Talk:First Red Scare

Untitled
I've added NPOV and clean-up tags. The use of partisan atjectives needs to be reigned in, at least. The many minor alterations by editors has made the article nearly unreadable. A complete rewrite is in order. DJ Silverfish 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a recent cut and paste article.The Red Scare article was cut into two pieces. Mrdthree 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

POV
POV label needs to have specifics regarding what needs to be researched/changed to remove the label. Hmains 05:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I love all the "scare quotes" about everything, only to later list a series of bombings and terrorist acts by admitted communists and anarchists. 70.59.223.166 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored POV tag due to biases discussed in next section. 72.83.190.183 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Article provides no substantiation for some of its assertions
Some parts of the article seem OK. Some parts don't seem well-written at all.

The article asserts:

The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War (1917-1923) inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions... and,

On May 1, 1919, a May Day parade in Cleveland, Ohio, protesting the imprisonment of Eugene Debs erupted into the violent May Day Riots of 1919. Charles Ruthenberg, a prominent Socialist leader who organized the march, was arrested for "assault with intent to kill"[citation needed]. Other labor actions, such as the Boston police strike, the Steel strike of 1919, and the organizing efforts of the Industrial Workers of the World, seemed to demonstrate the rise of radical labor unions.

(emphasis added)

Mixed in with broad allegations and some valid examples of violence, this is very careless language and generalizing that, i think, leaves a wrong impression.

Some specific issues with this article:


 * In spite of what the article implies, there is no indication at Boston Police Department that the riots were inspired by communist revolution in Russia. The police may have been militant, even violent. But radical??? No.


 * And, violence in strikes had been happening for decades, much of it attributed to the introduction of Pinkertons, Baldwin-Felts, hired goons, and the corporations' tendency to bring out the machine guns during any sort of labor trouble. So what makes the Boston Police Department riots a good example for this article?


 * At Steel strike of 1919, there is only an observation that the companies propagandized about communist inspiration. There is no indication in that article that,


 * The communist revolution in Russia ... inspired ... (the steel strike of 1919)

I accept that it may be true. But Foster didn't join the CP until 1921. So what is the source for the implication in this article that the steel workers' union was inspired to violence because of Russia?

Then there is,

...the organizing efforts of the Industrial Workers of the World, seemed to demonstrate the rise of radical labor unions.

The rise, yes. But organizing, even if it is aggressive organizing, does not equate to being violent. The assertion about unions being inspired to violence seems to have no substantiation in the rest of the article.


 * The link May Day Riots of 1919 states that,

"...Socialist leader, Charles Ruthenberg organized a May Day parade of local unionists, socialists, communists, and anarchists..."

The article indicates that none of these groups started the violence. An opposing group stopped them while they were marching, and made demands of them. If a fight broke out, is it fair to blame the violence entirely on the marchers?


 * The article also states,

...many of the organizations that supported the unions were not only associated with socialism or communism, but had already been persecuted for opposing World War I.

I think this oversimplifies. For example, the Socialists had a conservative wing that supported the war. And, the Socialists and the IWW had split half a decade earlier. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the communist infiltration of labor unions in the U.S. hadn't gained any significant strength until after the Red Scare. This article states:

In American history, the First Red Scare took place in the period 1917-1920...

Well, the Trade Union Educational League wasn't formed until November of 1920!

In sum:

Accusing groups of being inspired to violence is a serious charge, and accusations shouldn't be sloppily broad-brushed. Who do we KNOW committed violence? What can be documented?

Yes, there were bombings during this period &mdash; by anarchist groups, and maybe others. Some may have been inspired by the communist revolution in Russia, but i think there may be some indication the bombings beginning in 1919 were at least in part a response to repression in the U.S. that had been happening for the previous two years. But also, if:

Luigi Galleani's advocacy of violence is thought to have been first put into action by his followers in 1914...

Then how could his penchant for violence have been inspired by the October Revolution of 1917?

--

Few AFL unions were radical in any sense, but some were certainly militant. The IWW was radical, but while it preached workplace sabotage, it also routinely instructed its members to practice non-violence.

Let us not mix radicalism, militance, and violence, and act as if they're all the same thing. Unless someone can offer specific examples with citations, i'm not convinced that:


 * The communist revolution in Russia ... inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by ... aggressive labor unions ...

And while the "various anarchist groups" were certainly violent, what evidence is there they were inspired by Russia??? Richard Myers 08:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit changes
1. That subversive actions occured it pretty much accepted. While there were also many unproved allegations (hence the alledged subversive activities), there were several confirmed bombings carried out by anarchist and communist related groups. Several of them are detailed in the article had you bothered to look. 2. Groups other than Luigi Galleani's were involved in the red scare, in one form or another, hence the "especially" in front of his group. 3. The Red Terror does not need the word Russian in front of it. It is unnecessary. 4. the word "labor" in front of "labor strike" in your addition is unnecessary. It was removed. If someone is genuinely confused over whether this was a labor strike or someone being struck in the face, it can be added back in. (RookZERO 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

I looked at the history between the two versions and explained all changes between the two. I don't see how any of my changes are contreversial. (RookZERO 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

1. The first claim is pretty universally rejected, with the exception of false-flag attacks. 72.83.190.183 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PROBLEM:
Too many of the sources are from Communist/Socialist/Labor publications. The biased use of sources could possibly be detrimental to the validity of this article.

As long as the facts are there, I don't see a problem. And even from these sources, it is clear that there was a problem with people who wished to impose their view of the world on society by the bomb, not the ballot. How far a society can go to protect itself from such people is an ongoing debate, but the purpose of the article is just to lay out what happened. If you have some other sources to help do this, put them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.135.66 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you stupid? "Facts" as YOU call them are not facts if they are from extreme sources. Whoever is writing these articles is obviously a fool. Stop miseducating people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.23.44 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

what's wrong with this picture?
Just one example: The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 are under "Reactions" but a wave of bombings in 1919 is before this under "Attacks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.70.47 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with structure, content, tone
The entry as it stands emphasizes some specific anarchist actions at the expense of many other components of the Red Scare. The 1919 bombings are covered elsewhere. The Plamer Raids are too. They are both just components of the Red Scare. That said, much of the body of the current First Red Scare entry is valuable and just needs to be expanded. I'd like to lengthen it considerably.

Much is missing, including the American Legion, the American Defense Society, Samuel Gompers and the AFL, race riots that targeted African-Americans, and more. The chronology is askew. The Seattle Strike preceded the April bombings by months and lacks citations that are easy to add. It is also written as if the point were to tell the story of the strike. But the point should be to tell the story of the strike **in the context of the Red Scare**. The Red Scare refers to a time when when fear of an imminent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government gripped a large proportion of government officials, the press, and the public. In this period of popular hysteria, people saw Bolshevism everywhere. They didn't distinguish among any activity on the left. Whether it was liberal-minded union organizing, or various kinds of socialism, or the 2 newly-formed American communist parties, or violent anarchism or pacifist anarchism, or any other "left-wing" activity, they saw Bolsheviks intent on replacing American democracy with Soviet-style dictatorship.

I'm considering a time-line that could serve as an outline. I don't believe there's a way to develop an entry for the First Red Scare that is purely chronological, since some subjects, like Gompers and the AFL can't be pegged to a date, but a time-line might still be useful as a general guide.

Cheers.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional info for your consideration. A "definition" from the New York State Archives site, with the Lusk Committee--something else missing from the entry as it stands today--as its starting point:

The committee's investigation responded to (and contributed to) the "Red Scare" which occurred throughout the United States following the First World War. The ideas of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had spread throughout Europe, and some perceived these ideas as a threat to this country as well, especially as economic conditions quickly deteriorated after the war's end in November 1918. Increasing inflation, high unemployment, widespread labor strife, and a severe housing shortage, combined with nationalistic feelings stirred during and after the war, led to a strong distrust of pacifists, political radicals, liberals, and foreigners who did not support the war or traditional American economic and political values. The recent influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, as well as the movement of blacks to northern cities, also were seen by many people as a growing economic threat. Labor strikes, bombings of government officials' homes and offices by suspected radicals, and other events occurring throughout the country in 1919 led many New Yorkers to support the legislature in its investigation of the activities of socialists, communists, anarchists, left-wing labor groups, and others suspected of undermining the American way of life.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many good ideas.  Some other information: 1) Prior to some vandalism in mid 2008, the lead of this article used to say 'anarchism and communism'.  Whoever repaired he vandalism, then just put in 'anarchism'.  This could be repaired without removal of the anarchism info currently in the article--adding communism and other info would achieve the better result you seek.  2) I created this article by caving it out of the Red Scare article which was then just supposed to be left with a paragraph or two on the first Red Scare, with more info in this article.  Instead we have a long section in the Red Scares article that no longer quite agrees with this article.  This is not a good thing for WP.  3) I don't know about an outline or time line.  If a timeline is needed, that would be a separate article.  4) This article begs for citations in the existing text and any new text. 5) The race riots are in a separate aritcle: Red Summer of 1919 which does not indicate any connection with other groups Hmains (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope to get to work on this now, but slowly. Thanks for your notes. Timeline? I don't think it needs to be much longer than the listing Red Summer chronology, but we'll see.


 * Your comment about Red Summer of 1919 suggests I need to make something clear. The Red Scare does not mean "reds did something that scared people." It's more like this: something happens and the (over)reaction is to yell "Reds! Revolution!" even when that hardly makes sense. For example, a perfectly ordinary strike in the steel industry is met with phony charges that it's financed by Moscow. Some anarchists can't even get their mail bombs delivered to their targets, but it's time for panic. In the case of the race riots, the main explanation for the violence, despite all evidence to the contrary, was that Reds were spreading propaganda in the black community. So the Red Scare is mostly about overheated rhetoric and exaggerated response to events. As it says in the Red Summer of 1919 entry: "In mid-summer, in the middle of the Chicago riots, a "federal official" told the New York Times that the violence resulted from 'an agitation, which involves the I.W.W., Bolshevism and the worst features of other extreme radical movements.'"

And it all dies down when the reverse occurs on May Day 1920. The Attorney General predicts an attempted revolution on that day and nothing happens. He looks pretty ridiculous for crying Wolf! and the panic starts to wind down from there.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

date changed
An IP address editor changed the date, which used to say, "On January 21, 35,000 shipyard workers in Seattle went on strike." I don't have a source handy, is this a legitimate change, or vandalism? Richard Myers (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Brecher, Strike p. 120 says Jan 21. Also Murray Red Scare p. 59. That kind of change should really be accompanied by a citation or at least a word of explanation.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Union of Russian Workers was an anarchist organization
McCormick is incorrect saying the URW was a "former" radical organization which "devolved" into a social club. It WAS a radical organization which also had aspects of a social club, as did the various language federations of the Socialist, Socialist Labor, and Communist Parties in these years. Here's a (very partial) list of URW-published books just prior to the Nov. 7, 1919 raid (the 4th of the year on NYC headquarters):


 * Sébastien Faure: Prestuplenie Boga. [The Crimes of God.] New York: Soiuz Russkikh Rabochikh, 1917.
 * Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin: Bog i gosudarstvo. [God and State.] New York: Soiuz Russkikh Rabochikh, 1918.
 * Grigorii Petrovich Maksimov: Sovety rabochikh, soldatskikh, i krest'ianskikh deputatov i nashe k nim otnoshenie. [The Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies and Our Relations with Them] New York: Soiuz Russkikh Rabochikh, 1918.
 * Paul Bertolet: Novoe evengelie. [The New Evangelism.] New York: Soiuz Russkikh Rabochikh, n.d. [c. 1918].
 * Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin: Khleb i volia.'' [Bread and Freedom.] New York: Soiuz Russkikh Rabochikh, 1919.
 * Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin: Nravstvennaia nachala anarchizma. [The Moral Origins of Anarchism.] New York: Federatsiia Russkikh Rabochikh Soed. Shtatov i Kanady, 1919.
 * Novomirskii: Manifest anarkhistov-kommunistov. [Manifesto of the Communist-Anarchists.] New York: Federatsiia Russkikh Rabochikh Soed. Shtatov i Kanady, 1919.

Carrite (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so long responding. I believe I understand your point. The entry describes the URW as "a formerly radical group that had devolved into a social club for Russian language speakers," when in fact the distinction I was trying to make was not between what the organization once was and later became -- it was always an anarchist organization -- but that by the time of the Palmer raids (if not before, I don't know), it functioned in such a way that rounding up its members was not at all equivalent to rounding up anarchists, since the members/attendees often had little or no awareness of the organization's political philosophy and used it as a community resource center. I will rewrite the passage, trying to keep it short, so that the nature of the organization as an anarchist organization at all times is clear. And I'll add appropriate citations from those who studied the organization first-hand circa 1919.


 * The distinction I'm making in no way changes the fundamental fact that the government was attempting to suppress radicalism and targeted the URW for that reason. What is does is underscore the fact that in the hysteria of the red scare the government's choice of targets underscores how its paranoia drove its actions rather than any rational assessment of the role of radical organizations and radical thought in American society or the immigrant community.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Partisan nonsense whoever wrote this article
It asserts that Post was some hero, while palmer failed. Lady on the street and Post still had to deport over 500 of them. Post had to defend himself, but the article doesn't depict this. It says that Palmer had to 'defend' himself. No mention of J. Edgar Hoovers claim that "communism has been destroyed in america" to the Overland committee in may 1920. No mention of Palmers defiant retort "I apologize for nothing, I revel in it" No mention that nothing happend to palmer or that the "collapse" only occurred because the masses just stopped and that more than likely they still hated Radicalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.23.44 (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're sure that you are not the partisan spewing nonsense? Is it a problem for you that it deals squarely with the topic? I think the article is well written, and has been getting better as a result of recent efforts. Seems to me some people cannot tolerate a thorough, balanced, and well-documented analysis of history. Richard Myers (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that YOU are not spewing partisan non-sense? It is a problem when some fools claim they are 'balanced' when they are clearly NOT! This article is TERRIBLE. You know it and I know it. There is not suppose to be balance when it comes to writing history any more than. You claiming this is well-documented is total NON-SENSE! It is a left-wing interrpretation of an event where extremists obviously got there ass kicked. Wake up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by69.117.17.77 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...and btw I noticed you dont mention the things I mentioned above. No mention of hoovers comments before congress, or palmers defiant remark. no mention of what happend after the palmer raids ended. No mention of press being censored. Of course though this article has glorifies guys like post. some accuracy....


 * "Extremists obviously got there (sic) ass kicked"? This comment (with its lack of any real grammar) explains that you are extremely bias, and so your comments on the article cannot be considered balanced or in any way credible. You are obviously using your own prejudice to try to change what you disagree with. I dont think the article needs changing, its one of the better articles I've come across. ValenShephard 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Ummmm, like 'grammar' in this means anything whats so ever. And YES, this article IS BIAS. Its fools like you who write this nonsense. Your comments on it can't be in anyway considered 'balanced' or in anyway credible. The fact that you think it doesn't need changing shows who YOU side with. Why do you think I commented on it anyway? This article is terrible. My comment above of them getting there ass kicked is right after all. You just don't like it cause thats WHAT HAPPENED. GROW UP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.23.247 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You should not make personal attacks. It makes taking your argument seriously difficult. If you have issues with the article, please explain them and use reliable sources to back up your claims.ValenShephard (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Grammar was not a part of my argument. "Fools like [me]" think it doesn't need changing because you are not clear about what needs changing in the first place.ValenShephard (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss these issues if the conversation is civil. I'm not looking for an argument, but I wrote most of this article and I'm happy to discuss its contents. When I first came across it, it contained only a few paragraphs about the anarchist bombings and nothing else at all. It wasn't really about the Red Scare. So I had to add everything else, including the Seattle and Boston and other strikes, race riots, etc. And I beefed up the other entries for those events as well, along with Palmer's entry, and I dug up the material on state legislation and the film industry.

I'll try to address specifics as I understand them, but I admit I'm confused by some of what I read here. I often can't tell if the complaint is coming from the left or the right or if there is just one person complaining or more.

1. I've tried to follow mainstream historians who generally see Post as a hero who stood up to Palmer when it took courage to do so. He did that when Palmer was at the height of his power, before Palmer's May Day predictions took the wind out of his sails.

2. I see this complaint: "Post had to defend himself, but the article doesn't depict this. It says that Palmer had to 'defend' himself." I'll be happy to edit the wording so it's clear that each defended his position. I don't think it changes much. It's already clear that Post was the object of a move to impeach or censure him and that he survived those attempts. And later in the article under Collapse it says: "In testimony before Congress on May 7–8, Louis Freeland Post defended his release of hundreds seized in Palmer's raids so successfully that attempts to impeach or censure him ended." There's the word you want: defended. Still, this shows me that I need to re-read the entire article from top to bottom for consistency.

3. I don't know what "Lady on the street" means.

4. I don't see why Hoover's own estimation of his work when talking to the Overman Committee is important. Historians don't believe the raids successfully destroyed the left. And Hoover is not the best judge of his own efforts. And when he testified he thought the people he'd arrested were all going to be deported and they were not. We're supposed to base articles on historical consensus, not what any one participant says.

5. The article doesn't mention that "nothing happened to Palmer." I'm not sure why the article should mention things that didn't happen. The rest of his career is clear enough, I think. A failed run for president. I'm not sure if the person complaining is pro-Palmer and thinks the fact that nothing happened to Palmer shows Palmer was a hero or is anti-Palmer and thinks that the fact nothing happened to Palmer is disgraceful. Either way it doesn't matter much, because the article describes events that did happen, including the tail-end of Palmer's career. And you can also read more in the entry on Palmer himself.

6. I think it's already clear that Palmer stuck to his position. I don't see why a quote from him proving that is required. Would anyone reading that he "defended himself" think he did so by apologizing for his actions?

7. I'm unsure about this: "the 'collapse' only occurred because the masses just stopped" -- who are "the masses" and what did they stop? And "more than likely they still hated Radicalism." Who is the "they" in that sentence? Historians credit the end of the Red Scare to a combination of Post and the legal community on the one side and Palmer overplaying his warnings on the other, which brought the press to view him critically. But that's just the end of the specific period of national hysteria we call the Red Scare. The war between the government and the left of course continues. Just as it existed before this 1919-20 phase.

8. I see "extremists obviously got there ass kicked" -- that's not what historians believe. The targets of the Palmer raids were ill chosen and mostly not even ideological radicals.

9. I see "No mention of press being censored." I'm not sure what this refers to. Who censored the press when and how?

10. I do have my own slant on these events but you won't find it in this article. I think historians fail to incorporate the political angle. Palmer's anti-Red campaign coincides quite neatly with his campaign for president. I'm not sure how much of his rhetoric and anti-Red activity was based on real beliefs and real fears and how much was politically driven. Same for those in Congress who wouldn't give him the extra funding he asked for. They were political animals too. I just think the political ambition and rivalry angle could use more emphasis.

PLEASE sign your comments if you do not have a login name, so we can keep clear who is saying what. Thanks.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. What are you talking about now? What 'historians' are you talking about? Partisan ones? "what historians believe' is not accurate information if it incorporates partisan ones (which you seem to be using or referring to.


 * 2. The press wasn't censored? 'Who censored the press and how?' let me answer this one quite clearly. THE US GOVERNMENT DID! How many socialist papers were denyied mailing privliges and others that were raided and members of those papers arrested?


 * 3. The fact that your 'historians' claim that Post and 'legal community' is a JOKE!! Again, check your historians slant. Post did next to nothing. The fact that he was thrown before congress just proves that. He didn't throw out all the cases. All he did was throw out a lot of people who happened to be arrested. The fact that they were arressted (and some deported) is what matters. That Post released many of them, I wouldn't call something that ended the scare (nor the raids). What 'legal community' are you referring to? The one that silenced the socialists and there dupes (and throw many in prison like eugene debs)? They certainly didn't stop Palmer and company. I will go over why the scare ended


 * A. Palmers warning that didn't come about contributed. But, like I said, The masses still hated socialists. You think the masses (the majority back then) didn't despise socialism after the fact? Did you notice nothing happened to Palmer or anybody else for that matter. There was some critisim, and that was it. Things went back to normal, and thats what leads us to no.2
 * B. After May of 1919, things went back to normal. In essence the hysteria just died. I'm sure you had to have read this. A source that I read stats this (I cannot remember, sue me). Considering that there was no fallout from palmers raids and that many socialists were still in prison (including there guy debs) I'd say that (and other sources are right)
 * C. Last, like I said, the left-wing was destroyed as a result. I mentioned Hoovers testimony to congress in which he stated that the communist part was dead in america. Opposition was totally whitewashed. To deny that is to deny the scare happened. That is what usually happens during such hysteria. Again, I read this. Unfortuneatly I cannot remember who wrote it. The country was on lock-down on May 1st it got so bad. There were police barricades among other things set up in major cities across the country!! No wonder there was no opposition. The extreme oppostion was cowed and forced into silence. Again, to deny that is to deny truth. A few mild voices of protest (which you refer to) weren't gonna do it (it did nothing anyway). The American people accepted and obviously supported such measures (or they wouldn't have happened), and there was no reprocussions from any mistakes, coincidence? I think not


 * 4. "I think it's already clear that Palmer stuck to his position. I don't see why a quote from him proving that is required. Would anyone reading that he "defended himself" think he did so by apologizing for his actions?"


 * Yes it is required. Just like you mentioning Post sticking to his position, right? Another point is that Palmer didn't pay for what happened. As far as the 'defending himself' part of your claim. No I do not think that, I do however have a problem with the comment about defending himself' because it makes it sound like Palmer was put ON THE DEFENSIVE, when in fact he didn't backtrack at all


 * 5. "Hoover wasn't the best judge" This is the guy is founded the FBI and was called in to deal with this problem. He testifyied to the committee on the status of the left. I think he would be THE JUDGE here. He is also a primary source (as opposed to the 'historians' who have political angles). I think he would be accurate and some historian 10-20 years ago writing some book would be unaccurate.


 * 6. "that's not what historians believe. The targets of the Palmer raids were ill chosen and mostly not even ideological radicals."
 * Of course left-wing historians aren't gonna believe this!! But its true. And most were radicals. The reason why some people believe this is because most of them weren't taking part in violent activities (some were however).


 * 7. "I've tried to follow mainstream historians who generally see Post as a hero who stood up to Palmer"
 * And here shows the issue we are having. "Historians who see Post as a hero", you say. That right there tells me what kind of historians you are reading. Slanted ones. Ones who see anyone helping extreme leftism (and preventing some prosecution like Post). If I followed historians who see Anti-communist crusaders as hero's what would you think? What would the article be like to?


 * I do not have a wiki page therefore I cannot sign my posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.17.200 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for contributing to the discussion. A couple of things:


 * Formatting your messages helps us to understand your arguments. We indent with a colon, like this :, at the beginning of the line. Adding more colons increases the indent. It is helpful to separate your comments with indents, and to further indent quotes within comments. (This paragraph is indented with three colons...)


 * You can sign your post, even if you don't have a login. Just follow your comments with ~


 * thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Canada
This article focuses on America, while the same events were also happening in Canada.

The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 had a lot of labour's enemies screaming Bolshevik and Red at the unions. Also, the banning of the Communist Party in the 1920s is of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewazhere (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The American Federation of Labor did not support the general strikes of 1919, likewise seeing them as the result of agitation by radicals (some of whom were in the AFL). At its annual convention in 1919, the AFL took away the ability of regional labor councils to call strikes because of Winnepeg and Seattle. Richard Myers (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem wording in lead paragraph
There are several problems with the lead paragraph. The phrase "due to real and imagined events" refers to a number of real events (domestic bombings and Russian Revolution), but what were the imagined events? The article mentions one: the 1920 May Day coup that failed to happen. Were there others? The paragraph ends with the phrase "a general sense of paranoia." This casual use of a mental illness diagnosis is unencyclopedic. So is the infobox characterization as "mass hysteria." However exaggerated the response to the perceived threat, I don't see where these mental illness terms are supported in the text. Regards. Plazak (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Red Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923152636/http://marx.org/history/usa/groups/aclu/1920/0800-nelles-civilliberty.pdf to http://marx.org/history/usa/groups/aclu/1920/0800-nelles-civilliberty.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of "Red Scare"
Is there any data on who coined the term "Red Scare" and how the term became the standard to describe these events? Was it a journalist? Historian? Sociologist? Someone else? A quick look at Google Scholar and Google Books finds that Red Scare has thousands of hits dating back to at least the 1930s. But I can't find anything on who created the term, and when, or if there are alternate terms for these events.

Is it "First Red Scare" or "first Red Scare"?
Both are used in the article. Matuko (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

American-centric
Fierce anti-communism was present in many countries towards the end of and immediately after WW1. The tone of the article would have people believe that this was a purely American phenomenon, which it wasn't. 2A0A:EF40:1296:6B01:E895:54E9:803B:4540 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)