a Bolshevik since he died before Bolsheviks ever existed. USchick (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Um.. no. Just no. -- Director (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that policy, can you link to it please? USchick (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
To correct myself, he says that Bolshevism is part of the conspiracy that began with the illuminati. The theory of Jewish Bolshevism of course holds that Bolshevism is only part of the conspiracy. Anyway you are misconstruing the source, having taken a quote out of context and otherwise disrupting the talk page. TFD (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
For the first time you actually said something that makes sense. Would you like to include that in the article? I would actually support that. USchick (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No. The article should be based on secondary sources and we would need one before expanding the text. TFD (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
so the best thing to do is use a primary source and misquote it? USchick (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You quoted it correctly, you just took a sentence out of context and misrepresented what the article says. TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And can you stop saying the current excerpt is a "misquote", a precise allegation that does not apply here. As noted, there may be a problem with the insertion of the term "Bolshevism", but having it in square brackets is expressly making clear that it is not the actual word that appears in the original quote. Anyway, that aside I'd happily lose the large block of quoted text anyway. I'm not sure how illuminating it is and I'm not sure why this quote deserves this prominence on the page. Gerrits's book simply notes the comments about Zionism and Bolshevism struggling for the Jewish soul and maybe it would be best just to rely simply on that quote, cited to both the primary source and p18 of Gerrits's book. We can all pick out quotes at random, from "the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement" to the reference to Trotsky's "schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination". Without their context, they can easily be taken to offer contradictory impressions of what Churchill is trying to say and to present him as either an opponent of or a believer in the theory (although they are, in fact, reconcilable when one stops to think for a second about what he is actually saying in each case and across the article as a whole) nor should we really be citing them in the absence of any direct connection being made by a reliable source to the theory at hand. N-HH talk/edits 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that The Jewish Bolshevism be merged into Jewish Bolshevism. The publication is obscure and promotes the exact same theory. USchick (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on that? The publication is a stub with no established notability. My next step is to nominate it for deletion. USchick (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Go right ahead. User:Ludvikus left a lot of unencyclopedic garbage lying around; this is a fine example. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?

One carries the day in this somewhat confusing discussion. The second option is probably related according to some of the material cited here, but more importantly, to prevent slanting of the article, "Jewish representation in Communist movements is relevant data for inclusion in this article" (to use the phrase used by one participant) only if it is properly sourced and contextualized--but that's common sense, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the subject of this article:

  1. the theory that Bolshevism was the product of a supposed international Jewish conspiracy to run the world,
  2. the theory that Jews were overrepresented among Russian communist revolutionaries.

TFD (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The Bolsheviks were atheist. If they were Jewish why would they create an atheist Soviet Union and then persecute Jewish people? The article claims that Leon Trotsky was Jewish, but the article says "The family was Jewish but reportedly not religious. The language spoken at home was a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian." So what makes him Jewish is his bloodline. He certainly didn't self identify as being Jewish. To label him "Jewish" after his death is pure racism. According to the chart in the article File:1924 Chart - Conditions in Russia.png the majority of the people were Russian and Ukrainian, and Jews made up 5.21% to 7.1% of total membership. Also according to the article, the concept of Jewish Bolshevism originated with the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax published by Adolf Hitler. That's a reliable source for sure. :) USchick (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That was a quick response. :) Even a rudimentary reading of the material and information suggested would have given you insight on the realities, but far easier to label anyone not having the same view as "racists" or "antisemites". It's precisely this type of comment that reveals the article's true accomplishment in including evidence that disproves it and rejecting evidence that does the contrary. God forbid you bother to mention where that representation was situated! Flaunt a chart from a senator's speech (it looks mighty authoritative) instead. Who has time for the likes of "pure racists" like Norman Cantor, Yuri Slezkine, Zvi Gitelman, and Albert Lindemann. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
      • If you review the edit history of the article, I am not affiliated with it at all. If you have sources that reach a different conclusion, why not present them? If the Bolsheviks were still alive, I think they would laugh hysterically at the allegation. USchick (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this comment from a discussion above "There is no such thing as a strain of "Bolshevism" known as "Jewish Bolshevism", nor did right-wing propaganda imply such a thing. Not only that, but "bolshevism" is a term that usually refers to Russian communism, and this article has a wider scope." To assign Jewish anything to the Bolsheviks long after they're all dead is history revisionism. USchick (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would support that.John2510 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The subject of this article is indeed the theory that Bolshevism was the product of a supposed international Jewish conspiracy to run the world. It's an antisemitic canard, rather like Kosher tax, and in the same way that article doesn't need information about actual taxes on kosher food (unless the sources discuss them in the context of the kosher tax canard), this article doesn't need discussion of the various degrees of Jewish leadership amongst the Bolsheviks unless the sources discuss this in relation to the antisemitic conspiracy theory. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • One or none. I think deletion is really more appropriate. If the answer is "one," it can be better handled in an article on a broader "Jewish Conspiracy Theory." If it remains, as "one," then a substantial rewrite is in order, as much of the article is off-point. If the answer is "two" - then it's a factual question that is adequately handled in other articles (and not really a "conspiracy" theory at all). The article is based upon a theory about a theory, espoused by a couple of zealous authors, and no more. Maybe the article should read "Jewish Bolshevism is the notion that there is a conspiracy theory..." As it stands, the article presumes that such a conspiracy theory exists, which seems far from certain.John2510 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    Really? Then what are all those references cited in the article for? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well first, the sources would have to be determined as reliable, so let's examine them. Most of them have no links, so we have no idea what they say. Let's look at some with links:

  • This statement "In Poland, Judeo-Bolshevism was known as Żydokomuna and was used as an antisemitic stereotype." Except that's not at all what the source says. Żydokomuna [5] is listed as Judeo-Communism. It says nothing about Bolshevism.
  • Middle East Media Research Institute. Claims that "Adolf Hitler... Developed an Aversion to Judaism Because His Mother Was a Jewish Whore." (That's nice. According to Religious views of Adolf Hitler his mother was a devout Catholic.)
  • War in the East and the Extermination of the Jews: uses Hitler as the source. (Who happens to be a very reliable individual, especially about Jewish people.)
  • Then you have a statement from Henry Hamilton Beamish: stated that "Bolshevism was the same thing as Judaism." Henry Hamilton Beamish was a leading British antisemite who published antisemitic propaganda. (very reliable)
  • The next sentence uses WP:SYNTH to prove that Winston Churchill agrees in his editorial Zionism versus Bolshevism [6] by saying "{Bolshevism} among the Jews is nothing new." When in reality, in the International Jews section Churchill said "This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx......this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation....." then he goes on to blame Jews for the French Revolution. He's talking about the effort of International Jews to take over the world, he doesn't mention Bolshevism at all. "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt" also known as Adam Weishaupt was not a Bolshevik, was German, NOT born into a Jewish family, no Jewish relatives as far as we know, studied in the Roman Catholic Church, died in 1830, way before 1903 when Bolsheviks became active, and nowhere in their vicinity. Why Churchill thinks that the Jews are responsible for the French Revolution of 1789–1799 is not clear. But he does support sending all Jews to Palestine "with the utmost possible rapidity." He encourages Jews all over the world to "take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race." So again, the source does NOT support the statements in the article. USchick (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As ever, there are no doubt things that can be improved in the article in terms of content and sourcing. However, as pointed out in the previous threads on this, Googling for "Jewish Communism" or "Jewish Bolshevism" reveals both the term's prevalence on neo-Nazi websites as well as the more serious treatment it has received as a topic from academic and other disinterested third parties. By WP standards, it clearly has notability as a discrete topic among various other anti-Semitic canards. Add "conspiracy theory" in a search for either term, in Google Books, for further elaboration and justification of that description. Or read the introduction to this book, devoted in its entirety to the issue (which also specifically cites Churchill's comments, thus placing them within the context of the topic in a reliable source). And btw RS policy does not mean a WP page cannot quote or cite Hitler or any other anti-Semite. As long as the words in question are recorded in a reliable source, the words themselves are indeed reliable sources in turn for what Hitler or whoever said. N-HH talk/edits 08:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
"Jewish Bolshevism" and "Jewish Communism" are the same thing. The Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party changed its name to the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the 7th Congress in 1918. The term Bolshevik was only dropped from the party name at the 19th congress in 1952. While the writers who advocated the theory of Jewish Bolshevism are not reliable sources for Jews and Communism, academics who write about them are reliable sources for Jewish Bolshevism, and the advocates may occassionally be quoted. TFD (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any historians that would confirm that "Jewish Bolshevism" and "Jewish Communism" is the same thing and especially that Jewish people were the driving force behind Communism. If there's a book published about it and the opinion of the author conflicts with the opinion of historians, then it's WP:FRINGE. Neo-Nazi websites are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. USchick (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the issue here. The point is not about whether the theory/belief that communism or bolshevism (a common synonym of the time) is/was part of the Jewish conspiracy to control the world, as propagated by Nazis and other anti-Semitic political movements, is correct or has validity as a mainstream theory. Nor is anyone suggesting using neo-Nazi sites as sources, let alone to prove that it is correct or mainstream. The point is whether third-party sources have identified Nazis and other anti-Semites as having held and propagated that belief. They have and they did. I don't know of a historian that would dispute that. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

USChick, I hope you're happy: I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to pry my palm from my face having read through all the above :).

Either this article is or it isn't exclusively about the conspiracy bull. This is an important question, but it impacts very little on whether adding stats about Jewish overrepresentation in Communist movements is relevant for this article. It is, either way. The only real question this RfC raises is "should we include all the text about overrepresentation, or just a summary?" -- Director (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not unless reliable sources see those statistics as relevant for the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE says, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Wikipedia has many articles on fringe theories: chemtrails, New World Order (conspiracy theory), 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. Source btw are clear that "Jewish Bolshevism" and "Jewish Communism" are interchangeable terms. See for example Gerrits' The Myth of Jewish Communism, p. 96.
DIREKTOR, in articles about fringe theories, we use sources about fringe theories. We do not say, the scholars have failed to give them a fair shake, lets add all the evidence they are ignoring.
TFD (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everyone who is still reading. :) I was only pointing out that the sources used in this article don't support the statements made in this article. If you delete all the information that's not supported by sources, there won't be an article. So someone needs to decide whether or not you want this article to exist, and if you do, what is it about? And then you should be able to come up with reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia standards Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I don't see a policy saying that just because it's a conspiracy article, any whacko web site is acceptable as a source. ALL wikipedia articles are subject to the same standards. USchick (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No one has suggested using non-reliable sources. The conspiracy theory is documented in reliable sources and occassionally we may quote primary sources (i.e., what the whackos actually say) that have been replicated in secondary sources. I agree that little in this article is properly sourced, and want to remove substantial amounts. TFD (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As a starting point for discussion, it would be helpful to list some reliable sources along with a basic statement that each source supports. Let's see if the editors can come to some basic agreements. I'll start. USchick (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@TFD, N-HH. Your're being way too restrictive on content here. You must differentiate between the conspiracy theory, and the events its based on. Airplanes slamming into New York skyscrapers are not evidence of 911 being an "inside job", but you're still justified in mentioning their crash, or say, the collapse of tower 7, in the "inside job" conspiracy theory. Yes, you must be careful not to present such facts as supposed evidence for the cockamamie theory that's been drawn from them - but there is no way you can concoct a viable argument for them being "irrelevant" with regard to it, and oppose an (appropriate!) "background" entry on any such grounds. -- Director (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think I've been arguing for a blanket ban on including background information, even relating to numbers in some cases, you need to go and re-read what I've been saying. Anyway, this is slightly off from the actual question posed in the RFC.N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well in that case I suggest you and Producer work on an agreement as to how much of the stats ought to go in there? -- Director (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
== Reliable sources and what they say ==
I see your plan now: when my other palm attaches to my face I will have to abandon the discussion due to being unable to type. Genius ;)
Here's an excerpt from that infamous essay:

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

— Winston Churchill
That's old Winston in 1920 basically telling people all about how his friends in the City are not to be confused with the conspiratorial Jews currently trying to seize power in European countries. At the time Germany e.g. was reeling from an attempted communist takeover, led by Jewish-German Rosa Luxemburg, and Hungary had actually been taken over by Communists and had a Jewish-Hungarian dictator in Bela Kun. If anything, this is a good quote for the article, given its subject..-- Director (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's another excerpt

"Duty of Loyal Jews. It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race."

— Winston Churchill
USchick (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The whole theme and point of that essay, by the then-Secretary for the Air, is to stem antisemitic sentiment by claiming the supposed existence of "two kinds" of Jews, the loyal non-atheist Zionist Jews, and the atheist evil Jews in the sinister Bolshevik conspiracy.. Its a terrible document, but its a good showcase for the period of what a non-antisemitic person might be saying. -- Director (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand what Director is saying. The Zionists are the good ones? WOW how times change! Anyway, would anyone like to post a reliable source that claims Jews are responsible for creating Communism? Since editors claim that there are lots of historians who agree on this point, let's examine them please. USchick (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't read the essay. The essay which isn't a secondary source anyway and is pretty useless except for direct quotes. You are also entirely missing the point of this discussion and are cluttering the talkpage with pointless posts. By -- Director (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I read the entire essay. This is a primary source used in the article. You can't have an article without sources, so would you like to provide some? USchick (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
UShick, as you say, "It's a conspiracy when people claim [the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement] is true." That's what the article is about, the conspiracy theory that the Bolshevik movement is a Jewish movement. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between describing a conspiracy theory and promoting it. Sources have been provided, including The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, which incidentally is by an historian, is not fringe and does not promote the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
If sources have been provided and everyone is in agreement about what they say, then why is this article locked? USchick (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is whether reliably-sourced stats on Jewish overrepresentation in communist movements ought to be included or not as relevant background info, and if so how much of such info is necessary. -- Director (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is plenty of such material already in the article.--Galassi (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree btw that the article uses too many primary sources. If we mention Churchill's article, the source should be a secondary source that explains the significance of his writing to Jewish Bolshevism. The same is true with "background info." Director says that Jews were "overrepresented", but we would need a source that says that and how it might have influenced the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The real issue here is that "Jewish Bolshevism" has not been established in this article. The fact that you're not willing to look at sources and what they actually say is significant. What editors want to do here is push their own POV and then find sources to support their position. That's not the way to a balanced article. USchick (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to find sources about "Jewish Bolshevism" and report what they say. That is not POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
So far you're the only one interested in doing that. If there are lots of sources, it shouldn't be difficult to find them. As of right now, the first sentence in the article has not been substantiated, making the rest of the article highly questionable. USchick (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not create this article and my only involvement has been to remove material. What positive contributions have you made to the article? TFD (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing you or your edit history. I'm simply suggesting that it's impossible to have an article when editors are unable or unwilling to provide sources and have a discussion about what the sources say. USchick (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I say again: a certain amount of stats/info regarding the involvement of Jewish people with communist movements is perfectly appropriate. I recommend getting into the details with Producer and agreeing on an entry. Two side-notes. #1 I agree the term "overrepresented" should not be used without support, though imo it should be noted Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. were Jewish. And #2 no, Wikipedia policy explicitly allows direct quotation of primary source material without any secondary interpretation. Sourcing is no grounds to exclude any Churchill quote. -- Director (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you elaborate on how Jewish was Lenin?--01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
He seems to be applying the Nuremberg law criteria.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources about Jewish Bolshevism mention that Marx et al. were of Jewish ancestry and that should be noted. But much of the detailed information information that was in the article was excessive and beyond what the sources found significant. TFD (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What sources establish that Bolshevism was the brainchild of Jewish people? Considering that Lenin was baptized and then married in a church, what exactly makes him Jewish? One grandparent? USchick (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You have wasted the time of a number of editors. It is disruptive editing to continue to pretend not to understand what others have replied to you and to misrepresent what they say. I suggest you only post constructive comments, otherwise I will proceed with behavioral dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You're the one who posted an RfC: "Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?" I'm sorry if it's not the comments you wanted to hear. None of the editors are willing to provide sources or discuss them even though the article is locked. Based on that, I suggest the article should be nomianated for deletion. USchick (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have started a discussion thread at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing at RfC. TFD (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Lenin, it depends on your definition of who is Jewish, and Lenin is a "borderline" case (if you'll pardon such language). He was apparently 1/4 Jewish (he also married a Jewish person). -- Director (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Except for in Nazi germany being Jewish doesn't work like that. Neither MArx nor Trotsky, can be meaningfully said to be Jewish as neither of them ever identified as such. Like Lenin, the only connection they can meaningfully be said to have to Judaism is that they had Jewish ancestry. Unless the tendency to create bolshevism is assumed to be passed down genetically, that makes the claim of Jewish Bolshevism inherently impossible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As always, the formulation is up to the sources. Its debateable whether Lenin can be called "Jewish", I agree, but with one Jewish grandfather he certainly has Jewish ancestry. Marx and Trotsky are about as Jewish as it gets. They're Jews by all but the most absurdly exclusive definitions, there's no debate there. A person's religion and/or what they "identify" as, is irrelevant with regard to their ethnicity as such. A Frenchman who practices Buddhism and declares he's Nigerian is not a "Nigerian of French ancestry". Similarly you yourself can not one day declare you "identify" as Hungarian and expect to be described as such in a respectable encyclopaedia..
The conspiracy theory here is indeed spurious, but certainly not on any such trivial grounds as "they didn't identify as Jewish so they weren't Jewish so its all impossible".. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Two self professed non-Jews, are "As Jewish as it gets"... as I have said before your definition of "Jewish" does not match the one we generally use in wikipedia for ethnic, religious and sexuality issues, namely self identification. It is in turn a classic racist definition, incidentally the same one that underlies the conspiracy theory and shows the futility of it. How can people conspire with a group to whom they do not consider them self to belong? Being a nigerian is a question of citizenship and a French born person who achieves Nigerian citizenship is a Nigerian of French ancestry regardless of her religion. Being French or jewish is not a biological but a cultural identity. Except for racists. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That is not a problem. We merely say what the proponents of the theory believed as well as any analysis in reliable sources. What we should not do is go outside those sources for information about who was or was not a Jew. TFD (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Precisely, the formulation is up to the sources.
@Maunus, I think your perception is the one that's off. We do not describe people as what they "declared" themselves to have been, but simply follow what the sources say re their ethnicity - regardless of whether it chimes with their own wishes or not. As far as I read, though, Trotsky was a Russian Jew, Marx was a German Jew (he's actually in the infobox), Lenin was a Russian with some Jewish ancestry. Its likely none of them "identified" as being part of any nation whatsoever, being internationalists, but that doesn't erase their ethnic background, and why should it? -- Director (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
What has not been explained yet is how the genetic DNA of Jewish ancestry has anything to do with Bolshevik ideology. What do sources say about that? USchick (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
What satisfaction do you find in pretending that you lack reading comprehension skills? If people accept your posting at face value they will think you are lacking in intelligence. If they think you are pretending, they will think you are a troll. TFD (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Intead of personal attacks, why don't you just answer the question? USchick (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please go away, with the greatest respect USchick. -- Director (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there are two points to make with the article, only one of which is being addressed. Yes, there is a fringe theory that Bolshevism was some kind of Jewish plot. The article addresses that. However, as some have pointed out, there seems to be a disproportionate number of ethnic-Jewish intelligentsia that became atheistic Bolsheviks. I don't know if we can find reliable sources on this incidence as so much of the material is either anti-Semitic propaganda or material designed to refute same. Why did so many Jewish intellectuals like Marx leave their faith and become leftists? It may have been a combination of disillusionment with organized religion coupled with rage at a Gentile Bourgeois ruling class in Europe. Both should be discussed in the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Jews were active across the political spectrum with the exception of right-wing parties, which were anti-Semitic and normally did not allow Jewish membership. But they were more likely to be liberals. The German Democratic Party for example was dubbed the "Jewish Party". Hence the other conspiracy theory, "Jewish capitalism", the theory that the Jews are behind capitalism. The second most popular group of parties for Jews was Social Democracy. There were far more Jewish mensheviks for example than bolsheviks, far more German Social Democrats than Communists. TFD (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • One. It doesn't really matter which of the two theories is more correct, if any of them are at all. What matters is which one has more historical significance, and that is probably the first theory. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • One. The first theory is the closest to fact. That there may have been a larger representation after the revolution would only be common sense, considering the number of pogroms that occurred before the revolution. That wouldn't be a conspiracy, it would be common sense and self-preservation. After all, if one's persecuted ethnic/religious group has been persecuted before the revolution, it makes sense to be part of the new government and help avoid a recurrence of such persecution. If one looks closely, there were quite likely quite a few Gypsies in the new government as well. Then, Stalin came along and upset the apple cart.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Bah! The wording in this RfC is slanted. The issue isn't whether this article is about a conspiracy theory or not, clearly there was a conspiracy theory and clearly its within this article's scope. The issue is whether info on Jewish representation in Communist movements is relevant data for inclusion in this article (e.g. as background). A clearly-biased user of Jewish ancestry from the former USSR was edit-warring to remove said clearly-related information, and it would appear it has remained "censured" entirely. -- Director (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_4&oldid=1136267283"