Talk:Red Scare

Unsectioned items

I don't know if there should be such specificity at the beginning of the article because it says later there has been more than one red scare in the U.S. And certainly there have been red scares in other countries. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:42 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm revising the article to make it clear that the term red scare contains a POV. One which really ought to be balanced with its opposite POV: namely, that Communists are a bunch of murderous thugs 1,000 times worse than the mafia.

Someone, please help make sure I don't accidentally over-state my case, in my current mood of zeal... --Uncle Ed

Ed, if you think you can't edit an article without inserting your POV, you're probably right, and probably better off just not editing that article.

After China admitted that Mao Tse-Tung had over 20 million civilians executed; and the New York Times admitted its Pulitzer-prize winning correspondent had covered up 6 million murders by Stalin in Ukraine; and the more recent genocide in Cambodia came to light, talk which dismissed communism as a screenwriter's fantasy diminished markedly.

Credit rightly accrued to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War and defeating communism in Europe.

Aside from being incredibly POV (rightly accrued--what were you thinking?), these paragraphs make the same mistake you make throughout your edits: counterposing communism with the red scare, as if people opposed to mccarthyism or reagan's policies necessarily support stalin, Mao, etc. As if uncovering horrible things that communist states did necessarily justifies actions which capitalist states took. DanKeshet

I don't understand why it's a "mistake" to counterpose communism with the "Red Scare". I thought the POV of the Red Scare is that people were all bent out of shape over nothing -- that communism was "nothing to be scared of" -- a trumped up fear. I am balancing that POV with evidence that communism is indeed scary: murdering tens of millions of people is well-documented fact and shouldn't be deleted from the article.

---

I think the last two edits you made have been much better, Ed. Keep it up. :) DanKeshet 19:16, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I hate 2 things: communism, and dishonest anti-communism. --Uncle Ed

---

Re. "hysteria" I agree with Lance on this one. Google [1] returns more than 2,600 hits for the search "red scare" + hysteria. There is even a book, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 ISBN: 0070440751 which looks reasonably serious. I think there is a good case for stating it as a "hysteria." -- Viajero 20:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. A number of reliable books on the subject have called the Red Scare "hysteria" as well (samples: The Great "Red Menace": United States Prosecution of American Communists, 1947-1952 by Peter L. Steinberg; Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective by Richard M. Fried; Eisenhower & the Anti-Communist Crusade by Jeff Broadwater; some others). Moral panic might also be an appropriate label. —MIRV (talk) 21:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

"The term itself is arguably pejorative, belittling anti-communists by implying that their fears were overblown or hysterical."

I'm uncomfortable with this sentence. In both of the instances of "Red Scare" there was negligible communist threat to American society -- at least in proportion to the countless "Red Squads" that were organized with wide powers to suspend constitutional rights in order to investigate & arrest people thought to be helping the Soviet Union -- & who in too many cases were found to be either innocent of the charges, or guilty of nothing more than a lot of talk. -- llywrch 21:59, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a bit of confusion between fears of Communist infiltrators within the U.S. (which was certainly overblown) and fear of Communist Russian imperialism outside the U.S. (which was not -- think of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, and so on). Though the CPUSA probably took its orders straight from the Kremlin, it was never very powerful -- certainly not powerful enough to organize a revolution or coup. —MIRV (talk) 22:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In 1976, over 1/3 of Italians voted Communist (the Christian Democrats got <5% more of the vote over PCI to win the elections). Italy is clearly a country where a "communist takeover" as Ed Poor called it might have been (and still might be) possible. In the USA, CPUSA never even garnered 1% of the votes, making a "communist takeover" much more unlikely. Most of what I remember of the Red Scare is New Deal liberal Democrats like Alger Hiss being accused of being stooges of the USSR. In fact, if over one third of the US population was inclined towards communism as in Italy, it's quite clear something like the Red Scare could have never taken place, as the ruling class probably would have feared it triggering a general strike or something. -- Lancemurdoch 22:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So I guess the article should distinguish between the two aspects of the Red Scare: first, the fear of domestic communism (ridiculous and unfounded); second, the fear of Soviet imperialism and Communist takeovers abroad (well-founded and reasonable). Conflating the two would imply that all anti-communist sentiment was either ridiculous or well-founded, when the truth is in between: some aspects of anti-communism were grounded in realistic perception of the Soviet threat, while other aspects were closer to moral panic than serious geopolitical strategic thought. &mdash MIRV (talk) 10:06, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Red Scare is not linked to on moral panic. Woudl a link be POV or NPOV?

Addressing myself more to what MIRV wrote: distinguishing between the two -- American fear of a domestic communist overthrow, from the potential military threat of the Soviet Union would improve this article. The phenomenon of "Red Scare" also appears to be related to another American fear, the Yellow peril, which imagined imigrants from Japan, China & other Asian nations overrunning the businesses & properties of "respectable" Americans. (The warnings about Communism that I remember hearing always emphasized loss of property, free speech, religion, and promotion of "free love" -- similar to the threat of the "Yellow Peril.") For being the adopted home of so many nationalities, we Americans sure have our nasty xenophobic side. -- llywrch 19:36, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with the red scare, not about Soviet espionage which so far as it affected American communists or was participated in by them is a rather difficult area and needs to be addressed separately from this article which is in essence an article about an aspect of popular culture. Fred Bauder 00:30, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems a shade POV. There were legitimate concerns during the "Red Scare" that are bieng glossed over here. TDC 01:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, add this to your action item memo: The Soviets lost the Cold War/. TDC 01:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, TDC, how about an nice article on Soviet espionage in the United States? Maybe a better title than that... Fred Bauder 03:05, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps .....................TDC 03:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"This article seems a shade POV. There were legitimate concerns during the "Red Scare" that are bieng glossed over here." Yes, like the possibility that floridation of water was a communist plot. AndyL 04:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the commentaries and personal essays. This is article on the Red Scares in the '20s and the '50s. The anti-Communism of key figures, such as Palmer, McCarthy, Hoover, etc. is relevant. Anti-Communism in 2004 is irrelevant. 172 05:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I reverted. You can't just delete huge swaths of text, including the NPOV header, on a whim. RickK | Talk 05:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't try this red herring bullshit with me. If it's relevant to the Red Scares in the United States in the '20s and the '50s, it will stay in the article. If not, then don't waste the time of readers looking for a serious encyclopedic entry. 172 06:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed this:

The term is often used pejoratively, with the intent of belittling anti-communists by implying that their fears were overblown or hysterical.

What is the evidence that this is indeed the intent? I understand that some people might perceive this to be the intent, which is why I did not touch the following sentence (which describes a criticism of people who use the term "red scare"). The second sentence does a fine job of providing an alternate view, but this sentence claims a motivation, a claim that is unsubstantiated. Slrubenstein

See Reaction to McCarthyism and Historical revisionism for explorations of this idea. There is no question, and we have seen it here, that persons sympathetic with Marxism-Leninism are quick to invoke charges of "McCarthyism" in an effort to gain advantage for their point of view. Fred Bauder 15:47, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I agree with you about how people bancy about the term "McCarthyism." But this is not the same term as "Red Scare" which is used by historians. Slrubenstein

Fred and VV:

Stop making WP into a laughingstock. Before I removed the irrelevant personal commentaries, this article had mentioned Ann Coulter, but not Archangel, the IWW, Big Bill Haywood, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sabotage Act of April 20, the Sedition Act of May 16, the Creel Committee on Public Information, etc. Warren Harding, who arguably quenched the first Red Scare, especially given the message sent by his pardon of Eugene Debs, wasn't mentioned either. The WWI-era Creel Committee on Public Information, e.g., is relevant in this article. But the off topic personal essays written by WP users in 2004 are not. I will continue to revert attempts to restore the text in question. I won't let you waste the time of readers seeking a brief, encyclopedic write up on the first Red Scare (1917-1921) and the one in early '50s. 172 18:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 172. The term Red Scare refers to specific historical periods. Those looking to write about anti-communism today should write at Anti-Communism. --Alex S 20:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tried a compromise. Reactions? —Αλεξ Σ 00:25 28 April 2024

The last three sentences of The causes are pretty dubious. The existence of a vast communist conspiracy in America in the 50's remains difficult to believ, and the Soviet Union's mission to "bring the downfall of the United States" was mostly propaganda - both Soviet and American. The rest - about the number of people killed here and there - is entirely irrelevant. This is the 21st century, we don't have to repeat Reaganite and McCarthyite nonsense.

Diderot 10:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant in a discussion of the fears people had of communism whether and to what extent those fears turned out to be justified. Noting what we now know about communist regimes informs on this. And, "Reaganite nonsense"?? Perhaps you need to review the neutrality policy; fans of Reagan belong on Wikipedia just as much as fans of Clinton. -- VV 11:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Diderot, I think you went too far in your editing of the causes of McCarthyism. I have the dubious distinction of having been alive then and I remember the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe, the Communist victory in the civil war in China, the invasion of South Korea, the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, the concern that Soviet spies stole the secrets to the atomic bomb. I also remember that there was general knowledge of the extensive system of concentration camps in the Soviet Union and real fear of Stalin. These were real fears which people had. They form the factual basis for the public opinion of the time which McCarthy exploited. Fred Bauder 11:46, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

And yet a general knowledge of the massacres taking place in Cambodia never led to the fear that the Khmer Rouge was in control in Washington, nor was there ever any great fear of fascist inflitration in the government, nor do I remember anyone suggesting that Saddam Hussein had spies in the White House. Doing bad things is not evidence of infiltration. Period. Whether or not there were legitimate reasons to fear war with the Soviet Union or to take a dim view of its ideologies is entirely irrelevant to whether or not people were justified in beliving that the US government was already infiltrated with Soviet spies or that American leftists represented a Soviet fifth column. Furthermore, if there is something that fall of communism has relvealed it is that the USSR never had, at any time, an actual plan to take over in the West. It had lots of propaganda and ample willingness and ability to play political games, but the Red Army marching through DC was never actually in the cards. That is Reaganite nonsense, and I have the impression that WP does not endeavor to be an equal time for BS sort of place.

An article about red scares is precisely about fears of "the Red among us", not the communists on the other side of the world. Events in the the Soviet Union are largely irrelevant to that issue. Diderot 11:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning is based on the notion that people at that time had any reason to believe American Communists were different from or somehow disagreed with Stalin. We now know they were and did, but who knew then. At any rate we are talking about what people believed and above all feared. Not what was actually true. Keep in mind that many Americans of that period (and almost all Americans) of today had never met a Communist. Fred Bauder 19:30, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

No Fred, the question is whether American communists had any meaningful influence or had infiltrated American institutions on a scale that meritted paranoia, not how many people Stalin had killed.

I am not going to get into an edit war with TDC. But I challenge the contention that there was ever "a large number communist spies and sympathisers [...] constantly working to bring the downfall of the United States" anywhere on US soil. This is POV, it is not factual and it is entirely irrelevant to the case. At least this way readers have a warning that they are encountering bull.

Diderot 20:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC).

There has been dozens of great books on the subject written over the course of the past 10+ years. Intervies with hundreds of KGB agents and thousands of letters, diaries, intel briefings etc.. are cited in these books. Pick one the fuck up before you revert my entry again. TDC 01:16, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

You are still going back to facts about Communists, not to facts about the political climate in the United States. The fear people felt is what is relevant. Fred Bauder 22:06, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fred and TDC,

Go back to the facts about Communists about Communists in the articles on the Communists. Here, go back to facts about the political climate in the United States. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE POST-WWI PERIOD AND THE 1950S! Please, please, please try to stay on topic this time. The sentiment of your edits may be just, but this is an encyclopedia and we do have to properly contextualize the placement of coverage. BTW, Fred says the "fear people felt is what is relevant." But we can't go back inside the heads of dead people and call their thoughts just. For that, go back to primary sources and dig up direct quotes. Wikipedia has the hyperlinks and the search box at the top; from these resources users can find their way to related topics on the Communists. 172 02:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The section you removed is part of the 'CAUSES' of the red scare. Not all the people who lived through the Red Scare are now dead. If you want to know what real people though of the Red Scare while they lived through it talk to my Parents and Grandparents, they fled the bourgeoning socialist utopia in Eastern Europe just in time.

Without providing a 'BASIS' for the reasons that people feared communism, it makes it sound like it was a baseless witch hunt. Now I realize that a Stalinist academic like you would love nothing more than projecting this image upon unsuspecting minds, but this will not be allowed to happen.TDC 03:37, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, you raise a good point. And it calls attention to the fact that WP doesn't have an article on the origins of anticommunism in the United States offering a broader macro-level look. In this article, though, you have to consider that "anticommunists" are quite a diverse group (perhaps just as diverse as everyone who isn't an active anticommunist. So, for this article it would be best to refer to the plethora of the biographies on any number of major actors involved in the first and second Red Scares and perhaps cite examples that helped shape a single historical figure's outlook. There's also an ample array of direct quotes that you can dig up. For our purposes, though, it's inappropriate for encyclopedia editors to attempt to speak on behalf of a subject posthumously. Nor is it appropriate for encyclopedia editors to rationalize a subject's actions, attitudes, and behavior retrospectively (as opposed to properly putting it in context, which also can have the same intended effect of treating the subject more fairly).

BTW, just to warn you about the implications of your argument, someone could turn around and use your very own reasoning here as an excuse to start spewing anti-capitalist and anti-American rants about why some people were communists, anarchists, and socialists in the U.S. since 1917. 172 06:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, there are a number of perfectly good pages on the history of the Soviet Union, of the Cold War and of internatinal relations at the time. If you're going to claim that among the causes of the Red Scares were things going on in the Soviet Union that had no direct impact on whether on not the hunt for communists in the US really was baseless, you're essentially saying that the cause of the Red Scares was that Americans are utter idiots.

This article is not about why people feared communism. It is all about why they went off on a baseless witchhunt for communists at home. That there was a climate of fear of commmunism is in the text as is. Either accept a disputed label or accept an alternative text, but stop behaving like a five year old. And my family fled Stalin too, so get off your high horse. Diderot 05:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mine was killed off by the Germans after the invasion of Poland, but one family member fled to the USSR and disappeared. So my Aunt was probably killed by the Stalinist USSR. 172 06:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be a common theme we share, see Fate of the Kulak

Diderot,

(Re: "baseless witchhunt for communists at home") We have to be inclined to reserve judgments for purposes of writing this article. Calling something a "baseless witchhunt" is no more appropriate in this article than TDC attempting to vindicate anticommunists retrospectively in this article. You probably knew that already, but saying things like that on the talk page is going to provoke people and put them on the defensive, thus causing disputes here to solidify. 172 06:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, since the issue at hand is the underlying causes, I will refrain from pointing out how few of the people the HUAC fingered actually had anything to do with the Soviet Union, or how one of the people called to testify decided to move to East Germany as a response to the HUAC's behaviour. I do resent being told what the "fuck" to think by TDC and his claim to have a privileged set of beliefs about communism.

I object to placing questions about whether or not commmunism was evil into a discussion of the causes of the Red Scare of the 50's because it parallels claims that the US interned Japanese-Americans in WWII because Japan was behaving so cruelly in China. The US was at war with Japan and feared that there were Japanese agents among the Japanese population. That is true and reasonably NPOV. Many Americans felt a need for cathartic revenge for Pearl Harbour - a little more POV, but still reasonable. But, did people in the US agree with the internment of Japanese Americans because of events in China? No. At most, they might have felt that Japanese Aermcians colelctively deserved revenge because of events in China. I doubt many Americans felt this way, but it's possible. But then the cause is public sentiment caused by a state of war, not events in China. By itself, Japan's cruelty in China can not be a cause for the American internment of Japanese national.

In the same sense, I am entirely okay with claims that the Red Scare was caused by a fear of communism that has its roots in larger cold war politics. Instead of fighting over the causes of the Cold War, I propose to leave it at that and link to the article on the Cold War. All the secondary sources I've ever seen were quite clear in linking the Red Scare to the question of "Who lost China?" (I suppose it would be considered POV to say that the answer was "Chung Kai-Shek" rather than the State Department.) I can't think of any secondary or primary source on the red scares that particularly fingered the Korean War - a war with very little public support at the time. I'm willing to do without any mention of public officials trying to fan anti-communism for relection purposes.

Since no evidence has ever come forward of Soviet agents having significant control over any part of US policy in the 1940's or 50's, I am ill-inclined to accept claims that there was a network of Soviet spies as related to the causes of the red scare. The question was never whether or not the USSR had spies in the US, the question was whether or not there was a vast communist conspiracy within the government and other quarters of American society. That some people believed in such a thing - yes, that was a cause. That it existed - no, because it isn't true.

Both the Japanese internment and the Red Scares had comparable causes: the sudden discovery of vulnerability. In one case due to Pearl Harbour, in the other because of the victory of Chinese communists and the establishment of Moscow-allied governments in Europe. There was a sense that America should have been able to do something about it, in both cases, and rather than accept a complicated set of causes, Americans found it easier to believe that they had been betrayed. A few politicians discovered that this public willingness to believe in an enemy within was useful at election time.

I fail to see what is so complicated, difficult or controversial about this claim, nor does it strike me as failing to meet standards of NPOV. It is, as far as I know, the mainstream understanding of the Red Scares of the 50's, shared by the left and most of the right alike.

Diderot 11:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, I notice you added this sentence, "However, public officials' encouragement of this climate of fear was a major contributing factor in red scares of the 1940s and 1950s". As I recall there was a great stir about Communist advances after the war, mostly regarding Eastern Europe and China. Brainwashing (by the Chinese of prisoners of war) was another idea that captured the public's interest. This was all over the newspapers and the radio. Public opinion was profoundly affected. Politicians seem to have just been reflecting public opinion (or exploiting an existing climate of fear). Since you ask us for evidence, how about some evidence that public official's encouragement actually ass had any independent effect. Fred Bauder 11:54, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to recuse myself from the writing role, as opposed to the copyediting role for this article. So, I won't state my objections if you decide to remove the sentence above. I should get around to completing a number of articles that I've right hand man exposedhimself often it was quite discusting unfinished rather than becoming too involved with this article. 172 21:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I think I wrote that sentence. I'll agree to its removal as POV if it will help. There is certainly some genuine cause for debate over whether the political aspects were the cause, the consequence or both. Diderot 08:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the end of that paragraph. Fred, does it address your objections?

Diderot 08:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It removes an assertion which I'm not sure of but, this language, "Growing public fear made anti-communism a hot-button issue in American politics and encouraged a variety of responses, including the Red Scare." raises the question of what the "variety of responses" consisted of. Fred Bauder 12:29, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I would be inclined to see both the Holywood version of the red scare - openly anti-communist films for example - and phenomena like McCarthyism, as well as the widespread (and, IMO uncritical) belief in things like the domino theory all as responses. But, that probably opens a new can of worms. I'm open to alternative wordings. Perhaps this: "Growing public fear made anti-communism a hot-button issue in American politics, which helped intensify red scares in the early years of the Cold War." It seems to me pretty uncontrovertial that the phenomenon fed on itself - people got scared, politicians responded to the fear, people got even more scared, etc. Figuring out which came first is probably impossible but I think it is appropriate that there be some indication that the whole thing was self-reinforcing. Diderot 13:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, see Social mania Fred Bauder 16:20, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Okay - after waiting to see if anyone else was interested, I made the change. If someone wants to write more on anthropology of public hysteria as a part of the article, they're welcome to it. Diderot 08:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to make a major change in the article and restrict its coverage to only the 1919 and 1920s events. McCarthyism would be only briefly mentioned. I am the one who first started this article after reading a book, Red Scare which in fact covers only McCarthyism. I think I errored in creating an article with this title which in fact refers to the earlier period. Fred Bauder 15:17, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Scares in communist countries

4.34.166.104 removed the following text:

It is interesting to note that, with the exception of North Korea, governments of communist states generally did not promote similar fears of possible attacks by the USA or other countries.

with the justfication that "Fidel Castro in Cuba, not just N. Korea, scares his people about the USA potentially invading. So has every communist country at some point." I think this is not correct (although may be the sentence should be rephrased). I grew up in the Soviet Union and the issue of US attack or invasion or anything was hardly ever brought up in school, on TV, in the papers. My father grew up in 1960s and the public was not told that an attack is immenent or anything. Yes, there definitely were some warnings, in a few decades in a country of several hundred million people there must have been some, but it was by no means widespread - it would have been very uncommon occurence. We were told that American economic system is bad (and now that our country is no longer communist, I am an adult and I can watch American films such as The Corporation I realise that we were told the truth all along :) ), but we were never told that we will be fighting America in a war. Just to make myself clear - it's obvious that the Party leaders and the military considered the threat of attack to be quite real, but that's their job and it's not really the subject of the article. I haven't been to Cuba yet, but I've read enough Castro's speeches and nowhere does he appear scaring his compatriots. Yes, the threat of an American invasion is very real (because it happened many times in the past), unlike the threat of a Soviet invasion, but the public is not kept in constant fear by duck and cover exercises. Neither was the public in Iraq for that matter - until the attack was imminent, Iraqis were not constantly brainwashed that the US will attack (judging from what little material I found written by Iraqis in English online). So that's why I am reverting the change for now. Paranoid 23:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fear of "counterrevolution" in Eastern Europe

I've grown up in Eastern Europe (in Hungary) and although I don't know about the propaganda mentioning any imminent attack by the "imperialists", but the fear of "counter-revolution", i.e. an uprising against the soviet-backed governments was real.

In Hungary we had a special militia set up after the uprising in 1956 called the "Munkásőrség" (= Workers' Guard) created exactly for the purpose of suppressing any further insurgencies. There were uprisings in East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Prague (1968) all suppressed by Soviet tanks.

In the 50s we had propaganda movies, where the bad guy was usually a saboteur, who tries to undermine the building of communism. In some countries, they were real. (Bay of Pigs Invasion, Operation Mongoose).

I'm not saying, that we were scared with an American invasion at any point in time, but there was a sense of anxiety and preparation for war. The governments had to justify the existence of huge conscripted armies (2 years conscription was not uncommon), the gigantic Soviet bases all over Eastern Europe, the big air-raid shelters I remember playing in as a kid. What would you need those for if the "imperialists" wouldn't want to attack? (Of course, all the communist countries were peaceful and would only act in self defence.)

Maybe that's why a lot of people find that specific sentence misleading. It suggests that Americans scared themselves with the communist threat, meanwhile the population of communist countries lived relaxed and laid back, knowing that the West would never attack us. This is just not entirely true.

Nyenyec 05:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I've added the Cleanup-verify note to this page. Despite all the discussion, some of the facts need sourcing and possibly even the POV needs attention (again). The comparison to lynchings of German-Americans is especially questionable and requires a source, and I'm not sure it's even appropriate here if true. Frankly, I don't understand the reference to the Mongols and the Hun at all.

Opusaug 04:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i have been studing the red scare and i need more information. please add whatever you can. Thanks

DJ, what do Prof. Kornweibel's books and research have to do with the Red Scare? Were most of the blacks who were investigated members of the Communist Party, or so suspected? Opusaug 21:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Racism in the Red Scare

The short answer is yes, the Red Scare specifically targeted African American "radicals". Kornweibel's books review BI's internal communications as their tactics evolve into the full blown Scare. The book on 1919 - 21 is especially relevant. The book on WWI shows the genesis of the mania that would culminate years later.

The longer answer is that the repression worsened in the Red Scare, but wasn't new. The Bureau of Investigation I didn't just launch into the Red Scare without preparation. The BI was set up in 1909 to investigate anti-trust cases. In the run up to WWI, it began investigating people who opposed the war, or were insufficiently patriotic. Targets of the investigation included African American socialists and unionists, but also religious pacifists, people who agitated against lynching or wanted to solve problems in the US before going to war. After the war ended, the charges used to justify the investigations changed. Dissidents were assumed to be influenced by Bolsheviks rather than Germans. Internal memos quoted by Kornweibel show agents brushing off complaints about lynching. Some African Americans did join the incipient Communist party. See the entry on the African Blood Brotherhood for an example. BI documents show they took this as proof of the conspiracies investigators had alleged all along. The WWI book is pretty readable, if you can find it. The Red Scare book is more academic. DJ Silverfish 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scholarly studies

I noticed that the page was being used to promote some secondary sources of undirectly related material. They may be useful on another article or in proper context. My edits are concerned with fixing this. Does anyone have any comments?

1920's movies and movie stars and the red scare

i was looking for more detail info on the movie stars and public figures that were affected by the red scare or a movie that was made about certain actors i would also like to find a website that tells about the positive things and improvements for the intertainment business if you know about the 20's era of movies and recommend any inparticular please comment on the wikipedia site.

Begining of article doesn't have a subject/agent

Right in the beginning of the article it is written that "Both periods were characterized by the suspicion of widespread civil-service infiltration ..." but nowhere in that phrase, or introduction, does it specify who had these suspicions, and if they were generalized in american society, or the majority, or the minority, etc. The fact that in both time periods the labour movement in the US was very much active, and that the Red Scare suspicions where directed at their organizations, at least these would not have reasons to believe in these suspicions, moreover the fact that they were pratically crushed (in the 1920's) using that pretext. I would recommend the book A People's History of the United States, and a rationalization of these events (for example, knowing where those suspicions came from, as they didn't pop-up by themselves).

Problems in lede

I attempted to rewrite the lede to be more neutral, and to include citations. It currently reads like an undergrad politics essay. There is no citation offered for the claim that a red scare is a form of right-wing propaganda. Whilst, theoretically, propaganda can give rise to a red scare, I can find no resources which claim that this is the defining feature of the phenomenon.

I intend to restore my changes, unless there is a good reason not to. Riposte97 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97: Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thank you. The lede did summarize the article neatly. Your edit removed the salient bits. Kleuske (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Thank you, I am familiar with the manual. I still do not believe that the opening paragraph was justified. Notably, the references to 'right wing propaganda' are unsupported, and present a real risk of giving a false impression. The article mainly refers to 'the media', not necessarily to right wing propagandists. The contentious changes was written in a month ago, and was the subject of several reversions at the time. They do not present a neutral point of view.

Further, the article itself is limited. I intend to add to it this week to include context beyond the U.S. This may partially resolve our issue, if it is argued that propaganda is invariably a feature of red scares in the U.S.

I recognise that this is potentially a politically contentious topic. To avoid an edit war, I'd request that we reach consensus here before making further revisions. Riposte97 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that relating to subversion of a nation or community by communists, socialists, or other leftist ideologies. conforms with WP:NPOV? A cherry-picked source does not make it that. Kleuske (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I do, as that is the textbook definition of the term. The 'cherry-picked source' which confirms this is an Oxford-family dictionary. Unless you have a countervailing source, please do not revert changes again. In order to accommodate your concerns, I will assess whether to add a point about the right-wing weaponisation of red scares. However, I will only do so if I can find a valid source for that claim. Riposte97 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I have added a sentence which acknowledges the persecution of leftists detailed in the article. I hope this addresses your concerns. Riposte97 (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And still ignored all objections. Adding a sentence does not help in the rest isn't neutral]. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And apropos cherry picked sources: You could have chosen Encyclopedia Brittanica

Red Scare, period of public fear and anxiety over the supposed rise of communist or socialist ideologies in a noncommunist state. The term is generally used to describe two such periods in the United States. The first occurred from 1917 to 1920, amid an increase in organized labour movements, immigration, urbanization, and industrialization. The second period, also called McCarthyism after U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, took place from roughly 1947 to 1954. But then again, a dictionary isn't exactly a source for history and one specifically geared towards the US military is less than neutral on the subject.

Given the activities of lawmakers (i.e. McCarthy), various federal agencies and media outlets, specifically aimed at anyone perceived as "leftist" the term "moral panic" just does not cut it. It was right-wing propaganda, as the lede, correctly, notes. Hence I oppose your alterations. Kleuske (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I recognise that this is potentially a politically contentious topic. To avoid an edit war, I'd request that we reach consensus here before making further revisions. I actually agree. Why don't you stick to that? Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@kleuske I think I may see our issue. I do not see a direct through-line between the activities you mention and the term 'right-wing propaganda'. Indeed, the source you quote above does not make any such claim. Is it your contention that any fear of communism in a community is definitionally right-wing propaganda? Riposte97 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Leave that damned straw man alone, it has no part in this.

A lede should summarize the article and the article was well summarized without your input. Objecting to the word "propaganda" being used can be expressed without watering down the article to a "moral panic". But however you dice it, the red scare was a creation of the right wing, that's well documented.

here's a source.

propaganda

and a modern version.

etc. ad nauseam. Kleuske (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske None of the sources linked above support your claim that a red scare is necessarily right-wing propaganda, leaving aside the other issues with your preferred lede. I remind you that original research is not permitted. I would also note that obviously, red scares (even limited to the American context) include things such as blacklisting, surveillance, etc cetera, which is not propaganda, but still obviously covered by the term.

I will rewrite the lede again, if you insist, to note that some historical figures have drummed up anticommunist sentiment for political reasons. Is that an acceptable consensus? Riposte97 (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you not understand about "The lede summarizes the article"? Kleuske (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I do not believe the lede currently summarises the article. Specifically, the term 'right-wing propaganda' to describe red scares is not supported by the content to the article, nor any commonly-accepted interpretation of the term more broadly.

Unless you can provide a source for your position, I ask that you do not revert my changes again. I will include the sentence re political incitement. Riposte97 (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Red Scare" wasn't a moral panic and "relating to subversion of a nation or community by communists, socialists, or other leftist ideologies.]" isn't even close to being neutral. I have reverted your changes in line with WP:NPOV/WP:ONUS/WP:BRD. That is, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus. As I said earlier "adding a sentence" does not even come close to making that anywhere near neutral, since it omits the salient bits of the whole thing. Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, waiting 10 minutes at 5:30 am and then going "per talk-page" in the edit summary isn't anywhere near reasonable. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Although your actions are consistent with those of someone with a political axe to grind, I will assume you are acting in good faith, and undertake a point-by-point refutation of the issues you have raised.

Firstly, a red scare is so self-evidently a moral panic, that the page 'moral panic' has a section citing the American red scares as textbook examples of the phenomenon. A moral panic does not imply that fear are justified. I therefore do not understand why you think this is 'watering down' the lede. Is it possible that your framework for the concept of 'moral panic' needs to be recalibrated?

You have not explained your assertion that my sentence ending '...a moral panic relating to subversion of a nation or community by communists, socialists, or other leftist ideologies.' is not neutral. In my view, it is so unimpeachable a description of the phenomenon as to be almost tautological. By contrast, your favoured opening reducing the entire phenomenon to 'right-wing propaganda' is decidedly biased, because it implies that a community could not fear (and indeed, hysterically fear) communism, were they not being manipulated. This has been, and remains, my principal objection to the current lede. A fair reading of the article's contents cannot support this statement. Bluntly, it is original research.

The fact that right-wing propaganda has been a particular feature of American red scares, particularly McCarthyism, does not mean that all red scares are a function of RWP. This page is not intended to describe only American history. Both American red scares have their own pages, where your point might be more plausibly asserted. However, this page is intended to describe the phenomenon more broadly. Your own Britannica source offered above defines the term by reference to public fear and anxiety (i.e. a moral panic), and does not support your contention.

None of the policies you cite in your last reply are correctly applied. This is surprising to me, as you are obviously a competent editor elsewhere. I have dealt with WP:NPOV above. WP:ONUS relates to the verifiability of added information. Ironically, I have provided a source for my changes, whilst your preferred lede is implausible, and asserted without evidence. Re WP:BRD, it is important to note that the lede until just over a month ago read far more similarly to my proposed change, when it was edited to its current form without explanation. I have consistently attempted to engage with you, but you are yet to offer a real objection, other than vague allegations of whitewashing and a lack of neutrality.

You have now reverted various rewrites a total of five times. You have offered no positive suggestions to resolve this issue. I again ask that you refrain from reverting my changes until you have offered a plausible reason. I understand that you personally believe that red scares are 'a creation of the right wing', but that belief, even if it is well-founded, is not sufficient to justify changing the article without a source and/or without explicit discussion in the article body. The hyperlinks you provided on 10 September are not a source for this claim.

Finally, I was obviously not editing Wikipedia at 05:30 in an attempt to sneak something by you. I live in a different time zone. Riposte97 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I have only skimmed through this wall of text, trying to get the main points.

• Reducing the red scare to a "moral panic" ignores the propaganda bit, the concerted effort by media ad government to foment said "moral panic". Moreover, your version ignores the political source of that phenomenon, i.e. right wing polticians (like the now infamous McCarthy).
• The phrase "relating to subversion of a nation or community by communists, socialists, or other leftist ideologies." suggests this "subversion" as a fact, which it was most definitely not. That is, it is not neutral.
• WP:ONUS specifically refers to WP:CONSENSUS, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. You clearly do not have consensus, and yet, have inserted your preferred version once more.
• The fact that right-wing propaganda has been a particular feature of American red scares, particularly McCarthyism, does not mean that all red scares are a function of RWP. This page is not intended to describe only American history. Both red scares are specifically U.S. history and the article does not mention anything but U.S. history.
• In my view, it is so unimpeachable a description of the phenomenon as to be almost tautological. Your view is not generally accepted. The phraseology is not neutral, presents (your) opinions as fact.
• You have now reverted various rewrites a total of five times. You have tried to push your POV into the article five times, while I have restored the status quo, the combined effort of many editors. You propose the change, you have to gain consensus for that change.
• Whatever timezone you are in, you waited a grand total of ten minutes for me to respond. Irrespective of timezone issues, that is not a reasonable course of action if you know your version does not have consensus.
• Lastly, Although your actions are consistent with those of someone with a political axe to grind, I will assume you are acting in good faith and you are obviously a competent editor elsewhere I resent these veiled insults.
• Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. It was not my intention to be overly combative, and I can only apologise for having given undue offence. As it does not seem we are likely to gain consensus, I have taken the step of adding the POV tag at the top of the article. I have refrained from changing the text.

I might suggest, however, to another editor seeking to resolve this that the neutrality might be assisted by some formulation such as '...a moral panic relating to supposed subversion of a nation or community by communists, socialists, or other leftist ideologies.' Riposte97 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:POINT, I assume? Kleuske (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you think WP:POINT is relevant. We still have an ongoing dispute, which I hope other editors might weigh in on to break the impasse.

To wit, is a red scare more accurately defined as a moral panic, or as right-wing propaganda?

I have made my position plain. I still cannot see how, referencing the lead image, the cancelling (to use a neologism) of Dr. Oppenheimer can be reduced to 'right wing propaganda'. It seems to me that the concept is rather broader than that.

I am therefore restoring the tag. Kindly adhere to the rules around removal of tags. Riposte97 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:LoomCreek I have not restore the tag you removed to avoid an edit war. Still, I remain convinced that the lead is not neutral. I am not totally familiar with all Wikipedia's dispute resolution pathways, so would you (or @Kleuske) perhaps be able to suggest how best to resolve the situation we find ourselves in? Evidently, you don't believe a tag is appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

EZPZ. You stop pushing your POV. Kleuske (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I resent that. Does it remain your contention that a red scare is reducible to 'right-wing propaganda', all the other parts of the phenomenon notwithstanding? Even the longstanding short description reads 'Any of several events in which widespread fear of communism or leftism develops'.

I have offered a few alternative intros, with citations. If they are not acceptable to you, then I remain open to alternative suggestions. However, we have not reached consensus, and blaming me alone is neither kind nor productive. Riposte97 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You're going against well established consensus and reliable sources. You've also been pushing a POV rewrite, and only after losing that added the tag. As such there's no standing for the POV tag. LoomCreek (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The specific claim that the red scare is right wing propaganda is unsourced, nor has it been part of the article for more than a couple of months.

I beg you, please just address this one point: if a red scare is merely propaganda, what do we call the blacklistings, cancellations, legal discrimination, surveillance, etc etc? Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske @LoomCreek I have waited for three days for a response on this point. I intend to rewrite the lead (minimally), preserving both contentions inasmuch as is possible. The phrase 'right-wing propaganda' will not appear, but nor will the phrase 'moral panic' to which objection was taken.

Instead, I will lean towards the Britannica source which Kleuske has been so kind as to offer above. Cheers. Riposte97 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreekYou have reverted my rewrite citing (inter alia) 'consensus'. Plainly, there is no WP:CONSENSUS. You have also not opted to add anything to the consensus-building process.

In the absence of consensus, and in the case of gridlock, the last stable edit in my view ought to be preferred. The old version of the lead paragraph stood untouched for years until 1 August 2023, when a revision kicked off this dispute. That revision contentiously defined 'red scare' as right-wing propaganda, in the absence of any source.

If we cannot agree, and you don't want to engage in discussion, then I will wait twenty-four hours, then revert to the most recent stable version of the first lead paragraph. I trust we can both live with this compromise. Riposte97 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not required to engage with someone attempting to bulldoze and impose their own POV into a lead. If you attempt again it will simply get reverted and will likely be forced to go to ANI. I suggest you drop this issue. - LoomCreek (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek On the contrary, there is an expectation that you engage in good faith discussion about a content dispute. There is no reason why we can't get to grips with this, and no reason for you to accuse me of acting in bad faith.

It's a little hard for me to try to meet your objections without hearing your side of things, though. I'm being sincere, and I'd appreciate a response. Riposte97 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have made a modest revision. In doing so, I have had particular regard to the definition of red scare offered in paragraph four of the page, in the quote from Murray Levin. Riposte97 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion - red scares in other countries

I have added a section about the red scare in Australia (approx. 1920-1956). However, I am sure that many countries must have experienced red scares in a similar vein during the interwar period/cold war. If anyone is aware of examples, please feel free to add them. Riposte97 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? Kleuske (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources cited support a "red scare" in Australia. The fact that the infamous referendum was defeated, (a fact which one of your sources celebrates) rather speaks to the contrary. Your contribution positively reeks of WP:SYNTH. I have removed it for that reason. It is worthwhile to note, however, that the illustration does support the notion of propaganda being used in order to further the attempt. Kleuske (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Naturally, I categorically reject your objection. Nevertheless, rather than wasting time arguing, I have instead added additional sources which explicitly refer to the Australian Red Scare. I trust this meets with your approval.

I would note that the referendum was defeated by <1%, but to draw any direct conclusion from what fact would be WP:SYNTH. Regarding propaganda, you are trying to have things both ways- arguing above that a red scare IS propaganda, but then saying here that propaganda is an insufficient condition for a red scare. Which is it?

I have added the necessary citations evidencing the Australian Red Scare. Over time, I intend to add sections on red scares in other countries, starting with the UK. It may be appropriate at that point to restructure the article, to house the American Red Scares under a country heading. Riposte97 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Which sources might that be?

• An Inspiration Misunderstood: Australian Anti-Communists and the Lure of the U.S., 1917-1935 Does mention the (U.S.) Red Scare as an inspiration for Australian anti-communism, but does not refer to that as an "Australian Red Scare".
• The Australian Right, the American Right and the Threat of the Left, 1917-35 JStor, "Nevertheless the Australian Government was considerably less successful than governments in the U.S. in wipig 'Bolschevism' and Labour activism more generally from the political scene in Australia".
• theconversation.com Does not mention any "red scare" in Australia

etc.

Your tactic here seems to be a Gish-Gallop (look it up), just dumping a load of claims and then demanding others debunk all those claims one by one. That is not how Wikipedia works. Your Australian bit is still WP:SYNTH because you draw conclusions from various sources which do not state that. You are conflating anti-communism in Australia with a "Red Scare". Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Mate, I don't know what to tell you. You're simply wrong. I encourage you to read 'An Inspiration Misunderstood' again. Apparently aptly titled. It is clearly comparing the red scares in each country.

You have also, regrettably apparently on purpose, ignored the other sources I added. I refer you specifically to:

• Lui, Perkins. "LITIGATION LIBRARY: Defending the Constitution during the Red Scare". Grata Fund. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
• Piccini, Jon; Smith, Evan; Worley (2018). The Far Left in Australia Since 1945 (1st ed.). Routledge.

The first of these refers to the Australian Red Scare in the title.

I am restoring the section. Please refrain from reverting this addition, and refrain as well from throwing angry accusations. It simply isn't warranted, and it doesn't help us work through this. Riposte97 (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Once more, you are edit-warring. Being "inspired" by the U.S. red scare is not the same as having one yourself. I took the time to read he sources and they fail to state anything about a red scare in Australia. Please quote the relevant passages. Also please read WP:BRD. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"LITIGATION LIBRARY: Defending the Constitution during the Red Scare" indicates the "Red Scare" engulfed "The West", it only mentions "simular sentiments" for Australia specifically. Hence you cannot base that section on this cite. I remind you your section deals with Australia specifically, not "The West" generally.

"The Far Left in Australia Since 1945". All I can find is a description that does not mention the Red Scare at all.

Correction, Google books has a copy and a search function. No mention of "The Red Scare" at all. Kleuske (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

So give me the salient quotes, because I am sick your wild goose chases. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it takes two to edit war, but point taken. I am happy to go into this in detail.

Firstly, dealing with some of those citations I have already provided:

• Lui, Perkins. "LITIGATION LIBRARY: Defending the Constitution during the Red Scare". Grata Fund. Retrieved 15 September 2023.

This piece, as I have pointed out, refers to the Australian Red Scare in the title. It is unequivocal that the title refers to the Australian constitution, the article deals only with an episode in Australian history, and it would be extremely disingenuous to interpret the title as referring to anything other than the red scare in Australia.

• An Inspiration Misunderstood: Australian Anti-Communists and the Lure of the U.S., 1917-1935.

This piece, as I have again said, compares the Australian and American Red Scares. That is the only reasonable construction. The following quotes bear this out:

1) Australian historians have similarly acknowledged that the right’s post-war domination of Australian nationalism was facilitated, in part, by the Red Scare, but have under-emphasised the significance of anti-communist practices of the 1920s and 1930s. -- This quote refers to the Australian Red Scare.

2) Neither the “the American people” nor “Australians”, as is often claimed, perpetrated the Red Scare. -- This quote criticises the notion that red scares were perpetrated by the populations of each country, rather than certain interest groups in each. Are we to conclude, per your interpretation, that it is often claimed that 'Australians' perpetrated the American Red Scare? I think not.

3) Political militia groups had a long history in Australia. Throughout the nineteenth century wealthy interest groups sporadically raised forces to protect property and existing order, with government approval. Conservative forces that mobilised in response to the Bolshevik revolution were following the example of older associations, but the Red Scare moved conservatives to band together in greater numbers and with greater fervour than during any previous political crisis. -- Here, it is unequivocal that the author refers to the Australian conservative response to the Red Scare - described as an Australian crisis. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

Other resources I have hitherto provided use the term red menace, a synonym. For example:

• Reign, Writers (2003). Making history: investigating people and issues in Australia after World War II. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. ISBN 1863665536. -- Here can be found a full chapter on the topic.

In addition to the citations already used in my edit, I have now taken the time to collect additional resources, to put the matter beyond any possible doubt. If you insist, I will revise my edit to include any of them you might wish. These are:

• How politics is played in Australia: The history of scare campaigns -- A 2019 article from a major Australian news outfit which discusses the Menzies (i.e. Australian) Red Scare.
• Actual Political Affiliations Are of Secondary Importance: Communism and Women's Entangled Loyalties in the Australian Anti-Nuclear Movement, 1945–65 -- A journal article in a top-flight social sciences journal, discussing the impact of the red scare on women in the Australian anti-nuclear movement.
• Conflict in the Unions: The Communist Party of Australia, Politics and the Trade Union Movement, 1945-1960 -- This PhD thesis, which contains a quote from famous Australian trade unionist Frank Nolan, discussing the red scare's impact on his movement. (Mr. Nolan's memoir delves deeply into this topic, but I have been unable to find a free copy online).
• Reaction to radicalism: Non‐labour movements, 1920–9 -- This journal article discusses both the red scare and 'red bogey' (British/Australian slang for red scare).
• Red scare on ice: Antarctica, Australian–Soviet relations and the International Geophysical Year -- This journal article, again with 'red scare' in the title, discusses Australian-Soviet interactions in Antarctica, in the context of the Australian red scare.
• A bad time for balalaikas: Australia's first 'red scare': Queensland 1918/ 1920 -- This academic paper examining the red scare in the Australian state of Queensland.

Now, I believe I have provided quite enough evidence to convince a reasonable interlocutor that I did not hallucinate this episode in my nation's history. @Kleuske I will not make any changes to the article for at least twenty-four hours, to give you time to digest the above, and raise any points you may wish to make. Cheers. Riposte97 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yay! Another wild goose chase!

I'll sample three of your sources and inquire, politely, what exactly it is you do not understand about the word "quote". The tactic is quite simple, provide a number of websites, claim they support your edits and leave it to me to check them all. The Wikipedia equivalent of a Gish-gallop.

I remind you, equally politely, that you do not have consensus for your proposed changes and your continued edit-warring to get your POV in anyway, is getting tiresome.

1. Conflict in the Unions: The Communist Party of Australia, Politics and the Trade Union Movement, 1945-1960. Does not mention the phrase "Red Scare".
2. 9News.com.au 'How politics is played in Australia': The history of scare campaigns Does indeed mention the red scare in connection to Menzies (AU prime minister), but is hardly a authorative source on history.
3. A bad time for balalaikas: Australia's first 'red scare': Queensland 1918/ 1920. -Paper presented to the Queensland History Teachers' Association Conference, presented as an academic paper, but I do not quite label the Queensland History Teachers' Association as an accredited academic institution. Also the paper is inaccessible, so all I get is the title.

So for the very last time give me the quotes, and quit the wild goose chases. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm legitimately confused. Have I not provided extensive quotes above, including the term 'red scare'?

In 'Conflicting the Unions' the quote I refer to (with the phrase red scare) is to be found at the top of page 90.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether 9 News is a WP:RS, so let's leave that one aside. Same re the QLD History Teachers' Association.

However, did you read the rest of my comment? I have extracted quotes which refer directly to the scare, and frankly, I'm nonplussed at your continuing objection (not to mention your archness). Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske In order to draw a line under this dispute for a while, would I be able to get your agreement to add the disputed section with more qualified language? For example 'some sources assert the existence of a 'red scare' in Australia, but the term is not as widely-recognised as in the United States...'. I am happy to do the rewrite, and show a draft here prior to modifying the article.

Alternatively, I am happy to insert the Aus section with a disputed tag, so that other editors can come in and add their two cents.

Please let me know. Again, I'll wait 24h, and in the absence of a response, I'll add the section with a disputed tag. Cheers. Riposte97 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Once more, what about the word "quote" do you not understand? Truly curious. The abobe are not quotes, theyr a collection of websites you expect me to go through, finding none of them actually supports your claims, while you try to edit-war your POV into the article. You've pulled that trick before and I'm not falling for it again. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske I confess I am unable to escape the suspicion that you may be WP:STONEWALLING on purpose. Above, I have provided the requested quotes. I will copy them here for your convenience. I have also provided pinpoint references. Here is an excerpt from my comment of 16 September above:

"

• Lui, Perkins. "LITIGATION LIBRARY: Defending the Constitution during the Red Scare". Grata Fund. Retrieved 15 September 2023.

This piece, as I have pointed out, refers to the Australian Red Scare in the title. It is unequivocal that the title refers to the Australian constitution, the article deals only with an episode in Australian history, and it would be extremely disingenuous to interpret the title as referring to anything other than the red scare in Australia.

• An Inspiration Misunderstood: Australian Anti-Communists and the Lure of the U.S., 1917-1935.

This piece, as I have again said, compares the Australian and American Red Scares. That is the only reasonable construction. The following quotes bear this out:

1) Australian historians have similarly acknowledged that the right’s post-war domination of Australian nationalism was facilitated, in part, by the Red Scare, but have under-emphasised the significance of anti-communist practices of the 1920s and 1930s. -- This quote refers to the Australian Red Scare.

2) Neither the “the American people” nor “Australians”, as is often claimed, perpetrated the Red Scare. -- This quote criticises the notion that red scares were perpetrated by the populations of each country, rather than certain interest groups in each. Are we to conclude, per your interpretation, that it is often claimed that 'Australians' perpetrated the American Red Scare? I think not.

3) Political militia groups had a long history in Australia. Throughout the nineteenth century wealthy interest groups sporadically raised forces to protect property and existing order, with government approval. Conservative forces that mobilised in response to the Bolshevik revolution were following the example of older associations, but the Red Scare moved conservatives to band together in greater numbers and with greater fervour than during any previous political crisis. -- Here, it is unequivocal that the author refers to the Australian conservative response to the Red Scare - described as an Australian crisis. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

"

As yet another gesture of good faith, I will again wait at least twenty-four hours before modifying the article, but I respectfully suggest that it is not me that has been engaging in poor conduct, as you repeatedly claim. As I have said, I remain open to working on a compromise solution with you. Please consider taking me up on that offer. Riposte97 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Does not mention the alleged "Australian Red Scare" at all. Let alone in the title.
2. "The left ALP activist Frank Nolan, secretary of the Queensland ARU and vice-President of the Queensland Labour Council, who worked closely with Communists in both organisations, denounced the ‘Red’ scare as an attempt to destroy ‘every progressive anti-fascist in the so-called free democracies’."
   • That's really not convincing. From the context, he seems to be referencing the Red Scare in the US and it's effects abroad. "If the U.S. sneezes, the West has a cold", especially true in the 50's.
3. What work is that from? Never mind, likely the same thing. The U.S. sneezed in the 50 and "The West" had a cold.

As to your "good will gestures", stick those where the sun don't shine. You do know that a slow-mo edit war is also prohibited, right. You trying to edit-war your WP:SYNTH into the article is getting tiresome. I think I said that before, but it bears repeating. Flat-out fibbing about sources does not elevate your credibility. Kleuske (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske You have made it perfectly plain you do not appreciate having your good faith questioned, for which I have apologised. Given what you have just written, however, I am forced to question your reading comprehension. I am not at all suggesting you are making these errors on purpose, but they are apparently leading to you getting very frustrated. You have lobbed various accusations at me, which I would rather not see done, but it is not my habit to escalate such things to admin, as I certainly understand what it is to be frustrated on the Internet.

Nevertheless, I am reduced to explaining myself once again.

In my most recent comment, I have examined two sources:

1. Lui, Perkins. "LITIGATION LIBRARY: Defending the Constitution during the Red Scare". Grata Fund. Retrieved 15 September 2023.

2. An Inspiration Misunderstood: Australian Anti-Communists and the Lure of the U.S., 1917-1935.

The first source mentions 'the Red Scare' in the title. The Red Scare referred to is in Australia. Again, 'red scare' is a generic term, and contextually can be used for different geographical locations. In this case, the location is Australia, as is unambiguously understood from the article.

The second source is quoted extensively in my previous comment. Each quote, as requested, makes reference to the red scare. Once again, these quotes are as follows:

1) 'Australian historians have similarly acknowledged that the right’s post-war domination of Australian nationalism was facilitated, in part, by the Red Scare, but have under-emphasised the significance of anti-communist practices of the 1920s and 1930s.' -- This quote refers to the Australian Red Scare.

2) 'Neither the “the American people” nor “Australians”, as is often claimed, perpetrated the Red Scare.' -- This quote criticises the notion that red scares were perpetrated by the populations of each country, rather than certain interest groups in each. Are we to conclude, per your interpretation, that it is often claimed that 'Australians' perpetrated the American Red Scare? I think not.

3) 'Political militia groups had a long history in Australia. Throughout the nineteenth century wealthy interest groups sporadically raised forces to protect property and existing order, with government approval. Conservative forces that mobilised in response to the Bolshevik revolution were following the example of older associations, but the Red Scare moved conservatives to band together in greater numbers and with greater fervour than during any previous political crisis.' -- Here, it is unequivocal that the author refers to the Australian conservative response to the Red Scare - described as an Australian crisis. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

In researching the topic, I have also come across the following additional sources:

• 'Australians for Australia': The Right, the Labor Party and Contested Loyalties to Nation and Empire in Australia, 1917 to the Early 1930s -- This article discusses the Australian Red Scare right from page one.
• The Red Flag Riots: A Study of Intolerance -- This book details an episode in Australia's Red Scare. The term 'red scare' is mentioned explicitly on p 197, and on p 206 the phrase '...Australia's first fullblown [sic] anti-communist scare...' appears in reference to the red scare.

I have not edited the article in some time, and would appreciate it if you desisted in accusing me of edit-warring. As ever, I shall wait twenty-four hours for a response as a mark of good faith. Riposte97 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it supremely ironic that now my reading comprehension is questioned. Quote number one refers to the American Red Scare as an influence on right wing politics in Australia. It does not refer to an "Australian Red Scare", nor does not it posit the existence of one. Number two does indeed mention the first Red Scare (the U.S. one), but, again, as an influence on Australian right wing politics. Number three is, once more, inaccessible and whatever quote you are hinting at, is not actually quoted, so shat it actually says can only be guessed at.

I am not saying the (U.S.) Red Scare had no influence abroad, especially in the Anglophone world, and would not oppose a paragraph detailing that, but your sources do not support some specific "Australian Red Scare" as a widely recognized phenomenon amongst historians. Your attempt at saying they do, amounts to a novel synthesis.

It was proposed to me to start an RfC and I think that's the best way forward. Kleuske (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I’d certainly support a RfC! I’d even support a modest paragraph on ‘other anglophone/western countries’ if that’s amenable, mentioning that they had their own anti-communist crazes, and were influenced by the American red scares. That might be a way towards a compromise. Riposte97 (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources for those "anti-communist crazes", sure, but atm, your cites are rather underwhelming. I just removed you section about the Canadian version, too, since the first source you cite, paints it as a spill-over from the American version. Haven't yet checked the others, but I strongly suspect they're more of the same.

But, OK. We do seem to have some common ground. I propose a section on "Influence abroad" with a summary of the most relevant facts. Things like the Padlock_Law certainly deserve a mention. It should, however, refrain from positing Canadian or Australian red scares. Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. I think the Red Flag Riots should also be mentioned. Perhaps something about the Indonesian junta as well, but I’ll leave everything else to whomever might come along and know enough to contribute.

Would you like to have the first pass at it? Riposte97 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added the paragraph. If you would like to change it, please do so, rather than removing it entirely. Riposte97 (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

References