From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Żydokomuna 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.

Ancestry section again: poisoning the wells[edit]

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

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

Affirming as alien[edit]

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

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

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

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

Requested intro clarification[edit]

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

Is there an actual logical explanation[edit]

Why was this:

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

changed to this:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal of merger with Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research insertion into picture description[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question re occupation of Belarus[edit]

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

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

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

Removal of 1960-1989 information[edit]

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

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

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

"'Paradoxically, probably the most powerful slogan of the communist propaganda in March was the accusation that the Jews were zealous communists. They were blamed for a major part, if not all, of the crimes and horrors of the Stalinist period. The myth of Judeo-bolshevism had been well known in Poland since the Russian revolution and the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, yet its 1968 model deserves interest as a tool of communist propaganda. This accusation exploited and developed the popular stereotype of Jewish communism to purify communism: the Jews were the dark side of communism; what was wrong in communism was due to them.'"[4]

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


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

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

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

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


  1. ^ Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, page 60
  2. ^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]
  3. ^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]
  4. ^ Dariusz Stola. "Fighting against the Shadows The Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1968." In: Robert Blobaum, ed. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland. Cornell University Press, 2005.


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

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

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

Polish–Soviet War[edit]

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

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

Throughout the whole interwar period[edit]

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

Associated Press: Few know story of Jews in Red Army[edit]

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

Lead section bias[edit]

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

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

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

Maintenance tags[edit]

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

In 2009, User:Anti-Nationalist added a cite tag to this statement.[10] The entire paragraph is sourced to Pająk 1998. Can someone confirm this paragraph is supported? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz[edit]

Is considered a well known and respected Polish historian whose views are very important for this article. However, it has to be mentioned that his views are considered controversial by many, especially regarding the Post war situation in Poland, as it is evident from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Therefore a brief mentioning of this fact is needed per WP:NPOV. [11]Tritomex (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

intro sucks[edit]

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

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

external link[edit]

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

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

Under Soviet occupation[edit]

There existed two Jewish populations:

  • Jewish refugees from Western and Central Poland, who were persecuted by the Soviets.
  • Local Jews, described in the text.Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)