Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The term is also used by some members and political commentators of Jewish community in Poland. Plus some scholarly sources on the subject

• See Wnuki „żydokomuny”. Dyskusja młodych polskich Żydów, „Jidełe” 2000. "Grandchildren of zydokomuna". Discussion of young Polish Jews"

[1] [2] A few years ago a group of the youth from Warsaw began publishing magazine "Jidełe"(Yiddish: "little Jew"). It contains articles in Polish and is aimed at all young people in Poland who are interested in the Jewish issues. The article was a discussion about involvement of Jewish communists in Poland and its legacy, the participants were highly critical of their role in Poland, condemned the generation of Jewish Polish communists and some stated that Jews have moral responsibility to atone for their role in implementing communism. In turn their discussion was criticised by Anna Zawadzka in the article Stigma of ‘Żydokomuna’ [Judeocommunism] from a Generational Perspective: An Introduction[3] This article outlines research on narratives on ‘żydokomuna’ [Judeocommunism] as constructed and disseminated by individuals identified as Jewish Communists or family members of ‘commie Jews’. Zawadzka studies the similarities and differences in the description, interpretation and evaluation of Jewish Communists as found in their own narratives, or the narratives of their children and grandchildren. Characteristic nodes in these narratives are: the interpellation of the collective subject that the speaking subject wishes to represent; abstraction from the social and political context; unwillingness to address anti-Semitism; admissions to a feeling of responsibility and guilt, repentance. In the context of the strong presence, in Poland, of both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism, Zawadzka reads these narrations as ‘exams in subordination’ to the majority status quo to which Jews are subjected in Poland.

• Another example would be Adam Michnik who stated Powściągliwość i Praca volume 6 published 1988 "the background I come from is liberal zydokomuna in a strict sense".

• There are other examples like this one[4] where Jan Hartman uses the term in positive context

Żydokomuna działa na całym świecie dla tych samych uniwersalnych celów etycznych i politycznych. Działając w Polsce, wspieramy polską demokrację oraz ducha wolności i równości, przeciwko uroszczeniom ciasnego i agresywnego nacjonalizmu oraz klerykalizmu Zydokomuna works in the whole world for the same universal ethic and political goals.Acting in Poland, we support Polish democracy and spirit of freedom and equality, against delusions of tight and aggressive nationalism and clericalism.

• I also recommend some scholarly works on the subject:

[5] Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość „Żydokomuna” w aparacie władzy „Polski Ludowej”. Mit czy rzeczywistość? Szumiło Mirosław The quantitative and qualitative participation of communist Jews in the power apparatus of “People’s Poland” was exceptionally large, and in some segments (the central party apparatus, secret police, propaganda) even dominating. Jewish minority enjoyed autonomy and relative privileges in Poland. It was in fact a mapping of the situation from the Soviet Union of the twenties. The purpose of this article is to summarise the results of research on the involvement of Jews in the apparatus of communist authorities in Poland so far, based on scientific and source publications, and partly the author’s own research in this area. The article reminds us of the myth of “Judeo-Communism” (żydokomuna) in the power apparatus of “People’s Poland”, where it came from and what was its influence on anti-Semitic attitudes in Polish society. Next, the number and influence of Jews in the structures of the communist authorities in the Stalinist period and in the times of Gomułka is characterised with particular emphasis on the security apparatus. It also looks into the reasons for such involvement of Jewish on the communist side and their promotion in the power apparatus, and the problem of their national identity. The article is an attempt to verify the myth, i.e. to determine how much it coincided with reality.

Pawel Spiewak Interview[6] Book:Żydokomuna : interpretacje historyczne [7] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

N.B. "Publicist" is a false friend. It does not have the same meaning as political commentator or pundit. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Which of these sources accord with WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations? François Robere (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some. Polityka blog may not, a magazine positively reviewed by the Jewish Historical Institute ([8]) is probably ok. This website needs further investigation. Academic journals are obviously ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Youth magazines aren't RS here, nor are websites that need "further investigation" (what about first investigating, then posting?). The academic journal, published by the IPN in 2018 - way into its current bout of politicization - is so-so. François Robere (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Re Piotrus, The talk page is for discussing various issues, use of potential sources and expansion regarding various issues. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page, as such the discussion here can be used to investigate sources before they are used in the main article and to put to spotlight some issues not covered in the main article.Obviously a forum or venue is needed where editors can discuss issues related to the main article where DS would applies.In any case I am not sure these would apply as for example Michnik refers to post-1945 situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record the analysis of different attitudes towards Zydokomuna stereotype by Anna Zawadzka was published by The Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences[9]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion

Editors active here may also want to stop by Talk:Antisemitic_canard#Requested_move_12_May_2020. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Canard

I'm going to remove "or pejorative stereotype" again. The lead calls it an antisemitic canard. There's no need to add all the ways in which this could be expressed (pejorative stereotype, myth, epithet, slur, mantra, conspiracy theory, etc). So either we're repeating ourselves, or the editor who keeps restoring this (Piotrus) means something different by it, in which case that needs to be spelled out with sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Stereotype is a more common word in English, familiar to readers, and I don't see why we should change the stable description we had for many years. I support linking the canard article as it is relevant and informative, but the term stereotype is a common description of this, as used by cited sources. I don't see what benefits there are for removing it. WP:JARGON should be minimized if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it is an inelegant way of expressing it. Plus, stereotypes are usually pejorative in some way. Perhaps "[[antisemitic canard|antisemitic]] [[stereotype]]"? François Robere (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Saying I don't see why we should change the stable description we had for many years is akin to insisting on maintaining a WP:Stable version. The language should be retained because it's suitable now, not because it used to be in the article for a long time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that no valid arguments for retaining the designation as a stereotype have been presented so far. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, except the trivial fact that it is a term commonly used in literature? No valid arguments have been presented for ignoring what reliable sources say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What distinction are you drawing between antisemitic canard and pejorative stereotype? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it our job to draw such destinctions? Reliable sources use both terms, why not simply follow what they say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it precisely isn't our job to do that, but you're the one introducing a distinction. The sources don't say "an antisemitic canard or a pejorative stereotype". They use one term. The English Wikipedia calls these libels "antisemitic canards", so there's no reason for this article not to use that term, so long as high-quality sources do. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the introduction of the term canard to the article, as it is supported by reliable sources. What I don't understand is why you keep removing the likewise supported by RS term [pejorative] stereotype. Don't you agree that this is a pejorative stereotype? Are the sources using this term unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I answered your questions in my previous post. You are the one introducing the word "or" without explaining the sense in which you're using it; it is your original research (your OR in both senses). Please find a source that says Żydokomuna is "an antisemitic canard or a pejorative stereotype", so that we can see what the source means by "or". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, an I have to say I am really troubled that an editor here has trouble understanding the English word "or". Reliable sources call this phenonemon a "pejorative stereotype", and you do not say why you want to remove this term. It is a simple question and you should be able to answer it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'm troubled that you don't understand that "or" can be inclusive or exclusive. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Żydokomuna is an attempt to incite hatred. Żydokomuna may involve stereotyping but Żydokomuna has more sinister aims than merely stereotyping in a pejorative manner. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Schatz

The lead cites a book by Jaff Schatz, The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland, University of California Press, 1991. This is too old to rely on as a secondary source, unless it's well-known for some reason. Also, I can't find out who Schatz is. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How come 1991 is "too old"? I would very much like to see this argument discussed at RSN. And the University of California Press is a reliable publisher. [10] identifies him as "a sociologist, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Culture in Lund, Sweden." (this information was just a google search away...). In addition, the book got a number of academic reviews (enough to make it notable), and they seem to be quite positive. For example, a review by Zygmunt Bauman calls the book "an exceptional achievement" and " remarkable study". [11] states that it is a "meticulously researched, carefully constructed study" and "a concise yet comprehensive history of the communist movement in Poland from its inception to the decade of the 1970s while simultaneously fitting into its framework the story of a numerically small but qualitatively significant segment of Polish Jews who were arguably among the most committed "true believers" in the communist vision." [12]: "This book, by a professor of sociology and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Lunds University in Sweden, is a close and careful account of the place of Jews in the history of Polish Communism. That the subject is of importance is beyond question: Jews played a major role throughout the European Communist movement, but nowhere more than in Poland. Out of all proportion to their presence in the population, they were active in the Communist movement from the 1920s to the 1960s, and at certain key moments they were a powerful presence in the leadership of Party and state alike." Far from being problematic, this seems like an extremely relevant (and well-received in academia) source to use to improve this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If he is or was an academic, we should be able to find some trace of him. The article should stick to known historians and up-to-date sources, not 30-year-old secondary sources, especially not by unknown authors. Doing so means it may not reflect the current view. He does seem to have an unusual view, and it bothers me that I can't find that in any current source. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I found him in a 2008 book, Under the Red Banner, where he's described as a sociologist "presently active as a consultant in international business development, culture and society". He lists that one book as his sole publication. I think we should remove him. His argument is that the Jewish communism myth made Poland antisemitic; the antisemitism caused non-communist Jews to leave; therefore, most of the Jews left in Poland were communists, which reinforced the myth. But this is a really bad argument. The myth didn't cause antisemitism. Antisemitism caused the myth. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You can always take it to WP:RSN. As is, this, according to our reliable sources policy, is a perfectly reliable source. BTW, Zygmunt Bauman is a very notable academic and praise from him should put to rest any concerns. Volunteer Marek 05:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You should also reference WP:NOR. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to evaluate reliable sources' arguments and decide whether they're "bad" or "good". What matters is WP:V and that this is a reliable source published by academic press(es). Volunteer Marek 05:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The book is from 1991. That's too old for a secondary source in a history article, for obvious reasons. VM, I thought you were topic-banned from this area. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not. As the article itself said, before you removed this info for some reason, this article is about a post-war term.

As to "1991 is too old" - please point me to a specific policy which says that. Otherwise, we follow Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and WP:OR. Alternatively, as I already suggested you can bring this up at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

About half the article is about pre-WWII history, and two more sections are about WWII and its immediate aftermath.

The question of the age of a source, which I myself raised, is important here - first because it's a field of active research, and second because of the advancements made these studies in EE since the fall of communism; both of these render a 1991 source dated. François Robere (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We did find a trace for him, I quoted two. He may not be high profile academic, but his work was well received and is still being cited by more recent works. Anyway, 30 years in social sciences is not much, and I have never before heard an argument that we should not use works from 1991. Again, the appropriate venue for your concern is WP:RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another way you could persuade others here, would be for you, SlimVirgin, to produce a source which directly contradicts the one that you wish to remove (Schatz). Absent such a source, there does not appear to be any basis for the removal except the WP:OR you posted above. That's not following Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 06:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The top of this page has a link saying Volunteer Marek is banned. This is an attempt to minimise anti-Jewish hate by utilising google search results. Earthydover (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) striking blocked sock comments

Well, SV, it seems Icewhiz agrees with you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)striking my own comment per NOTAFORUM/DFTT, T here refers to the NHTBAE sock of course

No connection to that banned sod. This account is a WP:VALIDALT, created since I fear being targeted by extremist hate organizations in articles related to Polish antisemitism. Now, will you halt the minimisation and trivialisation you are doing here? Earthydover (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC) striking blocked sock comments

That's a good find. Can anyone else find anything about his academic credentials and/or acceptance as a writer? François Robere (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

From [13]: "a professor of sociology and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Lunds University in Sweden". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I collected the seven academic reviews I found at The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond being dated, the book is off topic. Schatz has written a history of Jewish communists in Poland, not a history of the anti-Semitic canard. Utilising this book in an off topic fashion is a dirty ploy.Earthydover (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)striking blocked sock comments

a history of jewish communists may well cover the issue of antisemitism. In fact, if it is omitted, then I would be concerned with author's expertise. Formally, the issue raised is valid: if the book does not discuss antisemitism, then using it here may be WP:SYNTH regardless author's credentials. (In fact, this kind of OR abuse was in the early history of the article Jewish Bolshevism: half of its contents was "Jew counting" (?? no article?), and we had hard time getting rid of it) - Altenmann >talk 18:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The reviews I read do mention some discussion of antisemitism, but it is not the main focus of the book. Although it does contain some discussion of Zydokomuna (see ex. this page); at the very least the very topic is mentioned in at least one review. Btw, the user you replied to have been banned as a sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Schatz is a reliable,scholarly source that certainly can be used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Schatz's LinkedIn profile says he has been the CEO of Schatz Consulting since 1990 and was a "senior consultant" from 1991 until 2015. The book was his PhD thesis. See "Older doctoral theses", Lund University, Dept of Sociology: Schatz, Jaff. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Generation of Jewish Communists of Poland (1990). He was described in 2008 as "a sociologist, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Culture in Lund, Sweden. He is presently active as a consultant in international business development, culture and society". The Institute for Jewish Culture is or was a part-time group that emerged from JUSIL, the Jewish University Student Club, in Lund; the institute distributes Jewish material to schools, etc (see Morton H. Narrowe in S. Llan Troen, Jewish Centers and Peripheries, 1999, p. 196).
  Also here: "Jaff Schatz emigrated from Poland after March 1968. He is a sociologist and historian (e.g. the author of The Generation: The Rise and Fall of Jewish Communists of Poland, UCP 1991), founder and head of the Institute for Jewish Culture (Lund, Sweden, 1974–2003) and consultant/advisor for organizations and enterprises. Dr Schatz defended his PhD dissertation at the Lund University, Sweden in 1990." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

All of which means he may not pass WP:PROF (although his one book is clearly notable per WP:NBOOK). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You've added to the article about the book that he was a professor of sociology. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this is what reliable source clearly states, yes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kike-Commie conspiracy

Is this term really a synonym and more importantly, is it something used widely enough to warrant a mention in lead instead of just redirect (which as of the moment I am writing it, nobody bothered to create?)? I just see 2-3 uses in books and big fat zero in Google Scholar. Seems like some scholar tries their hand at a translation of the Polish term to English, but this translation has not been adopted widely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a translation, and you shouldn't create a redirect. It's another way of saying it. More insulting. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, so if it is too insulting to warrant a redirect (although WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind), why did you decide to add it to the lead? I am confused. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

it comes from the source cited, but i do not think it is a common term to warrant a redirect. The author tried to translate żydokomuna with a similarly insulting term, ie , it is a nonnotable occasional neologism. Not to say that the translation is poor. The correct one would be "jewish-commie government". The term was used to refer to it as to an alleged fact, not to as an alleged conspiracy, ie., jewscommies did not conspire to take over, they just did it. I.e., it is *we* who describe the consept as a conspiracy theory. - Altenmann >talk 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes in lead

Per Piotrus's request (through {{cn}}) I've added precise references and quotes to three statements in the lead.[14] One of the quotes suggests that the claim that the stereotype dates to the Polish-Soviet war is wrong, and that it is older; and several quotes support more than one statement. Nevertheless I chose to keep the text as-is with just one copy of each ref; other editors can shuffle them and CE as they see fit. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)