Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Better distinguishing baseline fact from conspiracy

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

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

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

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

[removing the remainder to prevent copyright violation]

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

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

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

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

First, you should not post lengthy passages per "Copyright violations". I don't know why you think that the author Carol M. Swain is "left-leaning," other than she is black, an academic and wrote about white nationalism. She describes herself as conservative and been mentioned in the SPLC's "Hatewatch." It says she defended a DVD which "is a hit among white supremacists looking for a smart-sounding defense of their beliefs."[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be that the facts are true and could be sourced to reliable sources. However, they still cannot be introduced into the article unless a reliable source relates them to this topic. BTW, the author of the IHR article is banned from the UK. TFD (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Should this article be added? It is on point, written by a world leader and pre dates some of the other work, but it supports the conspiracy theory https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

I agree that this article is very biased. For instance, where is Solzhenitsyn's "Two Hundred Years Together"? That book documents just about everything. 2601:280:5B7F:DDCB:ADDF:F8C5:25E3:C52B (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it better if people don't know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8400:5790:D1AE:3752:BFC:F7F2 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it better if people don't know? Knock it off with that, please. People know, because Churchill's essay is already mentioned in the article. If you have a reliable, secondary source for this century-old WP:PRIMARY source, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@TorontonianOnlines: "If somebody could find a legitimate source that points out the representation of Jewish people in the Bolshevik party - particularly in their leadership, I believe that would be highly helpful." you wrote, albeit over a year ago now. I've edited in something that was really very easy to establish, believe it or not. Of the 7 members of the first Central Committee of the Bolshevik Revolution, 4 were Jewish. All one has to do to find this out is click on their individual Wiki articles. The 7 members were listed in Kamenev's article (and others) and the list is referenced. Also, the head of the Mensheviks when they split in 1903, Martov, was Jewish. Again, all the info is already in Wiki.

This article we're discussing is overwhelmingly written in a way that seeks to deflect anyone away from thinking that Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revlution was anything but minimal. As I've just demonstrated, with referenced information, it was not. To have a Wiki article written in the way it has been is shameful, as it is clearly a misrepresentation of historical and verifiable fact. Further, I have not edited in the fact that Zinoviev (one of the four) actually advocated - and again this is verificable - the annihilation of 10 million Russians> Yes, really, and Trotsky of course wasn't far behind. This is all historical fact, and once again comes straight from another Wikipedia article, Red Terror (see the last quote in its Purpose section). Please ping me if/when replying. Thanks. This may also be of interest to you, @Franzboas: Again, please ping me if/when replying. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your source makes no mention of these people's religion and more importantly makes no connection with the theory of Jewish Bolshevism. It is not our role to prove that the theory is true, but to report what sources say about it. TFD (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It is fully referenced now. Tho of course all that was needed before these later edits was to click on the wikilinks of those who were Jewish, and I somehow doubt that you saw my edit as being unsupportable. It is our role as Wikipedians to bear facts to the reader. Can we agree on that?

Anyone coming fresh to the article would think that the concept of there being Jewish control of the Bolshevik revolution was total rubbish. Well guess what, 4 of the 7 man first Politburo, set up at the time of the revolution, were actually of Jewish origin. Note that I am not stating that there was Jewish control of the revolution. After all, Lenin was at the top. But like anyone who gets involved in Wikipedia and makes thousands of edits, I prefer facts to the massaging thereof. It is very clear from the overwhelming slant of the article that is not written with a neutral point of view. It is crucial that WP:NPOV, in particular WP:IMPARTIAL,is followed for all Wikipedia articles, is it not? Boscaswell talk 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

While your interpretation may be that Bolshevism was part of the international Jewish conspiracy, you need a source that connects that fact that 4 of 7 politburo members in the 50 days between 10 October and 29 November 1917 had any significance. (See Inner-composition of the 6th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks)#Politburo (elected on 10 October by CC).) I notice btw that 3 of the 4 "Jews" were dropped in the next politburo. :::Neutrality btw means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It doesn't mean that we need to include all information that editors think supports a particular view. TFD (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree - WP:CHERRYPICKING at its best, and unsupported by reliable sources covering this (a few very fringey sources do highlight this - which is a rather strong indication we should ignore). Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you guys will do anything to obfuscate matters and avoid the reader making up his or her own mind. This is obvious. First up the objection is that I'm not providing references. I do that, and then another objection is found. And so it would go on. This is not the way that Wikipedia is meant to operate.

The idea that I am introducing editorial bias is laughable when compared to the clearly overwhelming bias of the article itself. Any reader with any common sense at all can see that for his or her self. But really, I mean, really, this is Wikipedia at its most shameful.

Further, "While your interpretation may be that Bolshevism was part of the international Jewish conspiracy" was written above about me. I take exception to the inference. "It doesn't mean that we need to include all information that editors think supports a particular view." But a whole article slanted in one direction must be defended at all costs, right? Some might call this gross hypocrisy. Boscaswell talk 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the meaning of the policies of neutrality and synthesis. Articles summarize what has been written about topics in reliable sources. If they are in agreement that Jewish Bolshevism is a groundless conspiracy theory, then this article should say that. If they ignore the fact that 3 out of 7 members of the politburo during two months in 1917 were Jewish, so does this article. If there is a bias in reliable sources, then it will affect the selection of information for this article. If you don't like that, then you need to get the policy changed or persuade the academic community to treat this topic in the way you think would be fair. TFD (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You are being economical with the truth - again. Why am I not surprised. It was 4 out of 7, not 3 out of 7, who were Jewish. Later, it was 2 out of 3 (the Triad) opposing Trotsky. In the interim, others of Jewish origin came in to the top echelon of the Bolshevik leadership.

I find it interesting, and very telling, that one of the key attributes of that revolutionary time was the apparent necessity to stifle any thought contrary to the party line. Because that’s just how it is with this article and your attitude towards anything contrary to its decidedly one-sided slant. Yourself and others are determined that the article remain as one-sided as it is. You are doing your utmost to stifle thought contrary to what is written, anything other than “it was all a canard! Something made up!” It wasn’t. 4 out of 7 tells another story, so that fact simply cannot be allowed to sit there on Wikipedia’s pages, in case more than a few start to ask questions. Suppression of thought is shocking behaviour. The light is being shone in the darkest of corners, and the truth will out. It’s just a matter of time. Boscaswell talk 07:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If "4 out of 7 tells a story", I'm sure a reliable source will have discussed that story as regards Jewish Bolshevism. Which specific source on Jewish Bolshevism discussed this? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jews admitting that communism is Jewish

Please don't leave out Jewish sources which claim the same thing, for example:

“The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.” The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920

“Some call it Marxism, I call it Judaism.” Rabbi Stephen Wise, The American Bulletin, May 5,1935

“The revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution” The Maccabean (New York), Nov. 1905, p, 250

“Judaism is Marxism, communism” Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.124.166.216 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jewish involvement in Russian Communism

I am reversing an edit that an editor recently made to this article.[2] The edit adds information about the involvement of Jews in Bolshevism. There have been previous discussions of this issue and we cannot add material that we think explains the Jewish Bolshevism theory except if that material is taken from sources specifically about the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory.The relevance of material to any topic can only be determined by the significance assigned to it in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The same editor has reverted my edit with the note, "why remove changes added on 05:42, 31 October 2019‎ " The other material I removed was taken from an article by Steven J. Zipperstein, "On Jews and Communism", in which he says that the number of Jewish Communists was always small except for a brief period in Russia. "The belief that a pen­chant for both com­mu­nism and, for that mat­ter, cap­i­tal­ism is some­how intrin­sic to Jews — these patent­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry but shar­ing, as some con­tin­ue to insist, reliance on a con­spir­a­to­r­i­al intel­li­gence and on forces hid­den from view — remains a stub­born fix­ture of con­tem­po­rary life."

Yet the material presented in their edit suggests the opposite. In any case, similar to the other material I removed, we cannot add evidence for or against the conspiracy theory without relating it to what the sources say about it.

TFD (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

NEEDS edited badly

Upon reading this page it is not and article nor educational but is uninformative and even propaganda. I'm both German and Jewish and facts and knowledge speak for themselves. This piece states some articles as propaganda and states others as fact, over and over any cited articles of one opinion is stated as propaganda and the opposite as fact-THIS IS NOT JOURNALISM NOR EDUCATIONAL, simply state all printed materials as written and let readers decide for themselves what is true. Was Bolshevism Jewish in part or totally or not at all? truth is for readers not writers to determine which can not happen with such and opinionated writing. On a moral and a knowledge basis we can easily understand their are good, bad, confused and grey actions of all races, religions and peoples and to say any is purely right or wrong or to instantly assume one is correct or another is above crimes, evil and moral indecency is of total abandonment of wisdom itself. while antisemitic ideas are a serious problem, so to is semitic deifying where any information involving semitic people in a negative roll or behavior is automatically cast as wrong. As a Jew and a human I can factually tell you-some jews are criminals, some are evil minded and some do bad things as is true with all peoples of earth-ACCEPT it. I am not here for all that though, I am here simply to state-rewrite this article and keeping all cited material but drop any opinion of it as propaganda or fact and rewrite any portion that puts forth the writers ideas and feeling to be factual and not emotional.Thank you for your time -JR. Reider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ox1111 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

While it is wrong for articles to be strident about one position on a topic, it is also wrong to provide equal validity to conspiracy theories. While there are and have always been Jewish criminals, no serious argument can be made that Judaism is a criminal conspiracy. TFD (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

They were forced

It's funny how this article tries to justify the participation of Jews in revolutionary organizations by their "oppression" in the Russian Empire. Apparently, the author forgot where the Prussian Jew Karl Marx was born and lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Александр Ашкаров (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say that Marx was oppressed in the Russian Empire.In fact he died long before the Russian Revolution. TFD (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m talking about this. The founder of communism was the Prussian Jew Karl Marx. The article says that Jews supported leftist movements because of their oppression in the Russian Empire. Because of this, one might think that in all other countries, Jews were ardent champions of conservative values. But no, in other countries Jews were not oppressed, but they still sympathized with leftist ideas. In Prussia there was no discrimination against Jews, but it was there that the communist Karl Marx was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Александр Ашкаров (talk • contribs) 10:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your point is unclear since it looks like you're trying to generalize about Jews in general based on one, Marx, being a founder. The article doesn't provide an explanation of the motivations of Jewish communists in general, it only discusses conditions in Russia before the revolution. By the way, nineteenth-century conservatism, and probably most of society in general, was anti-Semitic to some degree in most European countries at the time. Even America had discriminatory laws. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Held to their own standards

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Overrepresentation of a group in a political movement does not prove either that the movement was 'dominated' by that group or that it primarily serves that group's interests" Imagine if this were applied consistently by academics to White Evangelicals and the Trump movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.126.219 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC) The difference is that white evangelical supporters of Trump have an agenda: school prayer, public religious monuments, restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples, teaching of intelligent design etc. The Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory uses circular reasoning to assume that Jewish support of the Left was evidence they had an agenda. TFD (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose WP:MERGE with Zydokomuna

No justifications for two separate articles, it appears Zydokomuna is simply the antisemitic Polish term for Jewish Bolshevism. After all, Zydokomuna is even mentioned in the lede here. A merge would actually cause readers of both articles to be given more information, and the subject would be treated more comprehensively. It would also be in keeping with WP:NPOV / neutral world view, rather than having an article on Polish inside baseball. If editors here agree, let's make the change. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Separate articles are justified per Wikipedia:Splitting: If "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article." If the two articles were merged, it would mostly be about the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory in Poland, while it was equally or more significant in Russia, Germany and other countries. If Zydokomuna were a stub article, i.e., just one or two paragraphs, I would agree, but it's lengthy. TFD (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for the input. I now see your wise point that per WP:SPLIT, size matters. For a little Covid lockdown levity, I have a lighthearted question for you. If we had an article on Cheese and another on Fromage covering French cheese that is much longer, what would we do? Wouldn't we merge the two and do the reverse of splitting, i.e. pare down the overly long section, per WP:LENGTH? Because I think what may have happened with the vast majority of readers is that because they have never heard of Zydokomuna they assume it is a distinct subject, while most would know that Fromage is not. We actually do have a List of French cheeses so by that token maybe this title would be better rendered as 'Jewish Bolshevism' in Poland ? (We have a precedent of using shock quotes in titles of misnomers.) -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that is the correct comparison. the Zydokomuna has a lot of information that is specific to Poland. It's more similar to articles about ideology. We have separate articles for example about socialism, liberalism, conservatism, etc. for individual countries. Whether Zydokomuna should be renamed is an issue that can only be addressed in that article's talk page. TFD (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: A relevant discussion is taking place at Talk:Żydokomuna#Two_articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

2 suggested minor edits

In the introduction, I believe there are two misspellings:

1. tem -> term: In Poland, the tem "Żydokomuna"....

2. disproportinally -> disproportionately: ...that the Jews had a disproportinally high influence....

Metamusing (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the typos and tweaked the grammar slightly. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested edit ... The first Politburo had seven members, five were Jews

Suggested edit ... The first Politburo had seven members, five were Jews, Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sokolnikov

The first politburo was created in Russia by the Bolshevik Party in 1917 to provide strong and continuous leadership during the Russian Revolution occurring during the same year.[2][3] The first Politburo had seven members: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zinoviev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Kamenev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Sokolnikov

Communism killed an estimated 100 million people worldwide, dwarfing the Holocaust and all other genocides combined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

SteveBenassi (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

"A hundred years after the Bolsheviks swept to power, historians and contemporaries still struggle to understand the prominent role played by Jews."

https://yivo.org/1917Conference

"The two defining moments of the last century were, arguably, the Holocaust and the Russian Revolution. The tragic role of Jews in the former is self-evident; their prominent – if also profoundly paradoxical – role in the latter is the subject of our path-breaking YIVO conference."

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

"Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century"

"In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin."

SteveBenassi (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Only the JPost article is suitable for statements of fact. The ynet one is an opinion piece, so it is only citable as far as the author's perspective is significant to this subject. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

|}

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Revise your Propaganda page to reflect declassified US Intelligence analysis.. Original images and files are still available through the DOD, and will be re-uploaded no matter how many times they are removed.

"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United, States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty. (I do not mean the use of the word liberty which has been so widespread in the United States since the war began, but the real word spelt the same way), and the real Russian realizes this and suspects that Americans think as do the loathsome specimens with whom he now comes in contact. I have heard all sorts of estimates as to the real proportion of Bolsheviks to that of the population of Siberia and I think the most accurate is that of General Ivanov-Rinov who estimates it as two per cent. There is hardly a peasant this side of the Urals who has the slightest interest in the Bolshevik or his doings except in so far as it concerns the loss of his own property and, in fact, his point of view is very much like that of our own respectable farmers, when confronted with the I [?] ideal."

"It is very largely our fault that Bolshevism has spread as it has and I do not believe we will be found guiltless of the thousands of lives uselessly and cruelly sacrificed in wild orgies of bloodshed to establish an autocratic and despotic rule of principles which have been rejected by every generation of mankind which has dabbled with them."

"384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government." --Captain Montgomery Schuyler, American Expeditionary Forces Siberia 1919, Intelligence Section / Declassified DOD Dir. 5200.9 Sept 27 1958 LeelooDallas007 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done it is not clear exactly the change requested, and suitable sources have not been cited. (The quotes above do not mention Judeo-Bolshevism, meaning it is likely original research to cite them). (t · c) buidhe 08:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Collapse suggested edit discussion opened by now blocked editor. TFD (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Serious studies must be included specially from pro-semite source One example of a pro-semite work regarding the actual study and facts from the era Herman Fehst professor at Germany Academy of Political Science admitted the majority of Jews before the Russian Revolution were influenced by jewish nationalism rather than Bolshevism Leaders in the Communist revolt in Brasil in November 1935 were, besides the two Soviet Jews Minkin and Evert, the following people: Baruch Zell, Ruben Goldberg, Abraham Rosenberg, Moises Lipes, Karl Karfunkel, Jaime Steinberg, Jakob Gris, José Weiss, Joseph Fridemann and Moises Kava. JNSIIT (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC) References Literally citing a journal published in Nazi Germany? I think we can do better than that. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Verifiability issues with new edits [3] The lead must follow the body, and the body cites verifiable sources that contradict the claims you make that Jews dominated among the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, this article is about the conspiracy theory/canard and not about Jewish Communists. If you want to make any edits to the article, you must cite a verifiable source. Citing an entire book is not verifiable; you must provide a page number and preferably provide a quote so that other editors can verify that the source supports the claims made. (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Inaccuracy The conspiracy is about the motives of Jewish communists, not about the ethnic makeup itself. There is no point to practice Jewish erasure here. And the lead that I propose does not contradict the rest of the article at all. At this moment, this article is a gross misrepresentation. The antisemitic conspiracy theory is about the Jewish members of the Bolshevik Party forming a (Jewish) conspiration—an old trope. The fact of Jews being overrepresented in the Bolshevik Party is a fact, not the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory pertains to the motives, not the ethnic makeup. 5 out of 21 members of the Central Committee being Jewish is 24%, and that counts as a high proportion compared to the overall proportion of 4% of Jews in the general population (Russian census of 1897). LordParsifal (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) If so, that does not make your edit accurate or verifiable. Last time I checked "majority" was over 50%, not 24 percent. Furthermore, the first sentence of the article should focus on what the topic is about, which is the conspiracy theory/canard and not "Jews in the Soviet comumnist party". The exact number of Jews in the communist party is not extremely relevant to the theory given the tendency to just make things up. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC) The edit did not contain the word majority. Just "a high proportion" LordParsifal (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) The original version of your edit did say majority. Furthermore, what's high is subjective and vague. Your edit replaces Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an anti-communist and antisemitic canard, which alleges that the Jews were the originators of the Russian Revolution in 1917, and that they held primary power among the Bolsheviks who led the revolution. with Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an anti-communist and antisemitic canard which suggests that the high proportion of Jews among the Bolsheviks was not merely coincidental. which is inadmissible on clarity grounds as it does not state clearly what the canard asserts. Everyone agrees that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolsheviks and that this was "not merely coincidental"—the main reason cited by historians being the high amount of antisemitism in the Russian Empire and the Bolshevik promise of ethnic equality. However, the bulk of the Bolsheviks were ethnically Russian. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Agree with buidhe. The conspiracy theory did not try to explain why there were Jews in the Communist Party, but attempted to prove that Communism was part of the international Jewish conspiracy. TFD (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC) buidhe is correct. This edit by LordParsifal is difficult to verify given the lack of page numbers, but I can guarantee that, e.g., Timothy D. Snyder does not support the claim that "Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an anti-communist and antisemitic canard which suggests that the high proportion of Jews among the Bolsheviks[1][2][3][4] was not merely coincidental." Rather, LordParsifal is using a WP:CITEBOMB unrelated to the "Jewish Bolshevism" concept to create his own definition based on original research and synthesis—even though none of the cited sources actually use this definition. Additionally, LordParsifal's accusation that buidhe is engaged in "Unsourced edit warring" betrays a serious lack of understanding of how Wikipedia articles are constructed; the lede summary does not require additional citations beyond those found in the body of the article, because it should not contain novel claims not supported by the body of the article. If anything, LordParsifal's determination to rewrite the lede so that it stands in opposition to the rest of the article only compounds the problematic nature of the OR/SYNTH involved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC) What the original edit says is irrelevant, since I corrected it and adjusted it myself. At this point you're just beating a dead horse, buidhe. Which is fair but not the point of the discussion. Let's stay on topic and discuss the essence of the conspiracy theory. Is the conspiracy theory about there merely being a high proportion of Jews within the leadership (compared to the general population), or about the old trope of "Jews working together to disrupt?" As it stands right now the lead is unsourced, and my lead WAS sourced. Awesome standards. LordParsifal (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC) The lead does not need to be sourced, since it is supposed to summarize what is already sourced in the body. There is no support for your edits, I suggest you drop the stick. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC) You have been provided with a response. I don't see the point of further argument. TFD (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Jews in the Cheka/OGPU/NKVD Could someone with editing abilities please add a few lines about Jewish representation in soviet security organs (noting regional variations), public perceptions of Jewish representation, and the reasons why it existed and later declined. I think its important to note if you want to understand popular antisemitism in parts of eastern Europe (Ukraine pogroms especially). The following source contains a write up beginning on page 106. If you don't have access to JSTOR I've also linked the FSB website. Alternatively, I'd be happy to give it a write up if someone can give me editing privileges, honestly there's enough material out there for an article of its own. HaileJones (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Budnitskii, Oleg, and Timothy J. Portice. “The Bolsheviks and the Jews.” Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites, 1917-1920, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012, pp. 69–122. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhk16.7. Accessed 6 Jul. 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20040216032404/http://www.fsb.ru/history/read/1999/kapchinsky.html I'm...Not sure if I should add a Romania section There's plenty of RS about the role of Jews in the Communization of Romania after WW2. Ana Pauker straight up led the Communist Party from October 1944 to October 1945. Mihai Roller and Alexandru Nicolschi also had prominent roles. I can't say I've really studied the Russian Revolution, but at least in Romania's case, it doesn't seem like that much of a canard/conspiracy theory. That's not to say that said Jews themselves weren't aware of the awkward optics. Ana Pauker went as far as to let many former members of the Iron Guard into the Party in order to disprove its perceived Jewish domination. Roller refused to promote Jews who died for the Romanian Communist Party. This is about the gist of it, not sure if I should add a Romania section. Especially as the article goes right out of the gate to stress that this is a conspiracy theory/canard, whilst in Romania's case it doesn't much seem like it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Transylvania1916 Did you read the article? It's not about participation of some Jews in communist parties, which no one denies. However, if what you write is true than it makes it clear that the communist party was not a Jewish plot and did not operate to promote "Jewish interests" etc. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC) I shall go ahead and make the section then. It would be instructive to have more examples besides Russia. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) I am struggling to see how this can be anything other than intentionally disruptive given that you had already shown that you were aware of what the subject of this article is, the antisemitic conspiracy theory, and that you added irrelevant content despite this and after being advised not to. I have reverted your completely off-topic addition as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article. I am willing to let you get away without a template warning this once, and only this once, but please do not think that we will indulge any repeat performances. DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) It was not my attention to be disruptive. I honestly figured that it fits: it went into detail how the RCP was perceived as Jewish-dominated even at the time, and how the leading Jews in it went out of their way to dispel this view. At any rate, I don't insist it should be here per se, I just found that info which I found interesting and wasn't sure where to add it, is all. Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) genealogy site used to support location restrictions: Elinruby (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Elinruby if you remove a source you also have to add a citation needed tag in its place because there's no guarantee that the next source contains the information before the previous citation, unless you checked it yourself. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Buidhe and you of course assume I haven't, nor have you checked yourself. Never mind though, go you. I am glad you are using talk pages now. Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC) References