Talk:Jewish Bolshevism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Association of International Studies - Stanford.edu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a bit of a ridiculous discussion. The "sources" listed here show us that some contemporary observers, most of whom were relative outsiders towards what they were talking about, repeated antisemitic claims about Jewish Bolshevik influence. Today's historians, triangulating an array of sources, are able to give us a better account of whether this was true or not. For example, Churchill's newspaper article and Lloyd George's memoirs need to be read in the context of what sources they had access to about what was going on in Russia, the antisemitic common senes of the time, and ideas of racial nationalism that British politicians embraced in the period. This has been discussed by several historians, such as Sharman Kadish and James Renton, and it would be better to use well-researched secondary sources in this article than for us to attempt to provide an amateur synthesis WP:SYN of original research WP:OR based on unreliable internet reproductions of contemporary primary texts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, and although the relevant section could probably be expanded[1], CHurchill already has 3 paragraphs in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this missing here?

No sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this for the image caption?

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

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

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

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

Revised suggested caption:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My very best wishes absolutely what? You can't just tag-team without explaining. USchick (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

• Trotsky was also a member (or "Narkom") of the ruling Council of People's Commissars.^[1]

• Jews made up 7.1% of members who had joined before October 1917.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular observations without any explanations are not very helpful. I could also make the observation that Jews were driven out of Ukraine in large numbers, and the ones who were left in Ukraine had access to Jewish friends and relatives all over the world, and that's why they were more successful than the Ukrainian oligarchs who didn't have as much access to the outside world. Connectivity works all the time everywhere, just like the Internet, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand this. Here's a source that explains Jewish connectivity of micro-regions in the Mediterranean basin [2]. I'm sure it works the same way in the modern world, except faster. USchick (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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