Talk:Żydokomuna

Title change?

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

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

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

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

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

Two articles

We have two articles about the same antisemitic canard:

• Jewish Bolshevism, created in November 2006‎ by Altenmann, 1,978 words readable prose size.
• Żydokomuna, the Polish term for it, created in November 2005 by Piotrus, 4,495 words readable prose size.

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

I am leaning towards the view that it may be a good idea. Polish Wikipedia 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 [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 [2]. 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 Wikipedia 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)  

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 ^(talk) 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 [Jews] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Citations

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

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

• <ref name="google6">Robert Blobaum. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland Cornell University Press, 2005, p. 110.</ref>

• <ref name="google16">Robert Blobaum. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland. Cornell University Press, 2005.</ref>

• <ref name="antisemitism">Robert Blobaum. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 81–82.</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] [4] A few years ago a group of the youth from Warsaw began publishing magazine "Jidełe"(Yiddish: "little Jew"). It contains articles in Polish and is aimed at all young people in Poland who are interested in the Jewish issues. The article was a discussion about involvement of Jewish communists in Poland and its legacy, the participants were highly critical of their role in Poland, condemned the generation of Jewish Polish communists and some stated that Jews have moral responsibility to atone for their role in implementing communism. In turn their discussion was criticised by Anna Zawadzka in the article Stigma of ‘Żydokomuna’ [Judeocommunism] from a Generational Perspective: An Introduction[5] This article outlines research on narratives on ‘żydokomuna’ [Judeocommunism] as constructed and disseminated by individuals identified as Jewish Communists or family members of ‘commie Jews’. Zawadzka studies the similarities and differences in the description, interpretation and evaluation of Jewish Communists as found in their own narratives, or the narratives of their children and grandchildren. Characteristic nodes in these narratives are: the interpellation of the collective subject that the speaking subject wishes to represent; abstraction from the social and political context; unwillingness to address anti-Semitism; admissions to a feeling of responsibility and guilt, repentance. In the context of the strong presence, in Poland, of both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism, Zawadzka reads these narrations as ‘exams in subordination’ to the majority status quo to which Jews are subjected in Poland.

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

• There are other examples like this one[6] where Jan Hartman uses the term in positive context

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

• I also recommend some scholarly works on the subject:

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

Pawel Spiewak Interview[8] Book:Żydokomuna : interpretacje historyczne [9] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Some. Polityka blog may not, a magazine positively reviewed by the Jewish Historical Institute ([10]) is probably ok. This website needs further investigation. Academic journals are obviously ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

For the record the analysis of different attitudes towards Zydokomuna stereotype by Anna Zawadzka was published by The Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences[11]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References badly messed up

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

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

Images

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

Hi, I think the template on top is better, vs the antisemitic poster. The template signals what's what, while the poster delivers an unfiltered propaganda message. I struck me when I saw that. What do you think? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My thinking was that we call it an antisemitic canard, and we have an image, File:Lapy zydowskie.jpeg, that demonstrates the thinking, rather than a template that states it again. But I take your point about not prominently placing an antisemitic poster. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Canard

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

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

I agree with Piotrus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts

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

You wrote it yorself: he used different term. Did he use it to translate, the term zydokomuna or in othre context? Google doent show me this page. If yes, please add in the changed text.- Altenmann >talk 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, this is not correct: "Variously translated as as the "Kike-Commie conspiracy". That's not simply a "translation". The point is that this is the same concept as Jewish Bolshevism, so that needs to be in the lead. This is the Polish version of "Jewish Bolshevism".

Re: Stone, if you can't see the page, how do you know what he does or doesn't say? Yes, he uses both terms. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please understand, all these are attempts to translate polish term into english, (not entirely correct, too. Comuna in Polish slang is not cimmunism, it is communist government. And zydocomuna in precise understanding means "polish cimmunist govrrnment overrun by the jews.") In other word, contrary to your opinion, zydokomuna is not the same as jewish bolshevism. Thre was no bolsheviks in poland . It is the same as to say that "oak" and "tree" are the same terms-- Altenmann >talk 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Stone writes of someone that he was: "appealing to the old canard of Judaeo-Bolshevism (Żydokomuna)" (p. 265). Again, please say how you know what Stone does or doesn't say if you can't see the page. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

i searched for the word bolshevism and there was no jewish bolshevism, there was judeo-bolshevism. They are translations, not established terms, because in both sources one of the term is in round brackets, meaning explananion, ie not common usage. - Altenmann >talk 18:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope you're not basing your editing on searching Google Books and deciding something isn't in a book because Google doesn't show it to you. This article and Jewish Bolshevism have to be based on high-quality sources, not the opinions of Wikipedians, including opinions about round brackets. If the sources say this is the same concept, then it is (whether it's called Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, etc). If other sources disagree and make a distinction, we reflect both views. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC

if you say that the term jewish bolshevism is used in the book, please provide the citation and done with it, instead of wikilawyering. This is how it is supposed to be done when the source is questioned. I am surprized i have to explain this to a wikipedian who was here longer than me. - Altenmann >talk 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

the sources cited and questined do not say it is the same concept. ( If you disagree, please provide the exact quote. ) They are just 5ranslating the specifically polish slang term with the closest they know in english language. Opin8ons about brackets have nothing to do with original reaserch. As you may know, brckets, as well as other tools of syntax, have a particular meaning. In thus particular case i read brackets as an explanation of foreign word to english reader. Fir example "idiot (a oerson of limited mental capacity) " - ths doesn n9t mean that idiot is the same as person of limited mental capacity. Because persons of limited nental capacity include morons, pumpkinheads, simpletons, ignoramuses, bozos, fools, stupids, cretins, ets. If you do not see a difference between general term and spoecific terms, then i do nit know how to carry out reasoning to argue with you any more. - Altenmann >talk 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

PS I've just perused our article and I see it is rife with anachronisms, incorrect statements and original reaserch. Since I have no ability to fix them all, I am recusing myself from the whole subject. - Altenmann >talk 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

PPS. After a bit of more reading and thinking, I see where this misunderstanding comes from. The watershed is WWII. Prior to WWII the idea of judeobolshevism was widespread over all europe an discussed in contexts of other countries, not only russia, germany or poland. However after WWII the grounds for the phenomenon continued to exist only in poland. For example no one in their sane mind may claim existence jewish bolshevism in usssr during stalinist and later soviet times known for their antisemitism. And the term zydokomuna arose in poland to describe the new facet, despite the fact that the terms like 'zydobolszewizm' did exist in polish. However modern sources sloppily abuse the terminology leaving an impression that zydokomua existed in poland as early as in late 19th century. - Altenmann >talk 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. The term zydobolszewizm is pretty rare, but I guess it is an interesting point how that it may refer to pre-1939 era, and zydokomunizm to post-1939 era. Here's an English source that mentions both: [12]. That said, I can't really find many sources discussion the z-b term in Polish, it seems pretty fringe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

no. Post 45 is żydokomuna, where komuna is the common term for the then regime in poland, still in wide use ( "nie tęsknię za komuną" ). And zydobolszewizm not so rare as you may think. You have to searh the term in various spellings żydokomunizm, judeo-bolszewizm, judeobolszewizm, judeo-komunuzm, etc., in various declensions, too, used in reference to relatively high %% of participation in interbellum polish communist movement. But as I said, at these times it was an international trait, nonspecific to poland. - Altenmann >talk 05:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion

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

Schatz

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

How come 1991 is "too old"? I would very much like to see this argument discussed at RSN. And the University of California Press is a reliable publisher. [13] identifies him as "a sociologist, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Culture in Lund, Sweden." (this information was just a google search away...). In addition, the book got a number of academic reviews (enough to make it notable), and they seem to be quite positive. For example, a review by Zygmunt Bauman calls the book "an exceptional achievement" and " remarkable study". [14] states that it is a "meticulously researched, carefully constructed study" and "a concise yet comprehensive history of the communist movement in Poland from its inception to the decade of the 1970s while simultaneously fitting into its framework the story of a numerically small but qualitatively significant segment of Polish Jews who were arguably among the most committed "true believers" in the communist vision." [15]: "This book, by a professor of sociology and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Lunds University in Sweden, is a close and careful account of the place of Jews in the history of Polish Communism. That the subject is of importance is beyond question: Jews played a major role throughout the European Communist movement, but nowhere more than in Poland. Out of all proportion to their presence in the population, they were active in the Communist movement from the 1920s to the 1960s, and at certain key moments they were a powerful presence in the leadership of Party and state alike." Far from being problematic, this seems like an extremely relevant (and well-received in academia) source to use to improve this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, SV, it seems Icewhiz agrees with you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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