Wikipedia

Talk:Red Scare/Archive 2

< Talk:Red Scare
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Riposte97 in topic Problems in lede
Archive 1 Archive 2

article focuses too much on America

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Red scare, and the first wave in particular wasn'nt an purely American phenomenon, like this articles makes it out to be. It was a worldwide phenomenon that dominated politics in the west in the 20th century. Communist parties in Europe in the interwar period surged in popularity and became banned in Germany,France,Italy and the Baltic States. Communists also set up paramilitaries in the interwar period with a motive to bring a "socialist revolution". Why is this not mentioned?

The many attempted revolutions of 1917-1923 ? The Spanish Civil war? Nazi Germany's ambition to free the world of communism? No mention at all!

The american bias in this article must be undone

The article does seem to focus too much on America. X-Editor (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The bulk of academic references to the "Red Scare" refer to a historical phenomenon in the United States, there are not many reliable sources to expand the scope of the article beyond this. The articles for red-baiting and anti-communism exist and one is linked in the disambiguation. Feel free to find reliable sources that exactly use the wording "Red Scare" internationally, not as a rough analogy in quotes, and there will be much fewer than you think. Check this Wiki article in other languages and they all refer to two specific historical periods in the US. - Rauisuchian (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdamPerrine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Second Red Scare (1947–1957) vs. McCarthyism ?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There exists McCarthyism and the section in this page. Are the both terms synonims or there exists a difference between them? Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

“redder than a Jewish/kosher energy drink”

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the aforesaid anent Communism or blood or both? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:6C74:6F3D:68ED:95CF (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion - red scares in other countries

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments2 people in discussion

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.
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:
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"[1] 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.
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:
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

  1. ^ Merriam Webster

Problems in lede

Latest comment: 1 year ago31 comments3 people in discussion

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Scare/Archive_2&oldid=1247692275"