Misplaced Pages

Talk:Żydokomuna: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:59, 8 October 2008 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →Intro: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:45, 5 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. 
(610 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tmbox
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
|image=]
{{oldafdmulti|collapse=no|type=article
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big>{{pb}}
|page=Żydokomuna|date=30 March 2006|result='''speedy keep''', incomplete nomination
] (22 September 2019):{{pb}}
|page2=Żydokomuna (2 nomination)|date2=27 August 2006|result2='''keep'''
"The applied to the article ] are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an ] action."{{pb}}
|page3=The Jewish Bolshevism|date3=17 October 2007|result3='''no consensus'''
Also see the policy ]. If you are unsure whether your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|b|brief}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=01:06, 26 April 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna
|action1result=speedy keep
|action1oldid=47185472


|action2=AFD
{{archivebox|
|action2date=22:58, 31 August 2006
* ]
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna (2 nomination)
}}
|action2result=keep
|action2oldid=72133089


|action3=AFD
== The evil oppressive Jews made the Poles hate them ==
|action3date=19:02, 26 October 2007
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism
|action3result=no consensus
|action3oldid=167230094


|action4=GAN
I've moved the following ] ] to Talk: for further discussion:
|action4date=17:37, 5 March 2009
<blockquote>
|action4link=Talk:Żydokomuna/GA1
Among high-ranking functionaries of the Stalinist organs of oppression (such as the Ministry of State Security, which played a role analogous to the ] in Hitler's Germany), there were such names as ] (born Licht Fleischarb), ], ] (born Dawid Schwartz), ] (born Natan Grunspau-Kikiel), and ] (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''.<ref></ref>. Romkowski and Rozanski were in ] sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power<ref></ref>.
|action4result=listed
</blockquote>
|action4oldid=275205357
It is quite helpful that Misplaced Pages editors have managed to reveal what the true Jew names were of these people, rather than the Polish names they deceitfully appropriated in an attempt to hide their nefarious origins. However, in relation to actual policy, do any of the sources actually mention these people or their actions in relation to Żydokomuna? Also, I note that one of the sources used is, again, that Polish sociologist who cherry-picks anti-Jewish material, and the other one doesn't have a page number. Do we have any ] for any of this? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, you missed the fact that this is a quotation of ], used by Piotrowski. True Jewish names of these persons are meaningful, as these individuals changed them themselves. Their ethnicity and activities were commonly known in Poland, and as such deepened the whole Zydokomuna myth, and this has to be mentioned in the article. I do not understand why you deleted this part, and please skip these quasi-pleasant remarks. ] (]) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I understand how important you think it is to show their "true Jewish names", the ones they changed; otherwise someone might not understand what their ethnicity was, and would then fail to make the connection between their horrible "activities" and the ethnicity responsible for them. That said, you have failed to respond on the most important points. a) Do any of the sources relate this material to '''Żydokomuna'''? That is, I remind you, the topic of this article. And b) Do you have any ] for any of this? That, I repeat, does not include the sociologist. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::I missed the second quotation, it comes from Polish version of Korbonski's book The Jews and the Poles in World War II, here is the link I missed .BTW, the book is available to those interested . ] (]) 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Does he mention Żydokomuna in it? If so, where? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Half of this article's sources do not mention Zydokomuna, so your question is irrelevant. Stefan Korbonski is a reliable source, like it or not, or better ask at ]. ] (]) 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I haven't said anything about Korbonksi. Now that you bring him up, he appears to be a "politician, lawyer, journalist". I don't see historian in that list. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sad you haven't said anything about Korbonski, which means you did not even bother yourself to click on the source provided by me and read it. ] (]) 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The concept may and is described using other words; the content is quite relevant to the article and certainly no "original research".--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::According to whom is the concept "described using other words", and the content "quite relevant to the article"? Please review ] again. Or are you saying Tymek has inserted this material as an ''example'' of Żydokomuna? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Jayjg, as Tymek suggested below, try to assume some good faith. The informatice paragraph, listing the most (in)famous Jewish security officials in communist Poland, whose (in)fame in contemporary Poland was one of the main foundations of the Żydokomuna myth, is a valuable addition to the article. Removing it, understandable when it was not referenced, now that it is seems too much like IDONTLIKEIT. And if the source doesn't mention "źydokomuna", well, it doesn't change the relevancy - just as an article about American-Soviet tensions may not mention the phrase "Cold War" but be quite relevant to that article.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::As Jay has indicated, it seems unclear whether you and Tymek are more interested in demonstrating examples of Żydokomuna rather than writing an article about the concept. Contrary to your misrepresentation of the history of the subject, as the article, and numerous scholarly studies show, the Żydokomuna myth ''long predates'' the communist era in Poland, and the scapegoating of Jews for Polish communism is simply one facet of a longer history of Polish antisemitic scapegoating of Jews (eg, scapegoating of Jews for lack of educational opportunities for ethnic Poles, scapegoating Jewish merchants for lack of opportunities for ethnic Polish merchants, scapegoating Jews for lack of patriotism whenever they were caught between Polish and other national conflicts, including Pilsudski's imperial dreams, scapegoating Jews for supposed subversion of the Catholic church, etc etc). So your claim that the existence of Jewish names in the security apparatus being "one of the main foundations of the Żydokomuna myth" once again stands in contrast to scholarly consensus. As usual, you and Tymek are standing reality and history on its head, by trying to place the blame for "źydokomuna" on Jews rather than on the antisemites who propagated the myth. So contrary to your revisionist claim, Piotrus, "the main foundations of the Żydokomuna myth" lies in the ''extended history of elements of Polish society who have consistently attempted to blame Jews for every problem in Polish society''--political, cultural, religious, social, military, economic or whatever. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::Simplified as it is, this is your opinion, and you have the right to express it. At the same time, you are depriving other users from gaining full picture and expressing their opinion of the situation, by removing a valid, sourced and real information. I am presenting history as it was, with real names and real biographies. You are changing it, treating Misplaced Pages as your own battleground. I am hoping somebody neutral will stop by here. And you are wrong - Poles are not obsessed with Jews, unlike you being obsessed with Polish antisemitism. ] (]) 18:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You've been asked half a dozen times in this discussion to provide reliable sources showing how listing the names of these particular Jews ''is related to the anti-semitic stereotype of Żydokomuna.'' You can complain all you like about it, but the fact is, without reliable sourcing showing the relationship of those names to the subject of this article, you are simply adding original research. It's not complicated. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Here's : "Mr. Korbanski will never have to deal with the problems raised by the book; he passed away shortly after it was released. How sad that the final work of a man with so much to his credit is a splenetic diatribe, falling at times far below acceptable scholarly standards to the level of gutter literature."
:Here's a lovely quote from Korbonski himslef: "The ten years of Jewish rule in Poland could not be easily forgotten. It was an era of the midnight knock at the door, arbitrary arrests, torture, and sometimes secret execution. Most of those responsible for that reign of terror left Poland and upon arrival in the West represented themselves as victims of Communism and anti-Semitism—a claim which was readily believed in the West and earned them the full support of their hosts." Jewish rule, huh? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::And yet the fools of the Vad Yashem awarded him the prestigious medal. And user Jayig, the title of this section, ''The evil oppressive Jews made the Poles hate them'' suggests that you can hardly keep your negative emotions towards the Poles. Hatred is bad, believe me. ] (]) 04:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::How on earth are his wartime activities relevant to his reliability as a source for these claims? As for the rest, Tymek, rather than giving your faulty opinions about other editors emotional states and beliefs, please discuss article content. ] Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I am hoping that some uninvolved person will present their opinion here, as obviously, both my opponents are too emotional and too biased. I guess neither of you understands the title of the article. It is not about oppression, pogroms or Jewish victims. It is about a phenomenon called ''Jewish Communism'' and what this phenomenon looks like when compared to reality. And the reality was that Jews were numerous among most vicious members of the apparatus of repression. Misplaced Pages readers have the right to know this, and to know names of these functionaries. The project is not created for ourselves, but for people around the world. Share your knowledge and create comprehensive encyclopedia, with all known facts presented in a fair way. Removing sourced information is a sad reminder of communist censorship and I will report it. ] (]) 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Tymek, please. Why don't you read the opening sentence of the article:<blockquote>''Żydokomuna (Polish for "Judeo-Communism" or "Judeo-Bolshevism") is a pejorative term that has been used to express an antisemitic stereotype that blamed Jews for having advocated, introduced and run Communism in Poland.''</blockquote> The article you think exists, which you descrive as being "about a phenomenon called ''Jewish Communism'', an article which describes evil Jewish "vicious members of the apparatus of repression" resides somewhere else--in the annals of anti-semitic literature. Not in this encyclopedia. I welcome you to "report" whatever and wherever you please. But please keep your uncivil accusations of "communist censorship" to yourself, particularly as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Tymek, rather than giving your faulty opinions about other editors emotional states and beliefs, please discuss article content. ] Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


|currentstatus=GA
::I am requesting content RfC. PS. Note that removal of names has begun earlier: ]. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|topic=Social sciences and society
:::Światło material was removed for the same reason--it was ] in which no ] was supplied indicating the connection to the subject of this article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
}}
::::, for example, begs to differ.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
:::::That link is dead. The document's been moved . — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 95K

|counter = 4
===Prominent individuals===
|minthreadsleft = 2

|minthreadstoarchive = 1
*Including a list of prominent Jewish Communists, in the absence of a source that links them to Żydokomuna, is ]. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|algo = old(90d)
::This article is about stereotype/myth of Judeo-Communism. Including a few names of prominent Jewish Communists is perfectly logical and reasonable here. A reader has the right to be informed about whole spectrum of the problem. ] (]) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive %(counter)d
:::... so long as a reliable source relates them to the subject of the article. Otherwise it's pure ]. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
}}
::::Many sources note that above average participation of Jews in Polish communist apparatus led to the persistence of the ''żydokomuna'' myth. Various sources give varying level of details on the most famous of them. To censor out links to the most prominent Polish-Jewish communists seems... strange, at least.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
{{archives
:::::... if the point is that "above average participation of Jews in Polish communist apparatus led to the persistence of the żydokomuna myth", and if there are many sources that can be cited to support it, then they should be cited as saying that. listing a handful of prominent names doesn't support the thesis of "above average participation". if someone wants to assert that the handful of individuals listed led to the persistence of the myth, that's an entirely different point, and it needs to be supported by sources that *explicitly* make that point. otherwise it is indeed ], as i understand it. ] (]) 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| bot = Lowercase sigmabot III
::::::Piotrus will be hard pressed to find "many sources" which "note that above average participation of Jews in Polish communist apparatus led to the persistence of the ''żydokomuna'' myth." Because he has stood history and those sources on their head. What accounts for the persistence of the zydokomuna myth, obviously, is the persistence of Polish anti-semitism. Indeed, the myth continues to this day, even in a Poland practically devoid of Jews--hence the phenomena of . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| age = 90
:Somehow there is not a myth of ''Ukrainian-komuna'', or ''German-komuna''. Anyway, thank you Sssoul for your opinion, it is far more convincing than whatever Boodlesthecat writes. BTW Boodlesthecat, have you ever been to Poland, since you know so much about attitudes of Poles towards Jews? It is very interesting that so many Jews across centuries decided to settle in antisemitic Poland, not in friendly Sweden or pleasant Italy. Seriously, they must have been blind. ] (]) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| units = days
::::What does this prove? There is no myth of "Ukrainian blood libel", nor "German blood libel" also, but that does not prove that "Jewish blood libel" is true. And BTW Poles were also over-represented in Bolshevik Party, Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierżyński including, what does it prove? Nothing. ] (]) 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
}}
::Actually 95% of the Jews who survived the Holocaust in Poland left after the war because of Polish anti-semmitism. This isn't the 14th century. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Broken anchors|links=
:::Got a ref for that? I am sure it wouldn't be an ORish statement, right? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Jewish world domination) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Jewish world domination","appear":{"revid":229990807,"parentid":229759406,"timestamp":"2008-08-05T14:33:00Z","replaced_anchors":{"'Peak Oil'":"Peak Oil","Arab-Israeli theories":"Arab-Israeli relations","Arab-Fascist Axis":"Arab-fascist axis"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":436608442,"parentid":436606167,"timestamp":"2011-06-28T02:27:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
::::There's a dozen refs for it. When I put it in an article, I will cite it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
}}
:So creation of the State of Israel, a milestone in Jewish history, was overlooked by them? It reminds me of Mr Krabs from SpongeBob, who has one answer to all questions (''money!''). ] (]) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
:::::::::Not sure what your point is, but Israel was created as a haven from antisemitism, with a large proportion of its immigrants being those escaping from Polish antisemitism. Or do you suppose they moved there for the fresh air? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=low}}
:Oh, I do not know the data on quality of air in Israel vs air in Poland. And I am sure you perfectly know my point. Jews from across the world finally got a chance to live in their own country and it is obvious that they left Poland and other countries. Antisemitism is not the only answer to all questions. ] (]) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
:*
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=low}}
:*
}}
:* ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: What I see is removal of citation requests and such.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Everything that I have added is in the cites given. If you are having trouble reading it (some of the ones you tagged pop up right in your face when you clink the link) put your query on the talk page, rather than deface the article with multiple tags.] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Per ] and ], unreferenced sentences can be removed. Reference them, format the refs properly (cite the page), or don't complain if your content is removed with accordance to our policies. By tagging your unreferenced content, I am giving you more consideration than you gave to Tymek few days ago when you .--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::His content was unreferenced, and as clearly discussed above, the issue was that it was OR,.. Mine is fully referenced. If you have a question about a particular fact cited, bring it to talk. I ''seriously advise you to stop your bullying threats to vandalize articles that contain referenced material you dont like''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::No, your content is not fully referenced, I tagged sentences missing inline citations and you removed my citation requests, a clear violation of ]. Your accusations of bully'ing are completely out of line.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Per ], "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." If there is a URL that links directly to the page in question, the reader can find the text that supports the content. While a page number would be ideal, adding a dozen "page number" tags to the article when the sources in question include URLs looks like vandalism. See ]. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Per WP:CITE, book references require page numbers. This is why we have ], and removal of such templates is unhelpful.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please note that ] is a policy and ] is a style guideline "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Piotrus, as you know, and as has been pointed out, the citations themselves led directly to the book pages in questions, so the addition of the "page number" tags was simply ]. Please desist from these kinds of disruptions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Piotrus, I've reverted your latest ] tags. Tags are not a weapon; you can find out the page numbers as well as the next editor by clicking on the link. If you want page numbers, do so, and insert them, but don't re-add the tags. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with naming these evil-doers, readers should get a full picture of historical events. There's evidence of their crimes and that they took active role in the apparatus of oppression so this could really lead to strengthening of the stereotype and myth that Żydokomuna was responsible, hence a place in the article is quite justified.<br>As a side note there are parallels between the US in the 1950s and Poland - Poland was tormented by the oppressive communist regime and USA didn't want their democracy be undermined by communist spies and propaganda. ] (]) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::The article is about an anti-semitic myth, not about Jewish evildoers. If there is a ref that says these individuals played a role in the myth, it should be supplied. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's find some common ground:
* it was a myth/stereotype
* it was anti-Semitic (rather obvious if it was pejorative and concerning Jews)
* it was politically inspired and employed (Stalin, Nazis, Polish communists etc.)
* the myth wouldn't be possible without historical figures - at the top of secret police department, post-war Żydokomuna was deeply rooted in the Polish hatred of the communist regime
] (]) 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The myth long predates the communist republic, so obviously it would be possible without these individuals. And this myth about Jews continuesn to this day, after the republic is buried. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Questionable reference ==

There seems to be a fault in referencing because ref. no 42 refers to the first sentence of "1950s-present" section:
:''Postwar Polish-Jewish relations has lent itself to controversy, with the Żydokomuna myth again being revived.''
and the ref is
: Omer Bartov. Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-Day Ukraine. Princeton University Press, 2007.
clearly a personal voyage into the past genocide and digging up remembrances in the '''Ukraine''' not post-war Poland (Ukraine ceased to be a part of Poland after 1945) Such a ref cannot be used as a reference to support this statement. ] (]) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks ,replaced with an appropriate ref. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Problems with this article ==

Hi,

I see a few problems with this article:
* it is not neutral, leaning towards Jewish victimisation and Polish ''"strong"'' anti-Semitism as a source of Żydokomuna
* important historical facts are being left out, for example persecution of a large proportion of Polish society by the Soviet-backed communist secret police where at least in popular perception Jewish communists played the crucial role
* Jewish victimisation side's use of weak, questionable or POV references and deliberately avoiding historical research by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance. Researchers also have their POVs so there should be a balance
* I tried to wipe the slate clean, and offered a new discussion with several facts that both sides could accept without extra conditions but my proposal has been generally ignored

Solution:
* let's start with discussion about references and historical facts and forget about prejudices against Poland and all Poles that is a major stumbling block on the other side

] (]) 06:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:#This is an article about an antisemitic stereotype; as such, it does indeed deal with the "popular perception Jewish communists played a crucial role" in "persecution of Polish society".
:#Your claim that the "Jewish victimisation side" uses "weak, questionable or POV references" is nonsense.
:#Your statement that the "prejudices against Poland and all Poles... is a major stumbling block on the other side" is offensive nonsense.
::Please restrict further comments to discussions of specific article content, and suggestions for improvements that are in line with policies. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::There ''is'' a problem with this article. It's an article about an ], but some editors seem to think it's an article about Jewish Communists. That is indeed a problem. How do you suggest we remedy the problem? — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Not sure. When people show up at the ] article, trying to prove that Kosher certification is really a hidden Jew tax, or at ] trying to explain that ], they're usually firmly dealt with by (rightly) disgusted editors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 08:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to exist a group of editors who are over-sensitive, take things personally and have a steadfast (political) view influenced by seemingly a large body of publications that neglect important facts. All I propose and appeal for is calm and peaceful cooperation for the common good of reliable Misplaced Pages. It is NPOV and reliable sources that make Misplaced Pages a worthwhile resource/reference. It would be fantastic to show that we can together break apparently impenetrable barriers and work assuming good faith and showing respect to each other. ] (]) 10:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:You are still talking about editors, not about article content. ] ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::What? Jayjg, perhaps you could try to restrain Boody from accusing others of antisemitism/vandalism/etc. first. Kjpas comments are very insightful here, and he is certainly not the first to discuss editors here, he is just stating that others have begun to do so earlier. He is very right that there is bias in sources chosen by some editors - and even those sources are selectively cited (for example, was used to cite the statement that some Polish underground sources referred to Jewish groups as bandits and robbers - right, but Krakowski also stated (and that was not noted in our article) that some of those groups indeed looted local Polish peasants.).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::What? yourself, Piotrus. When an editor starts a comment with "There seems to exist a group of editors who are over-sensitive, take things personally and have a steadfast (political) view....", that's a discussion of editors, not content. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You really shoudl spend some time actually reading sources, and less time pointing fingers at me Piotrus. Krawkowski says in the very source you cite '''"I cannot find any justification for labeling these fighting Jews as bandits...the :Polish underground labeled as bandits those extremely brave men and women who were able to escape from the closed ghettos and camps under harsh circumstances and organize some self defense groups."''' It's getting really difficult to take your commentary on article issues seriously anymore, as you consistently misrepesent everything you comment on. Yet you find Kjpas' offensive and false charges of the "Jewish victimisation side's use of weak, questionable or POV references" and his unsubstantiated bogus charges of sources being ignored to be "insightful." Unbelieveable. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Re Malik's question. The foundation of the zydokomuna canard is not just that the communists (small or large C) were Jews, but, more importantly (and more deadly, as a source for murderous pogroms) that all Jews were suspect as communists supporting a Jewish plot to seize control. That was why I initially added the data that refuted the support of communism by Jews at the mass level, rather than just remove the more or less accurate but purposely decdontextualized data about the percentage of Jews in communist leadership. The myth isnt that there are a bunch of Jews in the (western) communist movement,, but that communism was a Jewish plot. I dont know if my expanding these sections has helped or simply made the article more about Jewish communists and thus made this article less accuartae or more accurate. The article was fundamentally tainted by an approach that seemed intent on proving the myth, rather than describing it (an approach that those who are complaining now about anti-Polishness and other nonsense seemed to have no problem with at the time).

::As to the post war period, the listing of evil Jewish oppressors is obviously ridiculous and anti-semitic baiting by some editors. The myth did, though, figure into the communist republic years; there were party concerns that disproportionate Jewish representation was problematic (and of course, these concerns simply demonstrate concern about the reactions of a populace that had a deep history of antisemitism), and there were the cynical political uses the myth was put to in intra party poweer struggles, where factiuons used the Jew card against each other (again, with an eye on public perceptioons). Some of the "evil Jews" named by editors did indeed figure into this intrigues. But they were clearly being scapegoated for brutal ''party'' policies; it was factional opponents who cynically and self servingly attempted to portray these actions as the actions of Jews, rather than as party functionaries navigating the treacherous waters of Stalin era politics (where being on the losing side often meant bye bye).
::The problem of course, is that in trying to accurately discuss this history, we are faced with incessant insertions (a la the Kosher tax article) of anti-Jewish crap, and who add insult to injury with idiotic claims about those overly sensitive Jews being so touchy. This article--and all articles concerning Polish Jews where this problem has raged, need some ''serious'' Misplaced Pages oversight (I've been taking crap from a bully crowd for way too long simply for adding well sourced material to these articles). ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Other parties? ==

In the text its mentioned that just 5% of the Jewish population sympathized with communism in 1928. However, KPP was far from the only Marxist organization in Poland at the time. In the years immediately preceding WWII, the major party in the Jewish community was the ]. Was the Żydokomuna discourse limited to the KPP, or would it be directed the Marxist Jewish left as a whole? --] (]) 08:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Żydokomuna is not limited to the KPP, nor to the Marxist Jewish left, nor even to the Jews. We are talking about extremist conspiracy theory that is applied to everyone that falls out of nationalists favour. Liberal press is Zydokomuna, President Kwasniewski is Zydokomuna etc. ] (]) 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Żydokomuna is a conspiracy theory, as Mordoor accurately notes. It is not based on what Jews ''actually'' do; to the contrary, like all conspiracy theories, all actions are tailored to fit the theory. ''Anything'' Jews do is evidence of their evil plans for control of the Poles, or the Germans, or the world. But I guess there are still some who are looking for evidence in support of Żydokomuna. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==Anti-Semitic organizations such as Antyk is not ]==

I've seen it all - nacjonalista.pl and other extremist publications used as a reference, exhausting revert warring over "sources" written by ] ideologists, so it does not surprise me to see same faces trying to push yet another "source" by yet another openly anti-Semitic publishing house - Antyk, outlet for the distribution of hard-line antisemitic books and magazines, including the publications of the ]. ] (]) 09:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, the amendments are reasonable and welcomed. I think that the reference that Piotrus proposed earlier is quite valuable and reliable should also be used by ''all'' editors of this article (reinstated). ] (]) 10:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I don't recall anyone opposing the Gluchowski reference as a source. What is the point you are trying to make by stating that it "should also be used by ''all'' editors of this article" ( no one opposed it) when Mordoor is pointing out that Piotrus introduced an anti-semitic source? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Can we have a ref that would prove Antyk is an anti-semitic outlet? If so, we should certainly put it on our black list.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Plenty, just ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I had no idea that Antyk was extreme, my bad, apologies. ] (]) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Excerpt from the reference==
Would it be possible for someone to provide a fuller context (like a paragraph or two, pg 71) for the "strong tradition of antisemitism" phrase from Gerrits since the East European Jewish Affairs journal is not widely available? I think some editors question whether 1) the reference actually supports such a POV phrasing, and whether 2) the reference itself is POV. In the latter case the statement "strong tradition of antisemitism" should be attributed to the author (as in "according to Gerrits") rather than stated as fact. This is simply because the phrase "strong" is relative here, and hence, when presented without qualification POV. Strong compared to what? The French tradition of antisemitism (Dreyfuss, etc.)? German tradition of antisemitism? Russian tradition of antisemitism?
Additionally this article has some other problems. A general one is that it can't decide whether it is about a strain of antisemitism particular to Poland or a broader one which would include, say, the views of Solzhenitsyn and such in Russia and other Eastern Europe (in which case what distinguishes it from ]?). Some other specific problems are that in the "1950's-present" section, more moderate critics of Gross are lumped in with this term. There's a chance I might be wrong, but I don't think that Strzembosz for example has ever used this term or has consciously and knowingly contributed to its "revival". Just because there were virulently antisemitic "critics" (personally I don't think they deserve that appellation) of Gross doesn't mean that ALL critics of Gross were antisemitic. On the other hand I don't think that any kind of excuses for this kind of antisemitism are all that relevant here (such as calculating the % of Jews in UB etc) aside from noting that they have been made (and sources like Antyk should definitely not be used). Also the discussion of The March Events and Moczyr is obviously a bit misplaced, since it concerns Communist antisemitism. Obviously communists wouldn't consider "Komuna" part to be derogatory. Finally I think that the fact that the concept itself has been associated with mostly a Far-Right fringe (in the same sense as the BNP is fringe in UK and Freedom Party in Austria) should be stressed more.] (]) 04:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Indeed. A statement that anti-semitism is traditional to Polish far-right would be much less controversial and much clearer.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Uh, indeed no. As Radeksz points out above and below, and as is discussed in the article, antisemitism was characteristic of the communist (i.e., ''left wing'') regime as well as the pre-war right wing regime. And the notion that Polish anti-semitism is a far right wing phenomena flies in the face of standard scholarship. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmm, glad you agree with me about the relevance of Moczyr to this article. May I proceed to delete/alter accordingly? But yeah, there was far left wing antisemitism and there was far right antisemitism. This article is about the latter. But both cases are characterized by the "far" adjective and by being on the extreme ends of the political spectrum (the fact that the Communist Party was the ruling party does not alter that fact). Again, just like in other European countries. So the question on why it's supposed to be "strong" in Poland but not in other places remain. Context on the reference please?] (]) 16:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No you most definitely ''shouldn't'' delete it because reliable sourcing the 1956 era attacks and scapegoating of Polish Stalinists occurring in the context of Żydokomuna. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::The problem is that this is a secondary source in this respect and the source itself does not provide a reference to a primary source. What you'd need here is an instance of Moczar or some other "Partisan" explicitly referring to "Judeo-communism" or something similar. Otherwise it's just lumping different types of antisemitism together, whereas this article is about a particular form. The cited Millard article (52) is something closer to what's needed in regard to 1956. But I think there was a crucial difference between 1956 and 1968. In 1956 the smear of "Jewish Stalinism" might've been used (though as far as I know it wasn't as widespread as the communist antisemitism in 1968) but 1968 was well after Stalinism. Moczar and co. mostly based their antisemitism on the fact that by that time Israel was clearly on the "Western" side in the Cold War. In fact, much of the antisemitic campaign of 1968 was conducted under the guise of anti-Zionism, rather than any kind of references to "Zydokomuna".] (]) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Again, it's taken from reliable sources. And by the way, ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yeah it's a reliable source but some are wondering about the CONTEXT. And I'm asking for it as a courtesy. And as far as the other thing goes, again it should be sourced as an assertion by those writers since they provide no evidence for their assertion.] (]) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:There's nothing misplaced about the March Events and Moczyr; they were self consciously appealing to Polish nationalism in Jew baiting and attacking their enemies and finding Jewish scapegoats for Stalinism. Since anti-semitsm is by definition antithetical to communism, obviously the Polish communist antisemites had made a decided departure from communist ideals.] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::"anti-semitsm is by definition antithetical to communism" - this is your POV and OR to boot. In fact, the very existence of communist antisemites like Moczyr (and Stalin for that matter) is an obvious counterexample to your claim. (It's also strange how many times people who actually call themselves communists "depart from communist ideals". I mean, it happens, like every time something bad happens). At any rate, Misplaced Pages's not the place to settle these kind of disputes. What it's a place for is to document verifiable facts. Which are that Moczyr and co. called themselves communists, were members of a communist party, were a communists faction within that party and were antisemitic to boot. They appealed to Polish nationalism (what kind of antisemitism DOESN'T appeal to some kind of nationalism?) but they were a left-wing type of antisemitism, not the right-wing kind of antisemitism that this article deals with. Anyway. How about that context on the reference?] (]) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Do the Crusades negate the fact that Catholicism is a religion that opposes killing? Do the million of Christians who have killed people negate the religion or have they too "departed from their ideals?" BTW, its a little silly to call a talk page comment OR; that is for the article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::In practice, yes. Any historical discussion of Catholicism should talk about the crusades, etc. And the reason I called it OR is because you were using it as a justification for inclusion of the controversial material. And so how about the context for that reference, or addressing the fact that these ideologies were characteristics of the extreme ends of the political spectrum, whether left or right.] (]) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Strong tradition of anti-semitism in Poland==
{{RFChist| section=Strong tradition of anti-semitism in Poland!! reason=Should possibly controversial and offensive claim about "anti-semitic traditions in Poland" be included in the lead of this article? !! time=18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)}}
===Statement by Party 1 (requesting RfC)===
Why is such (, ) a controversial and ''offensive'' statement relevant to the lead of this article?? I don't think it belongs in the article, and certainly is out of place in the lead here. Perhaps it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, as a compromise, if it can be shown it is of due weight and relevance there. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

===Rebutal by Party 2===
It's reliably sourced (to an ) to one of many reliable sources that can be added supporting the statement that Poland had a strong tradition of antisemitism; and ''zero'' evidence is offered by Piortus indicating the the view is "controversial." His personal opinion on the statement being offensive is irrelvant. All the literature on Zydokomuna/claims of a Jewish Bolshevism indicate that these canard is rooted in, among other things, a strong tradition of Polish antisemitism. The notion that indicating that there is a historical reality known as is "controverial" seems counter to standard historiography and accepted wisdom. the notion that it is not only ''not'' controversial but of central relevance ''to an article about a vicious, anti-semitic canard that has been used to justify murders and pogroms for half a century'' might more accurately be considered "controversial," and indeed perhaps "offensive. ] is not a justification for distorting reality and this encyclopedia. I note also that Piotrus, who finds actual history controversial and "offensive," elsewhere repeatedly . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

===Comments by neutral editors from RfC===
oh dear - hello again! i'd propose something like this:
:Żydokomuna (Polish for "Judeo-Communism" or "Judeo-Bolshevism") is a pejorative term that has been used to express an antisemitic stereotype that blamed Jews for having advocated, introduced and run communism in Poland. Żydokomuna is a variant on the idea of "Judeo-communism", <s>- a combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-Sovietism -</s> which had a strong influence throughout Eastern Europe,{{when}} <s>including countries such as Poland with large Jewish minorities and, according to Andre Gerrits, a strong tradition of antisemitism. It gave</s> exacerbating modern antisemitism by amplifying the myth of a "Jewish world conspiracy" with a volatile mix of antisemitism and anti-communism.

since i'm not familiar with your Source , my proposal might need some adjustment, but i hope it's clear enough what tree i'm trying to bark up. one question is: is your Source also the source for the assertion of "a strong influence throughout Eastern Europe"? if it's not, then a source is needed for that. the phrases "a combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-Sovietism" and "a volatile mix of antisemitism and anti-communism" are awfully repetitive, which is why i propose eliminating the former; if your Source supports it you might make the latter "a volatile mix of antisemitism, anticommunism and anti-Sovietism." (and by the way, you don't want a comma before "and" in a series like this; and more consistent use of single/double quotation marks would be good.)

how the history of antisemitism in Poland relates to the subject of the article can/should be outlined later in the article, with proper sourcing of course - but it's not the subject of the article. by the same token, the size of the Jewish population in Poland at any particular point in history can/should be treated later in the article, if it has a bearing on the topic and if citeable sources are available; but implying in the lead-in that post-WWII Poland had a "large" Jewish population seems pretty misleading, which is why i propose removing it.

meanwhile, strong feelings are fine - admirable, even - but wikipedia isn't the right forum for them. i'm sorry you're having such a struggle establishing a ] for this article. maybe taking a break from it would help. ] (]) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you, I find your proposal quite constructive, as it removes the controversial and offensive claim about "traditional Polish anti-semitism". I'd add to your version "modern ''right-wing'' antisemitism" for further clarification. Could you perhaps carry out the appropriate edits to the article? If done by a neutral editor, I feel they would have a much higher chance of survival than if done by one of the warring parties.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::i feel like it's appropriate to wait for further input - if the "other side" of this RFC agrees to the change and wants me to make it i will, but the whole idea is that a consensus is what will ensure the survival of whatever version is settled on. ] (]) 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, do also note that the relevant source has been reproduced ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Why do you even bother filing a RfC, Piotrus, since you proceed to violate the entire spirit of the ]? First you unilaterally make your change after getting no response for.....a whole 24 hours! (RfC's stay open for 30 days). Then you try to manipulate a responder into making a change you like, ''without any discussion whatsoever''. Can you spell C-O-N-S-E-N-S-U-S? Are you committed to manipulating, distorting and twisting every aspect of this encyclopedia? You actually had the gall to instruct the commentor to make your edit for you, with the rationale that "If done by a neutral editor" it will stick (blatantly manipulating someone who was kind enough to comment as your proxy! Unbelieveable. And thank you, Sssoul, for sticking to the spirit of an RfC.] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

===Comment, intro needs to be refactored===
The intro currently devotes undue weight (single named author) detail for an introductory paragraph, that level of detail can be placed in the article later. Gross should be added as a leading proponent of widespread Polish anti-Semitism, e.g.,:

:--a combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-Sovietism--which had a strong influence throughout Eastern Europe, including countries such as ] with large interwar Jewish minorities and, according to ], a strong tradition of antisemitism.<ref name=Gerrits71/> It gave a powerful boost to modern antisemitism by amplifying the myth of a "Jewish world conspiracy" with a volatile mix of antisemitism and anti-communism.

change to

:--a combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-Sovietism--which had a strong influence throughout Eastern Europe, including countries such as ] with large interwar Jewish minorities. Works by authors such as ] and others<ref name=Gerrits71/> maintain there was a strong tradition of anti-Semitism which provided a base for Żydokomuna to feed upon.

Currently the intro tars all Poles as a ''faits accomplis'' (see my rationale below in the "Intro" section). —] (]) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::While I disagree that the current sentence paints all Poles as antisemites, I have no objection to the proposed change. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi vandalism by Piotrus ==

* is pretty close to vandalism. The content is FULLY SOURCED to the refs at the end of the passage, yet it is removed with no discussion with a bogus "unreferenced content removed" edit summary. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
** Piotrus' edit was by no means a vandalism. He rightly removed an unsourced passage that is rather a biased opinion than a fact supported by reliable references. ] (]) 07:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
***The passage was and is fully sourced with reliable references. Please don't use the talk page for making blatantly false claims. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*An RfC was filed a day ago regarding a disputed phrase in the lead. After wating ''barely a day'', and with no comment for the RfC yet, Piotrus with the absurd edit summary "controversial statement removed from lead, per WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE - see also discussion on talk (no consensus for inclusion." Piotrus--you are out of control and you seriously need to stop these disruptions--now. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
**OK, let's revert the article back to a version acceptable to both parties and freeze it waiting for this dispute's resolution. Let's seek reconciliation and engage in constructive discussion rather than insult the other side with expressions ''crap'' and ''idiotic claims''. ] (]) 07:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
***I find the above assertions unreferenced; first I cannot verify (my university has no access to "Antisemitism and anti-communism: the Myth of'Judo-Communism' in Eastern Europe" and I'd like a neutral editor to verify that the controversial assertion is there), the second section I removed was unreferenced and thus a clear violation of ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
****What exactly is unreferenced? The text you have frivolously removed has references at the end of paragraph, and it has been explained to you, but still you keep insisting that is not referenced. This reminds me of recent "failed verification" story story, when referenced text was removed under bogus edit summaries. This editing pattern is getting disruptive. ] (]) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*****Controvesial text should have refs at the end of every sentence. Controversial, unreferenced sentences can be removed per ]. A casual reader has no idea without checking history of an article or reading the ref(s) whether a string of sentences is referenced by the last ref or was broken by some unreferenced additions. If the sentences in question can be referenced to a given source, please, take a minute and add inline cites at the end of the sentences in question. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::*Your logic is thoroughly hollow Piotrus, since it is you ''who'' is arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding what is "controversial." If you have an issue with "controversiality", then take it to the appropriate boards. Do not semi-vandalize articles with specious and outright false claims of ]. You can quite easily yourself put the inline citations in a matter of seconds by going to the ref, where the information being sourced is clearly available. The fact that you don't, and instead choose to semi-vandalize articles with specious and disingenuous claims of ] (which you know to be false) indicates that you are on a tantrumish ] rampage, rather than an effort to improve this and other articles. You need to stop immediately, and your behavior is in serious need of outside monitoring, which it will incur if you do not desist. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Piotrus, there is no requirement that every sentence in an article must have a footnote at the end of it, even if consecutive sentences are sourced to the same source; quite the opposite, in fact. It was obvious to everyone, '''including you''', that the footnote covered the two or three sentences before it. Stop this ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::I tried finding the article through several, well, two, libraries. I could only find issues of EEJA going back to 2004. The article is available for purchase online, if anyone's got a spare 28$ laying around, here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a794277096~db=all~order=page. It's obvious that there's a reference at the end of the paragraph. But there are several potentially controversial statements in that paragraph including, in particular that Poland has a "strong tradition of antisemitism" (as I asked before, compared to what? Russian and German antisemitism?), along with some non controversial ones (that's it's a form of antisemitism, etc.) As a result it's not clear 1) whether the given reference supports ALL the statements made in the paragraph and 2) whether it is accurate in context or 3) relevant. Finally, the assertion is a broad sweeping generalization - rather than applying to particular individuals or political groups - and as such is potentially insulting. Should someone add a disputing reference mentioning the "tradition of religious and ethnic tolerance in Poland" which obviously also existed, in order to balance the included stereotype? In the light of that I don't think it's too much to ask to actually see the relevant text of the reference, as I have done several times now. Presumably the editor who included the reference has the access to it.] (]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hey, if you have a reliable source that says zydokomuna developed within a "tradition of religious and ethnic tolerance in Poland" pleae do supply it so we can incorporate it! In the meantime, I will add the relevant sections of the Gerrits article that support the phrase shortly, so please no one have a heart attack in the interim. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::How about adding in that the myth of zydokomuna developed on the right wing end of the political spectrum, and despite the tradition of religious and ethnic tolerance in broader Polish society. Maybe something about sharp polarization. For example, as per this source: http://books.google.com/books?id=vjJimC--9-kC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=tolerant+tradition+in+Poland+Jews&source=web&ots=Y-hqkqDsqb&sig=aQ_CO2lwytYT1b910xPTtE7rNIs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA37,M1 ("The older and more tolerant tradition survived..."). Note that unlike at least the Michilic reference used through out the article which relies almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, Paulsson brings some more general and concrete data into the discussion. Anyway, if that phrase remains, the beginning of the article is likely going to turn into a discussion over what Poland's "true" tradition was - and references can be provided all over the place - rather than what the actual subject matter is.] (]) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::That source is appropriate to a discussion of antisemitsm in Warsaw. Scouring google for keywords "tolerance" and "Poland" is fine, but this is an article about a particular Polish variant of an anti-semitic canard. Nazism developed within a context of great scientific and cultural breakthroughs and progressive social thought in the Weimar era, but is that relevant to an article tracing the development of Hitler's theories in ]? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::The scouring was done quickly on the spot to obtain a particular example of a different view. There are also other sources. Problem with your analogy is that "progressive social though in the Weimar era" has pretty much nothing to do with development of Nazism, whereas the cultural "traditions" that existed/exist in Poland as this myth developed are relevant. Particularly since you're the one who brought them up.] (]) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Indeed traditions that triggered and Zydokomuna myth are important. It has been noted that postwar pogroms in Poland combined Zydokomuna myth with ] canard having centuries old tradition in Poland. Traditional medieval prejudices still alive in Poland in the middle of the 20th century were direct cause of Krakow and Kielce pogroms, and Zydokomuna was and still is used after pogroms happened to justify them. ] (]) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Let me just point out that a fully referenced statement provided by me was previously removed by user Jayig. I am still hoping that Boodlesthecat will dub this action vandalism as well. A statemtent that Poland had ''a strong tradition of antisemitism'' is obviously biased and POV, and as such can be used in private blogs, not in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, of course, only in . We never find it in Nooo, never in . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:In books or articles you can write whatever you want in any way you want it. Encyclopedias are different. ] (]) 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Uhhh, sure, you can say whatever you want in a book or article. No editorial oversight whatsoever in those university press books I cited! Yup. And yeah, never find anything like that in an encyclopedia. Oh, except maybe :
::::''"The 1930s were marked by an unprecedented outburst of anti-Semitism."''
::::''"The majority of the political elite considered the so-called Jewish question a foremost priority that implied the voluntary or forced emigration of Jews."''
::::''"Although formally citizens, Jews were nonetheless considree foreigner in Polish society without the same rights and legitimacy as other citizens."''
::::''"Antisemitism was sufficiently established in Poland at the time of the German invasion that it did not become associated with collaboration with the Nazis,…the indifference, malevolence, and hostility already present in the in the 1930s actually may have gained ground during the war."
''
::::Whatever you say, Tymek. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Indeed a concept of "strong tradition of antisemitism" can be elaborated, expanded and explained by Polish Madagascar plan, wave of pre-war pogroms in Poland, ], ] etc. when a reader could form his own opinion about strength of antisemitism in Poland. ] (]) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Indeed, almost all countries with Jewish population had similar levels of antisemitism (Limerick Pogrom), and Poland was no exception, but the biggest pogroms did not take place in Poland (Granada, Odessa). Even in USA there was American equvalent of ghetto benches. BTW will someone answer a simple question - why, in spite of the so-called ''strong tradition of antisemitism'', so many Jews kept on coming to Poland, not to Great Britain or Finland? What was wrong with them? This is off-topic, but perhaps someone will try to answer. ] - yes, a Nazi plan was Polish, too. This is the level of bias of some people here. ] (]) 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Dear Tymek, Nazi Madagascar plan had it's predecessor Polish Madagascar plan, Poland came to this idea first a decade before Nazis did, but that is OT. ] (]) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::And this fairy tale is backed by any reliable references? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know what fairy tale you are talking about. When it goes to well known historical facts, you can read up a little about Polish plans to get rid off Polish Jews, by sending them to Madagascar for example in ''The Jews in the Modern World: a History since 1750'', copublished by ]. Cheers.] (]) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

==]==

Should we include this image? It is quite telling, proportionally there were 10 Poles in Bolshevik party per 1000 Polish population, and only 7 Jews per 1000 population. Isn't that ironic? ] (]) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ironic how? And didn't you criticize geocities as a source recently? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ironic because of the Jewish-Bolshevism canard, that was so popular in the Second Polish Republic, and still is alive to this day as we see. When in fact statistically Polish participation in the Bolshevik party was by 30% higher than Jewish participation. And yes we definitely should get rid off that annoying geocities watermark. After all its is official document by the US Senate and should be easily available to quite a lot of Wikipedians. Library of Congress call number DK265.K44 . Cheers. ] (]) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevant excerpts from Gerrits article ==

"The idea of 'Judeo-Bolshevism' or 'Judeo-Communism' was not restricted to any one country but seemed to have exerted an exceptionally strong influence on East European politics generally. Its strength was based on a combination of sentiments—antisemitism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism. Basically, 'Judeo-Communism' should be regarded as
a modern variant of antisemitism, as an accentuation of the myth of a 'Jewish world conspiracy'. '''It proved strongest in those countries in the region which had the largest Jewish minorités and the strongest tradition of antisemitism.''' (emphasis added) The anti-Communist dimension of 'Judeo-Communism' should not, however, be perceived as merely a rationalization of anti-
Jewish feelings. The fear of Communism, whether justified or not, on the one hand and the idea (or delusion) that Communism was essentially a Jewish conspiracy on the other gave powerful impetus to traditional antisemitism. It strongly politicized the 'Jewish question'. The idea of 'Judeo-Communism' linked antisemitism to anti-Communism, which proved to
be a volatile mixture of sentiments." (P71)
--Andre Gerrits. Antisemitism and anti-communism. The myth of 'Judeo-communism' in Eastern Europe. ''East European Jewish Affairs'', vol. 25, no. 1, 1995, pp. 49-72

From elsewhere in the article:

"Communism was real or perceived lost its significance. By then the threat
of Communism had become very real. But even in the case of Poland,
where the idea of 'Judeo-Communism' {'żydo-komuna') was particularly
widespread, the vigour of antisemitism during the first post-war
decade cannot be exclusively48 attributed to the prominent role of individuals
of Jewish extraction in the newly-established Communist
regimes. Various factors played a role—from the continuation of traditional
anti-Jewish sentiments (ethnically or religiously inspired) to the
overall radicalizing effect of the war and the fear that the Jews who
returned from camps, exile or hiding would reclaim their belongings."

"What made the idea of 'Judeo-Communism' more popular in some
countries, particularly interwar Poland, Hungary and Romania, and less
popular in others? The actual strength of the Communist movement cannot
have been the principal variable: within only a few years after the
First World War, Communism became a negligible force in these three
countries. The size of the Jewish communities seems a more relevant factor.
Poland, Hungary and Romania harboured the largest Jewish minorities
in the region, respectively 9.7,5.1 and 4.2 per cent of the population.54
Moreover, in these countries political antisemitism did not remain limited
to extremist forces but played a distinctive role in general political life
(at least more so than in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania and Czechoslovakia).
And finally, in Poland, Hungary and, to a lesser extent perhaps,
Romania, the perception of a Communist threat and of 'Judeo-
Communism' seemed more grounded in reality than almost anywhere
else."


== Two articles ==
"Also in Poland and Romania the 'Jewish question' was at least partly based on the broadly shared conviction that the Jewish communities were not only alien and unassimilable but that they posed a grave danger to the countries' national security"
] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


We have two articles about the same ]:
:So ] (what are his credentials?) ''does not'' write about "strongest tradition of antisemitism" limited to Poland, as the lead you wrote would imply. Further, why should views of Gerrits dominate the lead of this article? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*], created in November 2006‎ by {{u|Altenmann}}, 1,978 words readable prose size.
::Piotrus, try reading what is written before you yet again make comments that distort what's right on these pages.
*], the Polish term for it, created in November 2005 by {{u|Piotrus}}, 4,495 words readable prose size.
::Gerrits says "'''It proved strongest in those countries in the region which had the largest Jewish minorités and the strongest tradition of antisemitism."
::Our article says: " including countries such as Poland with large interwar Jewish minorities and, according to Andre Gerrits, a strong tradition of antisemitism."
::Do either Gerrits or our article say "limited to Poland?" No they don't so stop twisting whats written every time you post.
::I'm quite sure you know how to google. But if your provider has Google blocked, here is
::There are multiple references that can supplement the description in the lead. What I would suggest is that, if you really think this is not well sourced, and "controversial," then you provide on this page some reliable sources that dispute the view in the lead. That contradict that Zydokomuna has it's roots in the strong tradition of antisemitism in Poland. Please present sources and data. Your personal opinion or dislike of a well sourced statement of fact is not a Misplaced Pages guideline. We go by what reliable sources say, not by editors yelling "controversial" or "POV". Bring the sources, or stop disrupting this article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Should they be merged? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
== The value of sources ==
:I am leaning towards the view that it may be a good idea. Polish Misplaced Pages does not have an article about Jewish Bolshevism. Only Bulgarian, French and Ukrainian seem to repeat our fork. I think the difference is only in the fact that Żydokomuna is a Polish term and so the article (and sources) focus on how this canard/stereotype is relevant to the Polish context, whereas the Jewish Bolshevism is a wider context. But in order to oppose the merge we would need to find sources that explicitly differentiate between those two topics. If no such sources are found, a merger seems reasonable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 04:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
: The problem is most of ] is specific to Poland and doesn't repeat in the more general ], so merging would result in a giant "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland" section within "Jewish Bolshevism". A better option for now would be to expand "Jewish Bolshevism", and possibly rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". Also see ]. ] (]) 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


Merging two mostly non-overlapping large articles is not a good idea. I see no advantage. - ] ] 02:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that all agree that sources are the ''essential element'' of Misplaced Pages's credibility. Reliable sources are a ''necessity'' when users work cooperatively on contentious subjects.


Also, the title "JB" is misleading. I would consider renaming it into "JB canard". And of course, there was no Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. There was a canard called "Zydokomuna". - ] ] 02:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
We should used the best and the most reliable sources written by historians who are trusted, not controversial or biased.


Peter, I thought you should know better. Per wikipedia spirit, we have to find sources which say these things *are the same*, not vice versa. - ] ] 05:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be good if the sources are easily accessible or easy to obtain. Fairly presenting facts and objective...


Finally, both are antisemitic canards, but they are not the same. Before I present an explanation, here is a quiz for you: what is commmon in the following three terms: feminazi, silicon holocaust and judeo-bolshevism? If nobody answers correctly, I will not be wasting my time here. I am not editing wikipedia actively anymore. - ] ] 05:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the sources Rethinking Poles and Jews By Robert D. Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska and an opinion by a uninvolved reviewer:
:''More-of-the-same aspects of this book include its transparent Judeocentrism. Poles are praised insofar as some of them agree with Jewish attacks on Poland (e. g., p. 57).''


::Thanks for the ping. ] is right that it would be a better option rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". ] is right that the title "JB" is misleading, because 'Jewish Bolshevism' is an unfounded myth, conspiracy theory and antisemitic slur. It's also a misnomer, hence my proposal on 4 April for ], which would not contradict our policy on shock quotes in article names. (''Canard'' would be right to include, but unfortunately fewer native speakers of English seem to be familiar with this accurate term than know it's the French word for 'duck'.) ] would work even better than JB in P, because scholars writing about the antisemitic canard in Poland in English refer to it in this way. About a month ago I was persuaded by ] that a merge is not the solution per ] regarding: "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article." The only way to make that merge work would be to drastically cut down content on the canard in Poland in order to maintain balance over at JB; per ] we're not meant to rush to destroy sourced content. By the way, for final emphasis bear in mind that unclear to the native English reader, "Żydokomuna" is a racist Polish slur<ref>''Jewish Poland Revisited: Heritage Tourism in Unquiet Places''
] (]) 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
By Erica T. Lehrer, p. 189</ref> which Misplaced Pages is perhaps unwittingly hosting, without italics or inverted commas; it would both please and embolden a Polish antisemite to see this. It also propagates the lack of awareness of people who presumably in good faith think it's a fact rather than a misconception, such as ] here . If there really was a 'Jewish alliance with the communists' then per ] (''Bloodlands'' p.140) around 8% of the communists' victims at the ] would not have been Jewish and representative of, the 8% Jewish population of Soviet-occupied Poland 1939-1941. Szymon might be able to adjust in the light of that evidence as it simultaneously challenges another stereotype that he's presumably aware of, if 8% of the men promoted by the Polish Army to officer rank were Jewish in the first place. It's helpful for Misplaced Pages if we can undermine stereotypes not with counter-stereotypes but by undermining binary opposition of adversarial stereotypes that feed each other. Renaming this article for accuracy alone would therefore happen to also have a helpful side effect. Cheers, -] (]) 05:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  
:I'll applaud raising the bar. But let's settle some things straight. Amazon user submitted reviews have not weight whatsoever to judge academic peer-reviewed publications. And if you are finding alleged Judeocentrism problematic, when I think you will agree what we should get rid off sources by ethno-nationalist historians first, because that is way more controversial. ] (]) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::Please tell me, Kpjas, that you are not proposing using Amazon user reviews (and Jew baiting ones at that) as a guide to a discussion of sources. Say it ain't so!!] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::That ] criticizes respected scholars like ], ], ], and ] only reflects her POV. There are differences between ] and ] (and others), but neither of them is ''better'' than others.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Michlic is a reliable source for this article. Her material is attributed in the article. What's your point. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Read . Jewish historiography POV is reliable and so on, but is not NPOV, and trying to remove all other sources and portray this particular POV as "the truth" is not the right approach to building an encyclopedia.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::That source in no way contradicts anything Boodles has said, or anything he has added to this article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


{{u|Altenmann}}, I assume the answer to your riddle is that the terms have no ]. Thank you for your insights here and at the other article, by the way. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
== Tag abuse ==
:Close enough: the evil is in the insinuated connotation. All three terms are supposed to refer to something bad. Why we guess that feminazi is something bad and by implication feminism is bad? - because we know "nazi" is bad. Similarly silicon, i.e condoms, are presented as evil? - holocaust.
:Now, to the topic. Why judeobolshevism is (expected to be perceived as) evil? Because of the Jews. In other words, the "recipients" of the term judeobolshevism are '''already''' supposed to be antisemitic. The message is: Bolshevism is evil because it is run by the Jews. In other words, the term is not so much an antisemitic canard, as an antibolshevik propaganda. Yes it is antisemitic, because it elaborates on the all-encompassing concept of "world zionist cabal", but the specific target is russia with its bolshevism.
:Now from germany to poland. The dislike of russians by poles is well known. Then why not "moskalska komuna" (muscovite communist regime)? Because, i guess poles are russophobes in a lesser degree than they are antisemites. And despite the fact that the hated regime was brought onto them by russians (ok, ussr, but who cares the detail) and controlled from moscow/kremlin, "zydowska komuna" was a stronger insult than "moskalska komuna". Komuna, i.e. polish communist govrrnment was bad because it was run by the jews. Again, antisemitism is a prerequisite, not the goal of the message.
: I guess, now you see my point, the two articles are about two different notable attempts to capitalize on the canard "jews conspire to rule the world" to speak against something else. Also, in the case of germany tbe target was ideology, while in poland the target was the state (the secret service (UB) especially, and not without the pretext). - ] ] 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|Altenmann}}, I appreciate very much your explanations about this, particularly the point that antisemitism is a prerequisite. That point is often not understood. My concern about this article is that it's written as though this was a real thing, or a stereotype just a little exaggerated. And it's used that way in articles. For example, in ]:


::{{quote|As a result of these factors they found it easy after 1939 to participate in the Soviet occupation administration in Eastern Poland, and briefly occupied prominent positions in industry, schools, local government, police and other Soviet-installed institutions. The concept of "Judeo-communism" was reinforced during the period of the Soviet occupation (see ]).}}
Again, tags are not a means of waging war on articles. The POV-statement tag is not intended to indicate that you think a reliable source has a POV. ] ''expects'' that reliable sources have POVs. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:That's the correct tag to indicate undue and fringe claim ("antisemitism is a strong tradition in Poland"), which is not supported by the ref, and should not be present in the article in the first place.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::a) The statement is standard historiography.
::b) The statement is supported by the ref.
::c) André Gerrits is not a "fringe" source. Rather, he is senior lecturer in East European Studies at the Department of European Studies, Faculty of Humanities, at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. His areas of expertise include Eastern European communism, and modern and Jewish history of Eastern Europe.
::d) The tag is not supposed to be placed on statements from reliable sources that express a POV.
::e) Tags are not intended to be used as pawns in article wars.
::f) Stop ] this article by abusing tags.
::I hope that was clear. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::a) Prove it. The statement is attributed to a single work, and hence may be FRINGE - and based on my readings, certainly is not mainstream.
:::b) You can find a ref for anything. If it is UNDUE/FRINGE, it does not belong here.
:::c) So he is an academic. I can cite many academics who disagree with him, but bottom line is: this is not mainstream, it is part of the Jewish historiography POV. Here's a Jewish author who admits as much:
:::d) The tag is designed to warn editors about POVed statements masquerading as NPOV
:::e) Sigh.
:::f) Sigh.
:::Sigh. I am not going to be baited into personal attacks. Please discuss content, not contributors... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::a) Read the others sources brought on this Talk: page.
::::b) But you can't find ''reliable'' sources for "anything". And this is a reliable source.
::::c) So far most of the contrary "academics" you have come up with have turned out to be antisemites or right-wing kooks.
::::d) No, as Malik points out, it's to tag statements written in a narrative voice, not statements attributed to a source. An, as usual, you have misattributed the source you have brought, which talks about the interests of two camps, neither of which is wholly Polish or wholly Jewish, and which takes antisemitism in Poland as a given, '''as do all reliable sources'''.
::::e) Tags are not intended to be used as pawns in article wars.
::::f) Stop ] this article by abusing tags.
::::I'm sure that's clear now. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


::And in ], it's a "perception": "the Bishop of Lublin, Stefan Wyszyński&nbsp;... stated that the widespread hostility to Jews was provoked by Jewish backing of Communism (there was a widespread perception that Jews were supportive of Soviet-installed Communist administration in Poland; see ]) ..."
== Intro ==
I've refactored and consolidated the intro a bit the "anti-"s were getting repetitious and losing the point, which is that <u>some</u> maintain that the purported acceptance/success of Żydokomuna is based on widespread anti-Semitism, that is, Poles are anti-Semitic as a nation. (I did leave the reference in the intro section affected.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; I am troubled by the article body narrative which at the same time portrays certain positions as extremism and then turns around and essentially attributes said extremism to every Pole as a mainstream as if that is an accepted fact. It is not. Nor is it ethnonationalistic extremism to suggest that not all Poles are anti-Semitic, which is also how the article currently reads. —] (]) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:No the article nowhere states "Poles are anti-Semitic as a nation", and nowhwere "essentially attributes said extremism to every Pole as a mainstream." Please cite specific problems, rather than falsely characterize what the article says as a justification for making changes. If you have sources that contradict the view that Zydokomuna is bases, among other things, upon widesprread antisemitism, then supply sources that dispute that view. Making completely false claims about what the article says doesnt cut it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see what you claim exists in this article. Can you provide examples? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Gentlemen, I am relating to you the tone of the article and how it reads. You all have been looking at it for quite some time I gather. I've read through it several times and am offering a fresh perspective.
:: &nbsp;&nbsp; The intro, pre-refactoring, stated (at length) that in an expert opinion, an entire country, "Poland" (not pockets, not certain social strata, but everyone) has a "strong tradition" (that is, at the fore-front of shared cultural values, again, across an entire people) of "anti-Semitism." I left the existing reference as is and added Gross in the narrative as someone fare more likely that a reader might have heard of (and if so, that the view is not without controversy).
:: &nbsp;&nbsp; There is also the overuse of the terms '''myth''' and '''mythology'''. Those are not necessarily the term used in the sources quoted and, as such, fail to capture the social dynamics communicated in the original sources.


::I was thinking a merge to ] would help deal with this. As for the length, this article is probably too long because it discusses it as a real thing. For example, see the . ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Interrupting PetersV here.
::: the two cases you quote are examples of one of the typical justifications of antisemitism. I do not know how wikipedia must be fixed to stress this. And yes, the article describes the "real" thing: how it was and how it was perceived, of course with bits and pieces of original reserch and stretching the sources cited. And once again: in poland the issue had nothing to do with ideology, so I dont see how to mix the two, other than under the top-level umbrella "jews are the source of evil". Anyway, I will not take any part here further, because more deep work will require to dig into sources and evaluate them. - ] ] 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::: The whole "myth" thing seems mostly to be from the Michalic source cited and relied on throughout most of the article. Personally I find the source as a whole highly problematic particularly its extensive reliance on anecdotes which are then generalized as evidence of something widespread ('so and so said or did something somewhere once. This shows the overwhelming power of the myth' and so on) rather any kind of hard data or numbers or even an argument that the relevant anecdote is representative of some bigger trend. This in turn shows up in this article where the same kinds of generalizations and leaps are frequently made (the fact that some of the text is taken almost verbatim from that source doesn't help either). My understanding is that this is considered acceptable scholarship in "___-studies" departments but my background is in a different area and I'm used to a more rigorous methodology. Yes, this is my POV which is why I'm stating it on the talk page rather than actually messing with the Michalic source.] (]) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
{{anchor|May 2020}}
:::End of interruption. Back to PetersV.
*I'm in favour of keeping the two articles separate per ]; both articles are substantial enough to stand on their own. As far as any potential issues go, it would probably not be solved by merging. --] (]) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


:I think it is fine because one is about the topic in general and the other is about it specifically in Poland (Zydokomuna translates as Jewish Communism.) If we merged the articles, half of it would be about Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, which would be undue weight. For consistency, we could re-name the article Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. ] (]) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's take one example:
:Re-reading the arguments I now lean to the idea that the two topics, while related, deserve separate articles (ZK is a subarticle / subtopic to ZB, per Altenmann's convincing arguments). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::: The visibility of Jews in both the Soviet leadership and in the Polish Communist Party further heightened the strength of the mythology.
::You now lean to that idea? That's been your position for years. For example, ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::''"Political paranoia" which is what the source states as being heightened, is a <u>far different context</u> than indicating an anti-Semitic myth simply gained in strength.''
:: So why these? ] (]) 12:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm not here to pick through the article point by point. What I am stating is that, among other things, the overuse of "myth", as in the passage above, erasing the factor <u>giving power to</u> the myth, ultimately makes the article far less informative than it could be, and far less complex than it needs to be to appropriately communicate the topic. —] (]) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Because a source discussing ] and not Zydokomuna belongs in the JB article, not here, particualrly given the consensus not to merge the two articles? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


{{od}}
::::As I wrote above, I don't agree that the sentence says that all Poles are antisemites. The United States has a strong history of racism, but that doesn't mean that every American is a racist. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


You claimed that {{tq|this quote is related to the Jewish Bolshesivsm not Zydokomuna (the Polish variant. -FR) - it does not mention this subtopic}} and that {{tq|I don't think his book even uses the term Zydokomuna. And the book is primarily about OUN/UPA (Ukraine), not Poland. Or is Zydokomuna part of Ukrainian culture too?}}. Well, the book is named "Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in ''Present-day'' Ukraine" (emphasis mine) - ] having been Polish for much of its history, including the interwar and WWII periods. What's more, the book clearly speaks of this phenomenon ''in Poland'' (emphasized bit at the end is was quoted in the article):
::::: "History of" and "tradition of" are two completely different statements of pervasiveness. Per your example, the latter would indicate racism in America is as traditional as apple pie. —] (]) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


{{quote|The experience of suffering and slaughter , combined with the widely held view - strongly encouraged by the German occupiers - that the Jews were the true guilty party in Communist crimes, certainly played a major role in unleashing the widespread murderous pogroms against Jewish populations in Eastern Galicia (and in other parts of eastern Poland)...
:::::(response to Malik) Technically you're right but there's a difference between "untrue" and "misleading" which is what we got here. A better analogy would be this: suppose that an article on the experiences of some non-indigenous ethnic group in North America in its lead stated "...particularly the United States, with its strong tradition of anti-immigrant bias..." - in a way it'd be true, from ] to ] and ]. In fact, I'm sure it'd be possible to find a scholarly source (carelessly) making such a statement. But in another sense it would be false or at least incomplete and misleading, seeing as how the US is (or at least was, historically) probably one of the most immigrant friendly and open countries in the world (this also establishes that what when talking about "strong traditions" you need a point of reference - 'strong' or 'most friendly' relative to what?) . The thing is both traditions can coexist within a same culture or nation and putting in only one aspect is misrepresenting the true picture. This is why it's been suggested that the phrase under discussion refer to the extreme right wing in particular since that's who the 'strong tradition' is really identified with (to some extent it can be identified with portions of the extreme left wing, as stated in the article but that doesn't need to be in the lead). Otherwise, in order to establish a clear, non-misleading, context we'd need to add qualifying phrases and other sources (such as the Paulsson one I listed above) which present the other, opposing and relevant traditions. But then the lead would turn into a citation-discussion-war of what is the proper Polish tradition - which is not what this article is about. So this part of the overall consensus' for removing that phrase. (Man, it's hard to get in a word edgewise without an edit conflict)] (]) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, for 100 years the United States had legal slavery, and for the next hundred had ''de facto'' institutionalized racism. As Malik points out, saying Poland had a history of antisemitism, '''as all reliable sources attest''', is not at all the same thing as saying all Poles were or are antisemites. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


That the myth which propelled these massacres has been revived even in some recent historical debates, such as the one surrounding the mass killing of the Jews in the eastern Polish town of Jedwabne, indicates that this distortion of the past can also serve as a tool for inverting guilt and responsibility. ''As a myth, the talk of Jewish collaboration with the Communists is as fascinating as the older and still potent canard of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As history, it is simply false.''|source=Omer Bartov, ''Erased'', pp. 38-40}}
:::::::And um, I said 'immigration' not 'racism' for a particular reason. But would you really write in an article on say, the KKK, "the United States has a strong tradition of racism"? I'd support removing that too, as misleading, even though there's definitely plenty of racists in US's history.] (]) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


You've misrepresented the source. Please adhere to ] in the future. ] (]) 09:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::If reliable sources supported it, and I think they would, I wouldn't have any problem saying that the Klan gained support because of America's strong traditions of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Sadly, the US has strong traditions in those areas. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:Misrepresent how? We are talking about a specific sentence, which your own edit summary links to the other related article, what is misrepresenting is adding a quote about ] to this article where it clearly belongs to the other. Please adhere to our policies, including UNDUE, and don't add semi-relevant content to the lead (where does the quote - or even the book(!) mentions the term 'Zydokomuna'? Also, while it mentions Jedwabne in passing the entire section of the source is about Ukrainian OUN; are you arguing that this book or even chapter is in-depth or relevant to this topic?). The lead is for the summaries of stuff discussed in the body, not for one's favorite semi-relevant quotes. In general, MoS does not recommend quotes in lead as best practices, anyway. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::In the context of this article, which is about an ], the fact that Poland had a tolerant or philosemitic tradition as well as an antisemitic tradition seems off-topic. This article is about a myth that spread because of the antisemitic tradition. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 05:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:: You've presented this source as if it has nothing to do with Poland, when in fact it has everything to do it. Galicia ''was'' part of Poland. The book clearly talks about Jewish experience and the stereotype of "Judeo-Communism" ''in Poland''. Hence ].
::::::::It's not off topic as long as the "strong tradition of antisemitism" is in the lead. This article is also about a myth which spread DESPITE a tolerant and philosemitic tradition.] (]) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:: As for ] - you're arguing that a piece of important background - specifically the statement that "FYI THIS STEREOTYPE IS FALSE!!!" - is undue for the lead of an article about antisemitism? This is not grounded in Policy. ] (]) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::As I said, in my view it is you who is clearly misrepresenting this source as relevant and due. Perhaps it's time for an RfC or such. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


==Merge with ]? ==
:(od, edit conflict x2, to Jayjg) It <u>is</u> saying all Poles were or are anti-semites if you provide no context or voice of dissenting opinion or, as Radeksz indicates above, if you don't construct a narrative that appropriately positions all voices. An intro with one scholar and extensive description of the "<u>tradition</u>" of Polish anti-Semitism is not appropriate as it is little more than a blanket condemnation. As my (reverted) edit summary indicated, fine to discuss that <u>view</u> in the article body. —] (]) 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is any reason why this page was not merged with ]? This is ''exactly'' same thing, except that Żydokomuna, as this page correctly tells, is "a Polish language term for "Jewish Bolshevism". Why do we need a separate page for the Polish word when the ''subject'' is exactly the same? There are Polish words for every subject in WP. ] (]) 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::No, it's really not. This article is about an ], not the history of the Jewish experience in Poland. There is no question that Poland had a tradition of antisemitism that contributed to the pervasiveness of that canard. That in no way implies that all Poles were antisemitic, or that all Polish governments were antisemitic, or anything else you might want to attribute to it. Since the article is about the antisemitic canard, '''which is what Żydokomuna is''', it pretty much has to talk about the antisemitism that underlay it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ups, I missed above. Yes, I can see the argument. ] (]) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:Because the English Misplaced Pages is anti-Polish. ] (]) 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:45, 5 March 2024

Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (22 September 2019): "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." Also see the policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources. If you are unsure whether your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Good articleŻydokomuna has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2006Articles for deletionKept
October 26, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 5, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconJewish history Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPoland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two articles

We have two articles about the same antisemitic canard:

Should they be merged? SarahSV 03:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I am leaning towards the view that it may be a good idea. Polish Misplaced Pages does not have an article about Jewish Bolshevism. Only Bulgarian, French and Ukrainian seem to repeat our fork. I think the difference is only in the fact that Żydokomuna is a Polish term and so the article (and sources) focus on how this canard/stereotype is relevant to the Polish context, whereas the Jewish Bolshevism is a wider context. But in order to oppose the merge we would need to find sources that explicitly differentiate between those two topics. If no such sources are found, a merger seems reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is most of Żydokomuna is specific to Poland and doesn't repeat in the more general Jewish Bolshevism, so merging would result in a giant "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland" section within "Jewish Bolshevism". A better option for now would be to expand "Jewish Bolshevism", and possibly rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". Also see Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#Propose WP:MERGE with Zydokomuna. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging two mostly non-overlapping large articles is not a good idea. I see no advantage. - Altenmann >talk 02:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, the title "JB" is misleading. I would consider renaming it into "JB canard". And of course, there was no Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. There was a canard called "Zydokomuna". - Altenmann >talk 02:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter, I thought you should know better. Per wikipedia spirit, we have to find sources which say these things *are the same*, not vice versa. - Altenmann >talk 05:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, both are antisemitic canards, but they are not the same. Before I present an explanation, here is a quiz for you: what is commmon in the following three terms: feminazi, silicon holocaust and judeo-bolshevism? If nobody answers correctly, I will not be wasting my time here. I am not editing wikipedia actively anymore. - Altenmann >talk 05:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. François Robere is right that it would be a better option rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". Altenmann is right that the title "JB" is misleading, because 'Jewish Bolshevism' is an unfounded myth, conspiracy theory and antisemitic slur. It's also a misnomer, hence my proposal on 4 April for 'Jewish Bolshevism' in Poland, which would not contradict our policy on shock quotes in article names. (Canard would be right to include, but unfortunately fewer native speakers of English seem to be familiar with this accurate term than know it's the French word for 'duck'.) 'Jewish Communism' in Poland would work even better than JB in P, because scholars writing about the antisemitic canard in Poland in English refer to it in this way. About a month ago I was persuaded by TFD that a merge is not the solution per WP:SPLIT regarding: "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article." The only way to make that merge work would be to drastically cut down content on the canard in Poland in order to maintain balance over at JB; per WP:PRESERVE we're not meant to rush to destroy sourced content. By the way, for final emphasis bear in mind that unclear to the native English reader, "Żydokomuna" is a racist Polish slur which Misplaced Pages is perhaps unwittingly hosting, without italics or inverted commas; it would both please and embolden a Polish antisemite to see this. It also propagates the lack of awareness of people who presumably in good faith think it's a fact rather than a misconception, such as User:Szymon Frank here . If there really was a 'Jewish alliance with the communists' then per Timothy Snyder (Bloodlands p.140) around 8% of the communists' victims at the Katyn Massacre would not have been Jewish and representative of, the 8% Jewish population of Soviet-occupied Poland 1939-1941. Szymon might be able to adjust in the light of that evidence as it simultaneously challenges another stereotype that he's presumably aware of, if 8% of the men promoted by the Polish Army to officer rank were Jewish in the first place. It's helpful for Misplaced Pages if we can undermine stereotypes not with counter-stereotypes but by undermining binary opposition of adversarial stereotypes that feed each other. Renaming this article for accuracy alone would therefore happen to also have a helpful side effect. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  
  1. Jewish Poland Revisited: Heritage Tourism in Unquiet Places By Erica T. Lehrer, p. 189

Altenmann, I assume the answer to your riddle is that the terms have no denotation. Thank you for your insights here and at the other article, by the way. SarahSV 21:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Close enough: the evil is in the insinuated connotation. All three terms are supposed to refer to something bad. Why we guess that feminazi is something bad and by implication feminism is bad? - because we know "nazi" is bad. Similarly silicon, i.e condoms, are presented as evil? - holocaust.
Now, to the topic. Why judeobolshevism is (expected to be perceived as) evil? Because of the Jews. In other words, the "recipients" of the term judeobolshevism are already supposed to be antisemitic. The message is: Bolshevism is evil because it is run by the Jews. In other words, the term is not so much an antisemitic canard, as an antibolshevik propaganda. Yes it is antisemitic, because it elaborates on the all-encompassing concept of "world zionist cabal", but the specific target is russia with its bolshevism.
Now from germany to poland. The dislike of russians by poles is well known. Then why not "moskalska komuna" (muscovite communist regime)? Because, i guess poles are russophobes in a lesser degree than they are antisemites. And despite the fact that the hated regime was brought onto them by russians (ok, ussr, but who cares the detail) and controlled from moscow/kremlin, "zydowska komuna" was a stronger insult than "moskalska komuna". Komuna, i.e. polish communist govrrnment was bad because it was run by the jews. Again, antisemitism is a prerequisite, not the goal of the message.
I guess, now you see my point, the two articles are about two different notable attempts to capitalize on the canard "jews conspire to rule the world" to speak against something else. Also, in the case of germany tbe target was ideology, while in poland the target was the state (the secret service (UB) especially, and not without the pretext). - Altenmann >talk 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Altenmann, I appreciate very much your explanations about this, particularly the point that antisemitism is a prerequisite. That point is often not understood. My concern about this article is that it's written as though this was a real thing, or a stereotype just a little exaggerated. And it's used that way in articles. For example, in History of the Jews in Poland:

As a result of these factors they found it easy after 1939 to participate in the Soviet occupation administration in Eastern Poland, and briefly occupied prominent positions in industry, schools, local government, police and other Soviet-installed institutions. The concept of "Judeo-communism" was reinforced during the period of the Soviet occupation (see Żydokomuna).

And in Kielce pogrom, it's a "perception": "the Bishop of Lublin, Stefan Wyszyński ... stated that the widespread hostility to Jews was provoked by Jewish backing of Communism (there was a widespread perception that Jews were supportive of Soviet-installed Communist administration in Poland; see Żydokomuna) ..."
I was thinking a merge to Jewish Bolshevism would help deal with this. As for the length, this article is probably too long because it discusses it as a real thing. For example, see the Interbellum section. SarahSV 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
the two cases you quote are examples of one of the typical justifications of antisemitism. I do not know how wikipedia must be fixed to stress this. And yes, the article describes the "real" thing: how it was and how it was perceived, of course with bits and pieces of original reserch and stretching the sources cited. And once again: in poland the issue had nothing to do with ideology, so I dont see how to mix the two, other than under the top-level umbrella "jews are the source of evil". Anyway, I will not take any part here further, because more deep work will require to dig into sources and evaluate them. - Altenmann >talk 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm in favour of keeping the two articles separate per WP:SPLIT; both articles are substantial enough to stand on their own. As far as any potential issues go, it would probably not be solved by merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is fine because one is about the topic in general and the other is about it specifically in Poland (Zydokomuna translates as Jewish Communism.) If we merged the articles, half of it would be about Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, which would be undue weight. For consistency, we could re-name the article Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. TFD (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Re-reading the arguments I now lean to the idea that the two topics, while related, deserve separate articles (ZK is a subarticle / subtopic to ZB, per Altenmann's convincing arguments). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
You now lean to that idea? That's been your position for years. For example, Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 3#Proposal of merger with Jewish Bolshevism. SarahSV 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
So why these? François Robere (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Because a source discussing Jewish Bolshevism and not Zydokomuna belongs in the JB article, not here, particualrly given the consensus not to merge the two articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You claimed that this quote is related to the Jewish Bolshesivsm not Zydokomuna (the Polish variant. -FR) - it does not mention this subtopic and that I don't think his book even uses the term Zydokomuna. And the book is primarily about OUN/UPA (Ukraine), not Poland. Or is Zydokomuna part of Ukrainian culture too?. Well, the book is named "Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-day Ukraine" (emphasis mine) - Galicia having been Polish for much of its history, including the interwar and WWII periods. What's more, the book clearly speaks of this phenomenon in Poland (emphasized bit at the end is was quoted in the article):

The experience of suffering and slaughter , combined with the widely held view - strongly encouraged by the German occupiers - that the Jews were the true guilty party in Communist crimes, certainly played a major role in unleashing the widespread murderous pogroms against Jewish populations in Eastern Galicia (and in other parts of eastern Poland)... That the myth which propelled these massacres has been revived even in some recent historical debates, such as the one surrounding the mass killing of the Jews in the eastern Polish town of Jedwabne, indicates that this distortion of the past can also serve as a tool for inverting guilt and responsibility. As a myth, the talk of Jewish collaboration with the Communists is as fascinating as the older and still potent canard of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As history, it is simply false.

— Omer Bartov, Erased, pp. 38-40

You've misrepresented the source. Please adhere to WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations in the future. François Robere (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresent how? We are talking about a specific sentence, which your own edit summary links to the other related article, what is misrepresenting is adding a quote about Jewish Bolshevism to this article where it clearly belongs to the other. Please adhere to our policies, including UNDUE, and don't add semi-relevant content to the lead (where does the quote - or even the book(!) mentions the term 'Zydokomuna'? Also, while it mentions Jedwabne in passing the entire section of the source is about Ukrainian OUN; are you arguing that this book or even chapter is in-depth or relevant to this topic?). The lead is for the summaries of stuff discussed in the body, not for one's favorite semi-relevant quotes. In general, MoS does not recommend quotes in lead as best practices, anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You've presented this source as if it has nothing to do with Poland, when in fact it has everything to do it. Galicia was part of Poland. The book clearly talks about Jewish experience and the stereotype of "Judeo-Communism" in Poland. Hence WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations.
As for WP:DUE - you're arguing that a piece of important background - specifically the statement that "FYI THIS STEREOTYPE IS FALSE!!!" - is undue for the lead of an article about antisemitism? This is not grounded in Policy. François Robere (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said, in my view it is you who is clearly misrepresenting this source as relevant and due. Perhaps it's time for an RfC or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Jewish Bolshevism?

Is any reason why this page was not merged with Jewish Bolshevism? This is exactly same thing, except that Żydokomuna, as this page correctly tells, is "a Polish language term for "Jewish Bolshevism". Why do we need a separate page for the Polish word when the subject is exactly the same? There are Polish words for every subject in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ups, I missed this discussion above. Yes, I can see the argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Because the English Misplaced Pages is anti-Polish. Noxian16 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories: