Jump to content

Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Affirming as alien

There's no "seen as" in the source, the author is clear that Jews were in fact affirming their image of alien non-Polishness:

  • The Jews were the focal point of the Endecja's vision, the place where organization and struggle converged and were negated. Glos had already defined the Jews as irredeemaby alien, and by the turn of the century many Jews themselves were affirming this idea (through Zionism or the Bund).

Hope this clarifies. PetersV       TALK 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify. It is clear from the context that the author is describing the Endecja point of view. Look at the following lines, which conclude with If the Jews could not be Polish and could not be a national "other," they could only be a monstrosity. I'm sure you don't believe that the author is saying that the Jews were monstrosities! No, he is saying that, from the Endecja POV, Jews seemed like monstrosities. Likewise, from the Endecja POV, Jews were affirming the idea that they were aliens. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The author is describing the Endecja view, culminating in the statement that Jews through their involvement in Zionism and the Bund were themselves affirming the idea (not of their creation) of their alien-ness. There's no "seen as", or "likewise," there is the author's use of the word themselves. The text is completely clear in that regard, so please don't revert. PetersV       TALK 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry section again: poisoning the wells

While it was discussed above, no answers were provided. The first claim in the para, "The stereotype behind Żydokomuna harks back to a medieval antisemitic myth about Jews poisoning wells and thus spreading disease.", is backed up by two references. I read the online pdf that is one of them - [1] - and could find nothing to support the sentence. Can somebody verify and quote the supporting statements from Robert Blobaum, Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland, Cornell University Press, 2005, p. 293.? This page is not in the Google Print preview, as far as I can tell, it containts the word żydokomuna, but not well(s) or poisoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"The stereotype of Jewish communism was in turn rooted in an incomparably older myth, known in Europe since the Middle Ages, that of Jews spreading disease". Stola. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Two points of order: 1) it does not mention poisoning the wells and 2) it's an opinion of only one scholar, so should likely be attributed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The myth is "spreading the disease through well poisoning". If you insist on the word well being mentioned, we can use this quote - After the Bolshevik Revolution, the concept of "Jewish Communism" emerged and grew to dominate Central and Eastern European anti-Semitic movements ... "Jewish Communism," of course, was merely another form of the well-known concept of eternal Jewish conspiracy — a new narrative for the old medieval myth of well-poisoning, disease-spreading, and Christian-girl-murdering Jews. The Holocaust in Hungary: Sixty Years Later By Randolph L. Braham, Brewster S. Chamberlin Published by Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2004, page 169. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
And how does that tie to Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should stick to Żydokomuna proper. Loading it up with every reference one can find that says:
  • "Żydokomuna" = "Anti-Semitic" = "and here is everything throughout history which has also been anti-Semitic"
is a POV disservice to the readers of this article. The only historical "roots" which should be included should be tied to any specific discussion of Slavic anti-Semitism and how that was/wasn't related to anti-Semitism in Poland and Żydokomuna in particular. All the flogging of Żydokomuna by invoking ancient roots needs to go. The scope needs to be cut to something appropriate. That there are sources where authors choose to engage in flogging does not mean that should be our purpose here. It's an insult to the topic and to our readers to paint it as just more centuries-old hatred of Jews. PetersV       TALK 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no doubt that żydokomuna can be traced to past antisemitic attitudes, but that's hardly surprising, nor original. The Niemcewicz links are interesting and useful, but let's drop the "poisoning the well". It's simply is not serious enough, nor reliable, to warrant a mention, and starting the article with it makes it look... ridiculous.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested intro clarification

Prior: and which identified communism as being primarily a vehicle of a broader Jewish conspiracy to seize power.
Reworded, less stilted: where communism was itself a wider Jewish-led conspiracy to seize power.
Hasn't changed, just cut through the wordiness, so I don't see the rationale for tagging. PetersV       TALK 06:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research insertion into picture description

It has caught my attention that the caption under one picture inserted there contains unsourced original research namely "Such demonstrations were not

1. It's sourced. Just click the picture, like I've said.
2. Speaking of OR ... you got a reliable source which says anything about "Polish occupation" of Belarus? There was in fact "occupation" but it was a Soviet one [2].
3. Many former members of Communist Party of West Belarus joined Communist Party of Byelorussia upon Soviet invasion. Mystery solved. I have no idea what you're talking about with this "anti-polish resistance movement" - sounds like more OR nonsense.radek (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As for your 2 item. Please consult Western Belarus article, and explain to me why Treaty of Riga which was made by and between Soviet Russia and Poland, and not with Belarus, which pronounced its independence in 1918, would decide the fate of the territory of Belarusian People’s Republic? This is what normal people call occupation. But your question is just another instance of abuse directed at me, because, being Pole, you certainly know well about colonization of Western Belarus. And there are numerous academic sources to this point. Colonization is not what people usually do to their own territories. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Radeksz, this particular picture was taken by Irpen from one source, then Piotrus added opinionated original research desciption from another source to this picture description and then you inserted this photo into the article? Ok, then it is definetly synthesis of fringe plus original research. What relation this source has to this place where the photo has been taken? Please have a look at another picture from the same site with caption "Liberating the Western Byelorussia". Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"original research desciption from another source" is a contradiction in terms on Wikipedia. If it's in a source, it's not original research. Please look at WP:OR again. The ref is obviously for the statement. Oh yeah you should probably look at WP:RS again as well - "[3]". With photos captioned "The Life Grew Better and More Cheerful" (from Bolshevism) and "People and party are indivisible". Sorry, but Soviet propaganda is not a reliable source.radek (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources that link this photo with another source. So, it is original research. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Because I don't have to. The source, which I'll add, is for the caption. There's no rule that says that the caption under an image must be the same as on some Soviet propaganda website.
And btw, your 2 and 3 above are pretty much in the skeletons with swords territory.radek (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Radeksz, I am not going to have a showdown with your Mailing list organization WP:EEML there, but soon I hope, I would meet there more constructive and collaborative approach to change this bias to neutral one. And I hope skeletons won't stand in my way. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant information can be used in a caption. If you disagree, ask at WP:NOR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please prove relevancy of this information to that particular picture. The issue that any link which you disguise as relevancy is absent. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Very simple. The photo presents an event. The caption describes that type of an event in a little more detail.
Caption: "September 1939—residents of a small town in former eastern Poland (now Belarus) greet the Red Army. Such demonstrations were not spontaneous; they were usually organized by the Communist Party of Byelorussia."
Picture, first sentence: "September 1939—residents of a small town in former eastern Poland (now Belarus) greet the Red Army. " - do you dispute that?
Picture, second sentence: "Such demonstrations were not spontaneous; they were usually organized by the Communist Party of Byelorussia" (ref: Marek Wierzbicki, Stosunki polsko-białoruskie pod okupacją sowiecką (1939–1941). Warsaw. Retrieved 16 July 2007.). FYI, the section on demonstration starts in the reference with this sentence: "Nastroje prosowieckie objawiały się...". Do you dispute that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not that simple as you may think. I have asked you to provide sources that prove that meeting pictured on this particular photo was indeed organized by Communist party. And don't pretend that you do not understand what I ask you for. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Images should illustrate information presented in the article... not present information on their own. If the information in this caption is worth mentioning, then put it in the article and simply illustrate it with the picture. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. You know, on the second thought, I am not sure how this image is even relevant here. How about we compromise on the caption by simply removing the image altogether? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not for removal of this pic. Just make an adequate caption, like in the source where the picture was taken from and not description of POV statement made by some journalist from another source which is not related to the photo. Anyway, removal of picture is also OK. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not for removal of this pic. ... Anyway, removal of picture is also OK. Wait! So which is it?radek (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of merger with Jewish Bolshevism

This article is a POV fork from Jewish Bolshevism. As some could know Poland was part of Russian empire, therefore the concept of Jewish Bolshevism was not original Polish creation.

If we are to create separate articles about Jewish Bolshevism in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania etc just because they are now independent states? I really think that section "Poland" in Jewish Bolshevism would suffice for this article and would show a bigger picture of this phenomenon. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

National stereotypes are notable. Plus, this is a Good Article. The community has recognized this as a well written notable subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not an argument, Piotrus. What specifically makes it different? I see profound mistake in the definition of Zydokomuna, which refers only to the period between WW I and WW II, but the text itself, reffering for much later periods, predates completely biased definition. And if reviewers haven't noticed that, that's just because they were mistaken or "biased". And please don't play Diva, or refer to God Almighty in your next comment. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
So... uh ... you want to take a Good Article and merge it into a non-Good Article, thus effectively deleting the Good Article. This is the first time I've seen anyone proposing to delete a Good Article on Wiki. But somehow I'm not surprised.
And what in the world is your last sentence about, aside from being a personal attack?radek (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because you have said nothing about the contradiction between the name of the article and its content, I see no reasons why you would call the article containing such gross mistake as "good article". My last sentence referred to the fact that you do not provide any explanations instead of it was recongnized by community as GA. I don't care, really, it contains gross mistakes and the article is overall biased. It doesn't mention Polish pogroms of Jews in Western Belarus (Vilno, Pinsk, Mozyr, Minsk), for example, which where directly linked to Zydokomuna concept. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You simply didn't read the article lede carefully enough. And I'll take GAs reviewers opinions over your OR any day.radek (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, I am going soon to input a lot of the history materials from Belarusian history sources on Western Belarus occupation, this would include Polish statistics and sources which your historics usually hide, and then we will see who is doing original research there. I just wait for the arbcase to finish. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Right. Because you expect that then there won't be anyone to actually check your "sources". If you got quality sources, why are you afraid to use them now? One can't argue with a quality source, so how about bring them up here, rather than trying to be sneaky about it?radek (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? There are no quality sources on that? Ok, welcome to your beloved source - Google books. Enjoy reading. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Uh, that source is about a different thing.radek (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? How that situation with divide of Belarus between Poland and Russia is named there? What about ethnocide of Belarusian language and culture? Pages 94 and 95 are quite revealing. And I would seek cooperation with Lithuanian and Ukrainian users on that, believe me. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Gatcha!!!! Meanwhile, Polish forces occupied western Belarus and fought a series of battles with the Soviet Red Army. Political parties of Eastern Europe. Janusz Bugajski. Please note Radek, that the author is a Pole. And he names it occupation. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Gatcha!!!!??? And then you go and talk about "collaborative" editing. Hmm. And you might want to read that source a bit more carefully rather than cherry picking a single word out of context.radek (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Radek, please also consult these obviously unacademic, biased, needless sources:
first
second
third
Plus, do not forget about Belarusian sources, and your statement that you cannot buy our Belarusian history textbook, is not relevant. This is something I would discuss on Belarus WP board. Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
and your statement that you cannot buy our Belarusian history textbook, is not relevant - What statement?!? Who are you having this conversation with?radek (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I cite your text "Because you expect that then there won't be anyone to actually check your "sources". Isn't that a violation of WP:AGF which you so vehemently advocated in WP:EEML? Nice to see your real two-faced approach. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From WP:AGF This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. which I believe applies here given your personal attacks and incivility. Since I have no idea what you're talking about otherwise I'm not going to continue this pointless conversation further.radek (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. Where have I been uncivil on this page? Try baiting another one, Radek. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And please don't play Diva, or refer to God Almighty in your next comment. Gathcha!!!. Etc.radek (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Or even Try baiting another one, Radek.radek (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Radek, you just don't have AGF habit. Vlad fedorov (talk)

"Żydokomuna" is a substantial article, and too long to merge into "Jewish Bolshevism." It should remain a free-standing article. A summary of "Żydokomuna" could, however, be inserted into "Jewish Bolshevism." Nihil novi (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question re occupation of Belarus

Dear Vlad, let me ask you a question. You wrote that West Belarus was in the interbellum occupied by Poland. This is a very interesting statement, and I would be grateful if you could tell me if international law supports your point of view. Was Polish rule over what was then northeastern Poland regarded by other countries as occupation? And what were legal borders of Belarus in 1918, who established them, and on what basis? Thank you in advance. Tymek (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I know this question if off-topic, but since Vlad mentioned it, I decided to find out more about it. Tymek (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Polish occupation of Western Belarus is generally accepted position in Belarusian history. For you, as for any other apologist of Polish historiography, the first logical question would be - within which borders Poland has gained its independence from Russia, at the day it declared its independence in 1918? Another serious question would be if those Russian guys who permitted independence for Poland had constitutional or legal basis to do so? Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like also, Tymek, to ask you to provide sources which state directly that Belarusian POV of Polish actions in Western Belarus within 1922-1939 is not occupation. That this POV is erroneous, mistaken, not generally accepted, biased, anti-polish, etc. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vlad, first things first. You stated that Poland occupied Western Belarus, and I would like to clarify it. Was Polish rule of these lands regarded as occupation in the light of international law? And who determined the borders of Belarus in 1918? You have failed to answer, and presented your own questions instead.Tymek (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The answer to your question is very clear. Belarus claimed its independence in 1918, the borders were indicated very clearly here. Poland invaded Belarus in 1919. Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys should probably take this conversation elsewhere as it is only barely relevant to this article.radek (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 1960-1989 information

What's the rationale for [4]/[5]. Zydokomuna is a concept that is discussed in post-1960 context by reliable sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], and so on. Just look at the title of Mikolaj Kunicki. "The Red and the Brown: Boleslaw Piasecki, the Polish Communists, and the Anti-Zionist Campaign in Poland, 1967-68". East European Politics & Societies, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 2, 185-225. And before we go into this, it is not something that can be limited to just 1967-68. PS. Compare: section before, section after. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed material on anti-semitism in Poland unrelated to the idea of "Zydokomuna" in the 1960s because it's irrelevant. I reinserted the 1960s material related to Zydokomuna back in, so that section "1968" now reads:

"Perversely, the old stereotype of Żydokomuna was even reignited by Polish state propaganda during the anti-semitic 1968 March crisis. As historian Dariusz Stola notes, the anti-Jewish campaign combined century-old conspiracy theories, recycled anti-semitic claims and classic communist propaganda. Regarding the tailoring of the Żydokomuna myth to communist Poland, Stola writes:

"'Paradoxically, probably the most powerful slogan of the communist propaganda in March was the accusation that the Jews were zealous communists. They were blamed for a major part, if not all, of the crimes and horrors of the Stalinist period. The myth of Judeo-bolshevism had been well known in Poland since the Russian revolution and the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, yet its 1968 model deserves interest as a tool of communist propaganda. This accusation exploited and developed the popular stereotype of Jewish communism to purify communism: the Jews were the dark side of communism; what was wrong in communism was due to them.'"[1]

This is a good paragraph, sourced to scholarly work that directly and boldly addresses the topic. If you have more scholars discussing the notion of "Zydokomuna" in the 1960s, let's have them. Take care to note that I also linked to 1968 Polish political crisis with the "see main article" template for this section, because the 1960s waves of Polish anti-semitism during the communist period is a notable subject and backdrop to this particular section. However, the paragraphs of bare facts about Polish anti-semitism in the 1960s do not belong in an article about Zydokomuna as a specific phenomenon or cliche; they should be placed into the relevant articles, such as History of the Jews in Poland, as one does not want to distract from the main topic of the article or go into discussing a related anti-semitic phenomenon in an article dealing with this canard in particular. The majority of your section text was sourced to reference works that did not even use "Zydokomuna" in the context of the Polish 1960s: simply put, if you connect five paragraphs about anti-semitism in Poland (sourced to references in which "Zydokomuna" isn't to be found) to one paragraph about Zydokomuna (at last sourced to some reference that mentions it), you're coatracking the content of the section through synthesis. I 100% and absolutely agree that Antisemitism in Poland is an important topic in its own right, but it should be raised by being discussed in its own article, not by being worked in through synthesis into this one instead. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The information you removed is important in understanding the 1968 crisis. And as I said earlier - and as the source note - the concept of Zydokomuna did not miraculously diappear in 1968 (nor did it appear that year). The section discussed the development of that concept through time. Other than adding the main article link (which I support), your edit has simply removed large swaths of referenced information. PS. As a potential compromise, I'd like to ask you to list all the sentences (paragraphs) that you removed here, and explain why do you think they are irrelevant. At the very least, if we agree that they are more relevant to 1968 Polish political crisis than to this article, I think they should be moved to to that article, not simply removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, I think I've explained removing those paragraphs: if what I wrote here in my first explanation was too lengthy, I'll be more succinct in my response – the simple reason is that each of those didn't discuss Zydokomuna: they discussed anti-Semitism in the People's Republic of Poland (a much broader topic, connected through synthesis). According to WP:SYNTH, that's something not to be done. That's my rationale for all of those paragraphs, except for what I've happily put back in there, since it directly connected Poland's anti-semitism in the 1960s and Zydokomuna. Perhaps, though, I did indeed miss something here or there, as you seem to be claiming that the material was relevant to Zydokomuna. So, let's look at the sources. Please either quote the passages in your references discussing the evolution of Zydokomuna, or point me to which of your sources use the term in describing this evolution (it would help if you gave page numbers), as I myself didn't manage to find any of that. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Quotes aside - I don't have time to review all the sources at present - WP:SYNTH does not prevent us from putting relevant background/related/see also information in the article. Editors in the past, including Good Article reviewer, thought it was relevant enough to keep. If you still disagree, let's see what others think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Briefly: which version is better: the longer section before Vlad's A-N's edits, from the time article was GAed, or his shorter section after recent edits. Vlad's A-N's argues above that the old section contained irrelevant SYNTH information. I think it contained useful background info. As up to this point it is just me and Vlad and A-N discussing the issue, I am asking the neutral editors to read the above section for background and present their thoughts below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One moment Piotrus. I never was for deletion or shortening of the article.
Please do not make false statements and confuse reviewers who might come across. Shortening of the article was done by user Anti-nationalist. I normally expect you to bring the apologies for this confusing. SYNTH in my criticism was directed at the description of the photo related to greeting of liberators in Western Belarus.
I just noticed that this article while being GA contains grave contradictions and inconsistencies, which make it in reality very poor article. If you would mind to provide more exact definition of Zydokomuna, probably (I don't which definition you would provide) the problem would be resolved. But you need to make it, otherwise this article is just bizzare. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I confused you with A-N. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
My response to this can be seen in the above section. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationalist is correct here; the material used as "background" should specifically discuss "Zydokomuna"; otherwise, it violates WP:SYNTH. It's up to reliable sources to decide which "background info" is relevant to this topic, not Wikipedia editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the longer version is WP:SYNTH. It seems to me - from a viewpoint of total ignorance - that it gives useful and relevant background to the entire concept, an entirely encyclopaedic approach. I suggest keeping it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Do the sources specifically mention Żydokomuna? If not, then it's obvious WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources did not see fit to include this material as "relevant background to the entire concept", then Wikipedia obviously cannot either. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the sources that used to be in that section used the term zydokomuna; all discussed aspects of anti-semitism in Poland related to communism and that time period. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dariusz Stola. "Fighting against the Shadows The Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1968." In: Robert Blobaum, ed. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland. Cornell University Press, 2005.

Bias

This article has a strong anti-Polish bias, at the same time it is trying to excuse acts of violence commited by Jews against ethnic Poles, like in "There were even some extreme cases of Jewish participation in massacres of ethnic Poles" or "Some Jewish groups (such as the Bielski partisans) were forced to rob local Polish peasants for food;". Why is Gross described as a "historian"? If he is a historian, so are Zündel and Irving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


I agree that this article is calculated to exaggerate Polish anti-semitism and make it look irrational, while trying to excuse or make less relevant criminal Jewish behavior toward the ethnic Poles. It tries to change the history and facts to whitewash communist crimes, and identities of individuals behind them, which is a disturbing trend these days.

This original statement “Among high-ranking functionaries of the Stalinist organs of oppression (such as the Ministry of State Security, which played a role analogous to the Gestapo in Hitler's Germany), there were such names as Jozef Swiatlo (born Licht Fleischarb), Anatol Fejgin, Juliusz Hibner (born Dawid Schwartz), Roman Romkowski (born Natan Grunspau-Kikiel), and Jozef Rozanski (born Goldberg). Polish communist Wiktor Klosiewicz stated in an interview with Teresa Toranska: All the department directors of the Ministry of State Security were Jews.[1]. Romkowski and Rozanski were in 1957 sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power[2].” is absolutely relevant, as it explains why many Poles felt that ruthless Jewish communists had taken over their country. In addition, this statement touches on the exceptional brutality and the use of Polish sounding names by perpetrators to hide their real identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.38.115 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish–Soviet War

I read a book about the Polish–Soviet War and ever talking about Polish Jews, they are in absolute majority against the Soviets or Russians invading Poland. Żydokomuna is just another anti-Semitism's fantasy.Agre22 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

What book did You read? :) I think that You are little lost here, the majority of orthodox jewish was against communism but jewish that come from east, sk. "litwaki" was mainly communists. Those jews settled down in east part of Poland and was not popular among polish or orthodox jews or jewish families that lived in Poland for centuries. After the WWII, there was mainly communist jews left that survived. Following that, we all know that communists where not popular among population, jewish or not - I would rather say that its not about antisemitism but its more about anticommunism.
Remember in the end that when soviet army entered Poland in 1939, jews entered collaboration with Soviet administration. In eastern parts there was widely know expression that jews side told polish: "You wanted Poland without jewish, and now You have no Poland and only jewish in leading position". Also have in mind that by denouncing polish families, jews killed far more polish (few hundred thousand and up to 1 million) than polish ever done in the history. ONE jew killed more polish alone than polish did in few hundred years together, his name is Salomon Morel. And there are many, many more!
On the other hand, we all know that polish and orthodox jews cooperated together many times and that jews was fighting together with polish side for ex. during partition time. Zydokomuna is not really a fantasy. It killed lot of people! We need to remember both polish-jewish friendship and also tell what really happened when "litwaki" jews messed it all up. Camdan 11:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the whole interwar period

The KPP was dissolved in 1938 and the WWII started in 1939.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press: Few know story of Jews in Red Army

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-photos-few-know-story-jews-red-army-130323021.html

Poland knew/knows. Still an "Anti-semitic stereotype"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.208.41 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section bias

Żydokomuna survives in the post-Soviet era primarily in rhetoric on the political fringe. However, the contentions of some Polish historians regarding Jewish disloyalty to Poland following the Soviet takeover raises the specter of Żydokomuna in the minds of other scholars.

Nothing wrong with the first sentence, but the "however" in the next sentence and then the statement "Jewish disloyalty to Poland following the Soviet takeover" indicates a serious bias. Neutral wording is "Jewish loyalty" (it isn't clear what this is supposed to mean anyway) not "Jewish disloyalty". The contention of some Polish historians regards the loyalty of Jews. Using "disloyalty" here implies that the contention is valid and proven. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wording per the above. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

Is considered a well known and respected Polish historian whose views are very important for this article. However, it has to be mentioned that his views are considered controversial by many, especially regarding the Post war situation in Poland, as it is evident from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Therefore a brief mentioning of this fact is needed per WP:NPOV. [10]Tritomex (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. It's well-poisoning, and it's extremely POV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Malik Shabazz. Please look around for a bit more balanced source to draw an opinion from, not an attack page by a columnist clearly unfamiliar with the complexity of the subject at hand, and repeating long debunked stereotypes about virtually everything. There's no place for it in Wikipedia. Poeticbent talk 05:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If the prevailing opinion is that the polemic about Chodakiewicz work shouldn't be mentioned at all, I will agree with you. I just want to make clear that I didnt had any intention to bring judgment or any criticism of his work to this, or any other article, my sole intention was to point out that such criticism exist.--Tritomex (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

The expression Żydokomuna is now used almost exclusively by fringe nationalists, usually in reference to former communist party members and to "liberals" who have supported capitalist reforms, globalization and European integration.

In 2009, User:Anti-Nationalist added a cite tag to this statement.[11] The entire paragraph is sourced to Pająk 1998. Can someone confirm this paragraph is supported? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is a WP-SYNTH-ish reference to an atisemitic text as a primary source to support the last sentence of the para. -M.Altenmann >t 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An IP adds an ext link ""Jews, Communism, and the Jewish Communists"" IMO it is redundant, because it belongs to the article Jewish Communism, but not to this one, which specifically discuss Poland, and the ext link discusses general conspiracy theory. We dont include ext links which discuss Stars in general in the article about the Sun. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI -- I didn't add a link. I refreshed a dead link has been in this article since October 2007. The article in the external link mentions Poland 29 times, and Polish another 12, in its 13 pages. It is very much on topic. 66.87.114.37 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
"Mentioned" does not matter. For example: "Even in postwar Poland when the choice for Jews was limited, the majority of Jews were not pro-communist and most of them left Poland." - how is it describing Żydokomuna? If you thnk this ext article adds to the topic, please use it as a footnote to a new text in wikipedia article. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Altenmann here. The argument "Poland is mentioned X times" would make the link relevant to a Wikipedia article titled "Communism in Poland", but this article is about the conspiracy theory of Zydokumuna, and the text in the link mentions Zydokomuna exactly zero times. If there's information in that link that should be included in the body of the article, fine, add it and cite the paper you're discussing, but as "Further reading" it really makes no sense. Also, the fact that it was included since 2007 is irrelevant; there's no "date test" that says once a certain amount of time has passed, you can't remove an off-topic link. I think it should go. Rockypedia (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Despite what both of you have asserted, the article by Krajewski does mention Zydokomuna (under "Comments on the theses", item 2).
I didn't say that there's a "date test" for keeping something in the article, but the fact that it survived more than 700 changes by more than 100 editors over eight years does mean something. See WP:SILENCE.
Notwithstanding the fact that both of you seem to be full of crap, I found that the Krajewski article is already being used as a source in the article (footnote 73), and is therefore inappropriate for an external link or further reading. 66.87.114.178 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It is you and the article are full of crap. The section "Stalinist violations of human rights law" does not belong to the article which defines the subject as " an antisemitic stereotype, referring to alleged Jewish–Soviet collaboration in importing communism into Poland". Jews were in charge because Stalin put them there, not kahal. And 'Żydokomuna' is a vulgar, but valid description of the situation. And it reinforced the ZOG stereotype, not vice versa. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Soviet occupation

There existed two Jewish populations:

Is there an actual logical explanation

Why was this:

Among high-ranking functionaries of the Stalinist organs of oppression (such as the Ministry of State Security, which played a role analogous to the Gestapo in Hitler's Germany), there were such names as Jozef Swiatlo (born Licht Fleischarb), Anatol Fejgin, Juliusz Hibner (born Dawid Schwartz), Roman Romkowski (born Natan Grunspau-Kikiel), and Jozef Rozanski (born Goldberg). Polish communist Wiktor Klosiewicz stated in an interview with Teresa Toranska: All the department directors of the Ministry of State Security were Jews.[1]. Romkowski and Rozanski were in 1957 sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power[2].

changed to this:

Among the notable Jewish officials of the Polish secret police and security services were Julia Brystiger, Anatol Fejgin, Józef Światło, Roman Romkowski, and Józef Różański; Światło defected to the West in 1953, while Romkowski and Różański would find themselves among the Jewish scapegoats for Polish Stalinism in the political upheavals following Stalin's death.[80] While Jews were overrepresented in various Polish communist organizations, including the security apparatus, relative to their percentage of the general population, the vast majority of Jews did not participate in the Stalinist apparatus, and indeed most were not supportive of communism.

?

I tried to follow the discussion below, but it seems to revolve around a claim that a clear and unambiguous presentation of a group of Jewish individuals, placed in extremely powerful positions in an organization that was used against Polish populace, is not related to the article's topic of perception held by said Polish populace (or, to nitpick, a portion thereof) that Jews were performing functions in positions of power that were used against the Poles. Not to mention the very important fact of when this took place within historical context.

The complete lack of logic in the above line of argumentation makes my head spin. At least I can take consolation in the fact that anybody trying to read the above description of what is amiss will suffer from same malady.

Not to mention that a referenced statement like "Romkowski and Rozanski were in 1957 sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power[3]" has absolutely completely different level of meaning than "while Romkowski and Różański would find themselves among the Jewish scapegoats for Polish Stalinism in the political upheavals following Stalin's death.[80]"

Were Romkowski and Rozanski documented to commit the alleged torture and/or abuse of power? I believe determination of that is necessary in order to make clear choice between the subsequent statements, since they carry completely different meanings. If they were guilty, it would be a verdict that was well known through the country, adding to national perception and implied validation of the perception (irregardless of whether it was factual or not, statistically speaking) of Żydokomuna at the time of the announcement of the verdict.

As the sentence currently stands, it appears to indicate lack of reasonable guilt of both individuals, without a consensus on their innocence anywhere within the talk page that I could find. Again, this completely changes the meaning of the statement, and is important to underscore how much of the national perception of the phenomenon at that time was validated by actual events and how much was plain racially-driven phobia (i.e. endemic anti-Semitism).

This might just make me try to learn the mysteries of WP editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 09:18, May 9, 2009

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Żydokomuna. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

intro sucks

  • It does not adequately summarize the article content
  • It is self-contradictory.

The first point is self-evident. For second point: " alleged Jewish–Soviet collaboration in importing communism into Poland" Why "alleged"? The intro further says: "The Soviet appointments of Jews to positions responsible for oppressing the populace". So yes, Jews did promote Soviet influence, right? I know what logical blunder is here, but the article does a poor job of explanation. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a good example of a prejudicial intro that somehow proves the point it tries to suppress. 105.8.0.217 (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Historiography of Żydokomuna remains controversial

Historiography of Żydokomuna remains controversial (see Historiography but it's a racial slur (the lead). The opinions are a little contradictory.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On this point, I agree with Xx236. We need to change the article so it clearly distinguishes between (i) the Polish racial slur for 'Jewish communism' in fact translated as "Kikecommie" by Zvi Gitelman and others, and (ii) the notable, verifiable and academically discussed matter of Polish Jewish communists, within the wider subject area of the relationship between Jews and communism in Eastern Europe, using this [12] by Stanislaw Krajewski as a key source. Note that Krajewski is a Polish Jew who keeps kosher, and his great grandfather was one of the founders of the Polish communist party, and he himself addresses the point Xx236 is raising here. Please read that PDF, lets find others, and let's improve this article accordingly. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Żydokomuna is a racial slur or stereotype. That it has some (and the same is true of most racial stereotypes), rather limited, factual basis (some Jews (as well as some Poles) were communist) - does not make communism a Jewish movement or the importation of communism into Poland a Jewish conspiracy. I'm not sure I see Krajewski as a key source - though definitely usable as a source - and I'll note that I do not think Krajewski being a Jew is relevant to this discussion - what is relevant is his credentials and where this was published.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Given that some Polish sources in this subject area have been dismissed by some editors on the basis of their identity as Polish, I chose to mention Krajewski's Jewish identity with that tendency in mind. If his Jewish identity should be irrelevant - and I happen to agree with you on that - then by the same token so should other sources' Polish identity be irrelevant. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
While some editors may have used, in an imprecise fashion, the adjective Polish to describe a source, that was not the sole basis of their critical reaction to the source. We should be basing our sourcing based on venue of publication, and reception of the author (generally and in the particular work) among mainstream scholars.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You're saying editors need to be precise and comprehensive about their reasons for opposing the use of a source, and I agree. I also agree that we should be basing our sourcing on venue of publication, and reception of the author (generally and in the particular work) among mainstream scholars, among other Wikipedia requirements. Krajewski is well published, well received and is mainstream. Please read the PDF and let's use it to improve the article, along with other sources such as the aforementioned Gitelman here [13] -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have quoted sources, including one academic one, above.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A Polish-Jewish discussion [14].Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Rokhl Auerbakh left Poland because of Jewish Communists. The link in the page should be probably Żydokomuna, rather than the present one Jewish Bolshevism? Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A speaking forum discussion is not a source - nor am I sure what you want to source from there. Jan Hartman (philosopher)'s, a philosopher and Democratic Left Alliance politician, blog does not quite seems like an appropriate source. As for Rokhl Auerbakh - she left because of communists, who happened to be Jewish, who took charge of the (rather Jewish) - Central Jewish Historical Commission. This link there to Żydokomuna or Jewish Bolshevism - a pejorative - is inappropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't created the link, if you don't like it - remove it.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion has been originally published in Jidełe, a Jewish youth paper 1992-2000.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hartman's text presents his opinions. Hartman's opinions are typical for some liberals in Poland. His texts are widely read and criticised by his opponents.Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm skeptical about the line in the article "Works such as those by Jan T. Gross have polarized debate over anti-Jewish violence in Poland, with Gross and his supporters characterizing Żydokomuna as an antisemitic cliché while to some of his critics Żydokomuna was a fact of history.[100] " I very much doubt this accurately reflects the source because the line suggests the source uses "Żydokomuna" as a term in common usage rather than a slur about a stereotype and/or conspiracy theory. What the source might say is that amid the post-Neighbours debate, some people said that general and widespread Jewish collaboration with the Soviets is a fact of history, while others said it is a stereotype. Saying "Kike-commie" is a fact of history doesn't even make linguistic sense. Furthermore the line could be interpreted as assuming one has to be a 'supporter' of Gross in order to characterize the word as an antisemitic cliché, which is incorrect. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Per WP:BOLD I'm hereby editing the line until someone can transcribe an excerpt from the source that supports the content. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Checking the lede

"Żydokomuna ([ʐɨdɔkɔˈmuna], "Judeo-Communism")[1][2] is a pejorative term for an antisemitic canard[3] that refers to alleged Jewish–Soviet collaboration in importing communism into Poland"

Is this accurate? I've only ever read about it as (i) an antisemitic Polish pejorative term for allegedly general Jewish-Communist collaboration; I have not read about it as (ii) a Polish pejorative term for the antisemitic myth of general Jewish-Communist collaboration. Can we please check whether Krajewski says it is one or the other, or both? In the meantime, I'll restore definition (i) with sourcing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See for instance - [15][16].Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The link 12 is very interesting. It calls facts regarding position of peasants populism. The peasants in Poland were uneducated, poor. Some aspects were similar to discrimination of Afro-Americans. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Right so as far as I can see definition (ii) was wrong, perhaps due to a language mistake. 'Zydokomuna' is a pejorative antisemitic canard, it is not a pejorative term for an antisemitic canard; the two meanings are distinct. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"pejorative antisemitic canard" sounds better. I guess that the previous phrasing may have been due to treating Żydokomuna as a term for Judeo-Communism in the Polish sense (this was a canard that was used elsewhere - e.g. Germany).Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A canard? It's rather biased description of certain facts, similar to Icewhiz' description of facts from Polish history. We write Jews did, Poles did. Opinion Poles did is scholar, Jews did is a canard.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Berman and Minc weren't the only Jewish Communists. Zambrowski and a long list of security officers, propaganda officers. Many founders of the PWP were Jewish - Finder, Sawicka.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There are chat rooms for extended discussions such as this. Bear in mind the illusion of statistics: most people who steal carp from London lakes are Poles, and most Poles do not steal carp from London lakes. Some people give other people a bad name. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not extended. It's a basic problem - was the Żydokomuna a canard (an unfounded rumour or story) or rather a biased description of facts. There are thousands lines of recent discussions about Polish responsibility for the Holocaust. Such accusations aren't a canard, but a biased description of facts. A canard would have been a Murzynokomuna, because there were no Afro-Americans in KPP or PPR.
A canard Paweł Śpiewak says, here comes an academic review [17]. The page doesn't quote Śpiewak nor his opponents. Two more texts [18], [19]. You can't describe the subject using only English language sources. Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hartman - We, the Żydokomuna [20].Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It was me who cut the word 'canard' from the lede, so you're at cross-purposes here. Discuss further changes to the article in the section you started below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A Polish movie shows a Communist who belives that eggs are traditional dishes on X-mas eve in Poland (or carp on Easter). If you prefer to call them Communists without Polish ethnic roots, you are welcome.
I haven't lived on the Aleja Przyjaciół in Warsaw, but a person who did says Na sobie doświadczyłem zarówno obsesji polskich antysemitów, jak i obsesji Żydów (chyba w znacznej części dzieci komunistów)..[21]Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Adam Michnik described his roots allegedly as liberal żydokomuna ("Powściągliwość i praca" nr 6/1988, I'm unable to verify).Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The first usage

According to Polish Wikipedia the word was used since 1920, which means it wasn't used before. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. What's relevant is that no verification has been found for the word before 1920, Wikipedia itself (Polish version and any other) is not an authority on anything. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the 19th century, Roman Dmowski's National Democratic party ?

The booklet by Dmowski Jewish separatrism was published only in 1909 and Dmowski politically confronted Jews during 1912 elections. The story of the end of the 19th century should be better explained.

BTW - what is the connection between the Jewish separatism (nationalism) and international Communism? Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Dmowski was an antisemite by his own account. His tactics could be included here as a precursor to 'Zydokomuna', if reliable secondary sourcing can be found showing the thread from him to it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. What is the connection between Dmowski and Żydokomuna? Why not Haman as a precursor? What exactly did Dmowski write? Literally that he was an antisemite? Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You raised a connection with Dmowski yourself, and now you ask what the connection is. Please explain yourself.

I haven't written the Prelude, formerly Antisemitic ancestry, I oppose it.Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If the references used don't draw a connection between dmowski and zydokomuna you have grounds for deletion. Chumchum7 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Some Polish historians have questioned the loyalty ...

The text should be removed from the lead, it doesn't summarize the page.
The quoted source (Bartov) quotes Chodakiewic, who is Polish-American, not Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda

Poles were influenced by Nazi propaganda.

http://www.instesw.ebox.lublin.pl/ed/1/dlugoborski.html.en Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
A very important case was the Katyn crime, described as a Jewish one. It's only about 1990 when a list of executors was available to reject the propaganda.
Germans didn't inform about Jewish officers of Polish army who refused to collaboarate, when a number of ethnic Poles collaborated.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitic reverts

Please stop antisemitic reverts. Why you trying to hide Jew\ish inheritance in shaping the word history? I founding such reverts antisemitic. There were Jew\ish lives and deeds and yet another editor trying to diminish them & they importance. Why? The firs was rm coz not enough sourced. Now were sourced by 3: 1 primary and 2 secondary sources(both from .il). Do you need more sources? Putin saying clearly 80 - 85 % . Will be better to put this on end of this art ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

quote out of context, and needs to be supported by reliable secondary sources instead of youtube

2 other sources added, nobody object reliable. Booth confirm quoted yt beyond any doubt.

while ex-KGB, the Russian president is not an authority here - in fact, one of the cited sources (JTA, citing Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center) calls this a fallacy (saying but one member of 1917 gvmt was Jewish))

so the problem is now authority? Do Russia president have authority to speak about communism in Russia? what is the policy about authority in wikipedia.org? We have two opinion only one versus 80-85 % Jews.


will be ok? to put (as suggested in last revert) in following words:

The ex-KGB Russian president Vladimir Putin who do not have not an authority (here/on wikipeda?) saying saying "80-85 % of first soviet government where Jews"[sources][ ] but this is fallacy because only one member of 1917 government was Jewish[JTA source][ ].

plz point to WP policy page for authority. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors keep reverting my fully sourced submissions about the origin of the term and the real reason why it gained popularity among Poles - Anti-Polish message hidden under the Żydokomuna article

The title says much, however let me introduce you to my case.

After adding some crucial information about the term Żydokomuna like the real origin and reason why it gained popularity among Polish people, I became the target of accusations of defending and justifying antisemitism. Those who accused me, revert my submission without even investigating the sources. Some of the sources given by me are official, like eg. the statements of the Institute of National Remembrance. I am Polish myself, and I love history, so I have the best first-hand knowledge about my country's history, however on Wikipedia I try to use only knowledge based on reliable sources. This is the submission which is being reverted: [22] Here it must be stated that the article in its earlier form (which is currently restored by one of the editors) was harshly biased against Polish people and there was no real reason for this term coming into being. The article tries to prove a WP:POINT, it's very biased, as it gently suggests that Poles are blind antisemites because they made up that awful term despite the "Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's antisemitism and other communists' view of religious, bourgeois, and Zionist Jews as enemies of communism".

Meanwhile, the article lacks this part, and it should be present right after the previous words:

However, this "Jewish communist" stereotype was largely based of the fact that the founders of the Socialist doctrine - Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] The concept of "Żydokomuna" was also used as a pejorative term to describe the high-ranking stalinist officials, oppressors and executioners in post-War Poland, like for example Józef Różański, Anatol Fejgin, Jakub Berman, Józef Światło, Julia Brystiger, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Roman Romkowski, Stefan Michnik, or Salomon Morel, all of Jewish background, who were directly responsible for the death of Polish anti-communist civilians and numerous members of the Polish resistance movement, mainly ex-Home Army guerrillas called the Cursed soldiers.[13][14][15][16][13][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

It's a sin, that these key information were not present here before. Nonetheless, this is currently being severly censored from Wikipedia by some editors, while those are hard historical facts, all based on reliable sources. In my opinion, the article should be neutral and fair, and to be such, it needs to cover the topic entirely, not just from the Jewish perspective. Stop using antisemitism to justify the communist atrocities inflicted on Poles after World War II. Let's just all be honest about our history. How come you accuse me of defending antisemitism? Did I say, that the term Żydokomuna is not antisemitic? Did I say it is not a stereotype? Did I submit some unsourced data based exclusively on my own point of view, or beliefs? Now after answering that in your head, please tell me, what's wrong about historical truth being added on Wikipedia? I encourage you to comment. Thanks. Yatzhek (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to read WP:ONUS, then read this talk page, its archives, and related pages (such as WP:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism), then read WP:ONUS again, and try to understand that just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Once you think you understand that, try to build consensus to include the disputed content you would like to add. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Beyond numerous POV issues (e.g. "oppressors") in the passage above, it is also factually incorrect - e.g. Vladimir Lenin was not Jewish. He was raised in a Christian family (he himself, IIRC was atheist per communist dogma). His sole "Jewish connection" is his maternal grandfather who converted from Judaism to Christianity. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will try to build the consensus, of course. When it comes to Vladimir Lenin, he was obviusly of Jewish descent from his maternal grandfather, a member of a prominent Russian Jewish family, the Blank family. Apart from that, why am I having such difficulty to submit some true facts, information supported by reliable sources? How do you think this line about "Żydokomuna" being a pejorative form used by Poles to describe the stalinist officlals who happened to be Jewish, and their contributions in persecuting, torturing and killing Polish patriotic fighters should look like, to be included? What are your suggestions? Yatzhek (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

this edit promotes the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism and is non-neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral? Ok, so then please tell me, how to write about this important historical fact based on the sources, in a more "neutral" way?

The sources appear to contain much more things which I did not include, however, I'm authentically willing to learn how to improve my contribution in this case, because this fact about those stalinist officials in Poland being called "Żydokomuna" by Polish people, has to be included in the article as it shows the real reason for the term being so widespread in a post-War Polish society. Guide me how to put it in a more neutral form that the suggested one. Yatzhek (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This source, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism, edited by S. A. Smith, discusses Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) as a combination of anti-communism and anti-semitism: [23]. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good., that's one source. What about those 12 sources that I mentioned then? Yatzhek (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Gross on Zydokomuna

Gross in Fear..., introduction, calls zydokomuna a "line of argument" and a "dominant interpretation of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I:

  1. fixed a rather serious miss-attribution and misrepresentation of Michael C. Steinlauf.
  2. removed content sourced to book jacket / book catalog. A book catalog entry may be a RS for the existence of a book - it is not an appropriate citation.
  3. removed - content sourced to a Polish media interview with a far-right activist profiled by the SPLC.[24] Beyond the content being WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, the segment contained WP:OR in that several bits of information ascribed to the activist were not even present in the interview, and furthermore the relevance of the entire interview to this article falls within WP:SYNTH as the activist doesn't even mention zydokomunain the interview.

Icewhiz (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Grossly inaccurate facts

I have fixed only one: a fantastic circulation of 1 million print run of a pre-II war antisemitic paper. See https://www.jhi.pl/uploads/attachment/file/708/Obcy_i_niemili_fragment2.pdf (a publication from Jewish Historical Institute) for a truer figure. (Fyi I somehow cannot insert it as an RS in my mobile Chrome.)

Ditto for the false claim "Polish Communist government did not allow alternative parties" etc. which I leave to fellow Wikipedians to fix. Zezen (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Title change?

I'd like to check whether there'd be any Wikipedia naming conventions for a more accurate title. We don't have a separate article named cosmonaut for Russian astronauts, fromage for French cheese, or dēmokratía for Democracy in Greece.

It appears Zydokomuna is simply the antisemitic Polish term for Jewish Bolshevism. What may have happened with the vast majority of readers is that because they have never heard of Zydokomuna they assume it is not simply a geographical space of a subject, but a distinct subject. So they don't raise this query.

Might Wikipedia naming conventions support Jewish Bolshevism in Poland or 'Jewish Bolshevism' in Poland?

Cheers --Chumchum7 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: I missed your post here, but per the thread below, I think you may be right. Best to first consider whether a merge won't solve the problems first, rather than a cosmetic name change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Citations

The same source—a book edited by Robert Blobaum—is repeated several times, but written differently and/or with different ref names. The editor is named but not the author or chapter.

  • <ref name="Blobaum">Robert Blobaum (1983). Antisemitism and Its Opponents In Modern Poland. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11306-7. p. 97.</ref>
  • <ref name="antisemitism">Robert Blobaum. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 81–82.</ref>

There are other examples in the article of it being cited correctly, e.g.

<ref name="RB">Robert Blobaum. "Criminalizing the ‘Other’: Crime, Ethnicity, and Antisemitism in Early. Twentieth-Century Poland." In: Robert Blobaum, ed. Antisemitism and its opponents in modern Poland. Cornell University Press, 2005: 83–97.</ref>

SarahSV (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the long Blobaum citation—<ref name="RB">—into the text and added {{sfn}} for a couple of short citations. I may continue doing that (or may not; haven't decided), but if anyone doesn't want {{sfn}} in the article, let me know per WP:CITEVAR. SarahSV (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References badly messed up

For a lot of refs I also get the error (in the visual editor) "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." even through some of those refs appear to use proper cite templates. Any idea what's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:VEF? François Robere (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Images

K.e.coffman, re: the image and template you moved, I swapped those recently and was about do the same at Jewish Bolshevism. What are your thoughts on that? SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think the template on top is better, vs the antisemitic poster. The template signals what's what, while the poster delivers an unfiltered propaganda message. I struck me when I saw that. What do you think? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
My thinking was that we call it an antisemitic canard, and we have an image, File:Lapy zydowskie.jpeg, that demonstrates the thinking, rather than a template that states it again. But I take your point about not prominently placing an antisemitic poster. SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Altenmann, can you explain your reverting re: Stone? SarahSV (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You wrote it yorself: he used different term. Did he use it to translate, the term zydokomuna or in othre context? Google doent show me this page. If yes, please add in the changed text.- Altenmann >talk 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, this is not correct: "Variously translated as as the "Kike-Commie conspiracy". That's not simply a "translation". The point is that this is the same concept as Jewish Bolshevism, so that needs to be in the lead. This is the Polish version of "Jewish Bolshevism".
Re: Stone, if you can't see the page, how do you know what he does or doesn't say? Yes, he uses both terms. SarahSV (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Please understand, all these are attempts to translate polish term into english, (not entirely correct, too. Comuna in Polish slang is not cimmunism, it is communist government. And zydocomuna in precise understanding means "polish cimmunist govrrnment overrun by the jews.") In other word, contrary to your opinion, zydokomuna is not the same as jewish bolshevism. Thre was no bolsheviks in poland . It is the same as to say that "oak" and "tree" are the same terms-- Altenmann >talk 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Stone writes of someone that he was: "appealing to the old canard of Judaeo-Bolshevism (Żydokomuna)" (p. 265). Again, please say how you know what Stone does or doesn't say if you can't see the page. SarahSV (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
i searched for the word bolshevism and there was no jewish bolshevism, there was judeo-bolshevism. They are translations, not established terms, because in both sources one of the term is in round brackets, meaning explananion, ie not common usage. - Altenmann >talk 18:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I hope you're not basing your editing on searching Google Books and deciding something isn't in a book because Google doesn't show it to you. This article and Jewish Bolshevism have to be based on high-quality sources, not the opinions of Wikipedians, including opinions about round brackets. If the sources say this is the same concept, then it is (whether it's called Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, etc). If other sources disagree and make a distinction, we reflect both views. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC
if you say that the term jewish bolshevism is used in the book, please provide the citation and done with it, instead of wikilawyering. This is how it is supposed to be done when the source is questioned. I am surprized i have to explain this to a wikipedian who was here longer than me. - Altenmann >talk 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
the sources cited and questined do not say it is the same concept. ( If you disagree, please provide the exact quote. ) They are just 5ranslating the specifically polish slang term with the closest they know in english language. Opin8ons about brackets have nothing to do with original reaserch. As you may know, brckets, as well as other tools of syntax, have a particular meaning. In thus particular case i read brackets as an explanation of foreign word to english reader. Fir example "idiot (a oerson of limited mental capacity) " - ths doesn n9t mean that idiot is the same as person of limited mental capacity. Because persons of limited nental capacity include morons, pumpkinheads, simpletons, ignoramuses, bozos, fools, stupids, cretins, ets. If you do not see a difference between general term and spoecific terms, then i do nit know how to carry out reasoning to argue with you any more. - Altenmann >talk 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, zydocomuna means overriding of polish communist givernment by the jews. Judeobolshevism is overriding of the russian bolshevik givernment be the jews. Yes, it is of the same ilk as overriding of the whole world by the jews. Formlly, this is t he same logical relation as " both birch and oak are trees". But we are not calling birch oak. THERE WAS NO BOLSHEVIKS IN POLISH GOVRRNMENT. And if your highquality sources do not see it, and if they do not see the differenc3 betweeb terms communism and bolshevism, then these sources are not so high quality. Whatevr. Bye. - Altenmann >talk 22:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

PS I've just perused our article and I see it is rife with anachronisms, incorrect statements and original reaserch. Since I have no ability to fix them all, I am recusing myself from the whole subject. - Altenmann >talk 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
PPS. After a bit of more reading and thinking, I see where this misunderstanding comes from. The watershed is WWII. Prior to WWII the idea of judeobolshevism was widespread over all europe an discussed in contexts of other countries, not only russia, germany or poland. However after WWII the grounds for the phenomenon continued to exist only in poland. For example no one in their sane mind may claim existence jewish bolshevism in usssr during stalinist and later soviet times known for their antisemitism. And the term zydokomuna arose in poland to describe the new facet, despite the fact that the terms like 'zydobolszewizm' did exist in polish. However modern sources sloppily abuse the terminology leaving an impression that zydokomua existed in poland as early as in late 19th century. - Altenmann >talk 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. The term zydobolszewizm is pretty rare, but I guess it is an interesting point how that it may refer to pre-1939 era, and zydokomunizm to post-1939 era. Here's an English source that mentions both: [25]. That said, I can't really find many sources discussion the z-b term in Polish, it seems pretty fringe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
no. Post 45 is żydokomuna, where komuna is the common term for the then regime in poland, still in wide use ( "nie tęsknię za komuną" ). And zydobolszewizm not so rare as you may think. You have to searh the term in various spellings żydokomunizm, judeo-bolszewizm, judeobolszewizm, judeo-komunuzm, etc., in various declensions, too, used in reference to relatively high %% of participation in interbellum polish communist movement. But as I said, at these times it was an international trait, nonspecific to poland. - Altenmann >talk 05:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, page 60
  2. ^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]
  3. ^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive_3&oldid=1091486009"