Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The evil oppressive Jews made the Poles hate them

I've moved the following Victim blaming original research to Talk: for further discussion:

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].

It is quite helpful that Wikipedia 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 reliable sources for any of this? Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you missed the fact that this is a quotation of Stefan Korbonski, 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. Tymek (talk) 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 reliable sources for any of this? That, I repeat, does not include the sociologist. Jayjg (talk) 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 [1].BTW, the book is available to those interested [2]. Tymek (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Does he mention Żydokomuna in it? If so, where? Jayjg (talk) 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 WP:RS. Tymek (talk) 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. Jayjg (talk) 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. Tymek (talk) 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".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 WP:NOR again. Or are you saying Tymek has inserted this material as an example of Żydokomuna? Jayjg (talk) 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 Wikipedia 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. Tymek (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's one review of Korbonski: "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? Boodlesthecat Meow? 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. Tymek (talk) 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. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 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. Wikipedia 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. Tymek (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, please. Why don't you read the opening sentence of the article:

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.[1]

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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, rather than giving your faulty opinions about other editors emotional states and beliefs, please discuss article content. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting content RfC. PS. Note that removal of names has begun earlier: #Światło not relevant?. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Światło material was removed for the same reason--it was original research in which no WP:RS was supplied indicating the connection to the subject of this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The defection of Jozef Swiatlo and the Search for Jewish Scapegoats in the Polish United Workers' Party, 1953-1954, for example, begs to differ.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That link is dead. The document's been moved here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Prominent individuals

  • Including a list of prominent Jewish Communists, in the absence of a source that links them to Żydokomuna, is WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Tymek (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
... so long as a reliable source relates them to the subject of the article. Otherwise it's pure synthesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
... 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 WP:SYNTH, as i understand it. Sssoul (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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 anti-semitism without Jews. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Tymek (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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. M0RD00R (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Got a ref for that? I am sure it wouldn't be an ORish statement, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a dozen refs for it. When I put it in an article, I will cite it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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!). Tymek (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Tymek (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? What I see is removal of citation requests and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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.Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V and WP:CITE, 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 immediately removed his unreferenced content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 WP:V. Your accusations of bully'ing are completely out of line.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "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 WP:POINT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:CITE, book references require page numbers. This is why we have Template:Page number, and removal of such templates is unhelpful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that WP:V is a policy and WP:CITE is a style guideline "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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 WP:POINT. Please desist from these kinds of disruptions. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, I've reverted your latest WP:POINT tags.[3] 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. Jayjg (talk) 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.
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. Kpjas (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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

Kpjas (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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. Kpjas (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ,replaced with an appropriate ref. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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

Kpjas (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. This is an article about an antisemitic stereotype; as such, it does indeed deal with the "popular [Polish] perception Jewish communists played a crucial role" in "persecution of Polish society".
  2. Your claim that the "Jewish victimisation side" uses "weak, questionable or POV references" is nonsense.
  3. 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. Jayjg (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. It's an article about an antisemitic canard, 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? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. When people show up at the Kosher tax article, trying to prove that Kosher certification is really a hidden Jew tax, or at Holocaust denial trying to explain that it was really the Jews who made Germans hate them, they're usually firmly dealt with by (rightly) disgusted editors. Jayjg (talk) 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 Wikipedia. It is NPOV and reliable sources that make Wikipedia 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. Kpjas (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are still talking about editors, not about article content. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors are those that CREATE article content. If we can't discuss sources without accusations of anti-semitism, Jew-baiting, ethnophobia, etc. at every turn, then we'll never GET to the article. I'm sorry, you need to get real here. —PētersV (talk) 18:54, 12 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, Krakowski's 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.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Jayjg (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 Wikipedia oversight (I've been taking crap from a bully crowd for way too long simply for adding well sourced material to these articles). Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Problem is that it is a coat-rack for Poles are anti-semites now going back to the middle ages. Yes, that's (middle ages) sourced in a book with regard to Poland, But what does that have to do with Polish communism in Poland, the political paranoia, etc. that is also in referenced sources? That actually pertains to the topic? And text from referenced sources which paints an appropriate middle ground re: Polish attitudes (by Cherry) that gets summarily deleted. At the rate we're going, the Poles will be blaming the Jews for original sin. —PētersV (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources in question must tie the material directly to Żydokomuna, the antisemitic canard that Jews were responsible for Polish Communism. Material that actually references Żydokomuna is being retained, material that does not is being discarded. This is basic editing. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If the sources tie directly to the stereotypes the article so emphatically associates with Żydokomuna that the actual origin of Żydokomuna only gets mentioned for the first time in the second paragraph, they stay. —PētersV (talk) 00:07, 18 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 Bund. Was the Żydokomuna discourse limited to the KPP, or would it be directed the Marxist Jewish left as a whole? --Soman (talk) 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. M0RD00R (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic organizations such as Antyk is not a reliable source

I've seen it all - nacjonalista.pl and other extremist publications used as a reference, exhausting revert warring over "sources" written by National Revival of Poland 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 National Revival of Poland. M0RD00R (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the amendments are reasonable and welcomed. I think that the reference that Piotrus proposed earlier [4] is quite valuable and reliable should also be used by all editors of this article (reinstated). Kpjas (talk) 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? Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Plenty, just google. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that Antyk was extreme, my bad, apologies. Tymek (talk) 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 Jewish Bolshevism?). 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.radek (talk) 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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?radek (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No you most definitely shouldn't delete it because reliable sourcing explicitly indicates the 1956 era attacks and scapegoating of Polish Stalinists occurring in the context of Żydokomuna. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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".radek (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, it's taken from reliable sources. And by the way, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.radek (talk) 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.Boodlesthecat Meow? 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, Wikipedia'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?radek (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.radek (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong tradition of anti-semitism in Poland

Statement by Party 1 (requesting RfC)

Why is such ([5], [6]) 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. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebutal by Party 2

It's reliably sourced (to an accomplished scholar) 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 Polish an-semitism 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. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a justification for distorting reality and this encyclopedia. I note also that Piotrus, who finds actual history controversial and "offensive," elsewhere repeatedly defends the use of openly antisemitic sources as reliable. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.[1] Żydokomuna is a variant on the idea of "Judeo-communism", - a combination of antisemitism, anti-communism, and anti-Sovietism - which had a strong influence throughout Eastern Europe,[when?] including countries such as Poland with large Jewish minorities and, according to Andre Gerrits, a strong tradition of antisemitism.[2][neutrality disputed] It gave exacerbating modern antisemitism by amplifying the myth of a "Jewish world conspiracy" with a volatile mix of antisemitism and anti-communism.[2]

since i'm not familiar with your Source [2], 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 [2] 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 [2] 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 neutral tone for this article. maybe taking a break from it would help. Sssoul (talk) 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Sssoul (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, do also note that the relevant source has been reproduced below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 process? 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.Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 Poland with large interwar Jewish minorities and, according to Andre Gerrits, a strong tradition of antisemitism.[3] 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 Poland with large interwar Jewish minorities. Works by authors such as Jan T. Gross and others[3] 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). —PētersV (talk) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi vandalism by Piotrus

  • This edit 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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. Kpjas (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 arbitrarily deletes the passage 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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. Kpjas (talk) 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 WP:V.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 [7] [8] story, when referenced text was removed under bogus edit summaries. This editing pattern is getting disruptive. M0RD00R (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Controvesial text should have refs at the end of every sentence. Controversial, unreferenced sentences can be removed per WP:V. 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. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 WP:V. 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 WP:V (which you know to be false) indicates that you are on a tantrumish WP:POINT 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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 disruption. Jayjg (talk) 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.radek (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.radek (talk) 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 Mein Kampf? Boodlesthecat Meow? 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.radek (talk) 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 blood libel 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. M0RD00R (talk) 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. Tymek (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, only in private blogs. We never find it in books. Nooo, never in books.. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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. Tymek (talk) 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 this one:
"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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 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, Post-war pogroms in Poland, ghetto benches etc. when a reader could form his own opinion about strength of antisemitism in Poland. M0RD00R (talk) 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. Madagascar Plan - yes, a Nazi plan was Polish, too. This is the level of bias of some people here. Tymek (talk) 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. M0RD00R (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And this fairy tale is backed by any reliable references? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 Oxford University Press. Cheers.M0RD00R (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And the Germans based their plan on the Polish one? Any references for this outlandish statement? Anyway, there were several plans in the interbellum period and before, and many of them were actually supported by various Jewish organizations for different reasons. Tymek (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Btw: pl:Żydzi na Madagaskar - fringe far right polemic of course becomes "an [implied mainstream] Polish plan later considered by the Nazis [although there is no proof that Nazis even knew about this old fringe extremist rhetoric in Poland]"... read also more here; the idea dates back to German 19th philosopher Paul de Lagarde, so Poland was not the originator... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
First it was fairy tales, now it's a polemic. Little progress but still a progress, apparently when opinions are expressed after reading and studying, and not the other way round, they tend to be a little bit more accurate. At least we agree that Polish government, who's representatives negotiated with France on the official level this plan (basically having same goals as the Nazi Madagascar plan) was far-right and fringe. But how it could have not been fringe, when Polish diplomacy was in the hands of individuals promising Hitler a monument in Warsaw if he could solve Polish "Jewish question". But let's finish this discussion because it is going OT. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Both of you are right on this though in the wrong way. "Zydzi na Madagascar" was a slogan of the far right ORN. The "Madagascar Plan" (in this context) was a discussion carried out between France and Poland on France ceding Madagascar (then a French colony) to Poland which would then be used to establish a Jewish homeland. The difference between the two is that in the ORN slogan the move would be that of compulsory expulsion whereas for the plan the emigration was to be voluntary. And of course, if discussing this plan makes the Polish government of the time "far-right", "fringe" and "antisemitic" then the Socialist French government of Leon Blum which made the proposal in the first place must have been even worse. This is again why context matters. If, say, someone like John Tyndall said "Jews to Israel!" that would carry completely different connotations then someone else issuing a declaration and calling it after some Foreign Secretary. Obviously.radek (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:1924_Chart_-_Conditions_in_Russia.png

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? M0RD00R (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironic how? And didn't you criticize geocities as a source recently? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. M0RD00R (talk) 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."

"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" Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So Andre Gerrits (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? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, try reading what is written before you yet again make comments that distort what's right on these pages.
Gerrits says "It proved strongest in those countries [of which he includes Poland] 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 Gerrits' cv.
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 Wikipedia guideline. We go by what reliable sources say, not by editors yelling "controversial" or "POV". Bring the sources, or stop disrupting this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The value of sources

I think that all agree that sources are the essential element of Wikipedia's credibility. Reliable sources are a necessity when users work cooperatively on contentious subjects.

We should used the best and the most reliable sources written by historians who are trusted, not controversial or biased.

It would be good if the sources are easily accessible or easy to obtain. Fairly presenting facts and objective...

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).[9]

Kpjas (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2008 (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. M0RD00R (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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!!Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That Joanna Michlic criticizes respected scholars like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Bogdan Musiał, and Tomasz Strzembosz only reflects her POV. There are differences between Jewish historiography and Polish historiography (and others), but neither of them is better than others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Read this. 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That source in no way contradicts anything Boodles has said, or anything he has added to this article. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not about contradicting, it's about the POV of a source. Don't you agree that the POV of Jewish historiography needs to be balanced against the POVs of other historiographies (in this case, Polish)? We cannot have an article supporting only one of those POVs, and the controversial lead was doing just that (and even now is still somewhat biased, if less blatantly). PS. Here already cited Cherry writes: "While there is some historical truth to Jewish accusations of collaboration, extortion, and massacre by Poles during the Second World War, there is, as in Polish historiography, exaggeration and misinformation in Jewish historiography that serves national interests." Here is another scholarly examination of Polish and Jewish historiographies. NONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, and only combined, they can help us achieve NPOV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tag abuse

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. WP:NPOV expects that reliable sources have POVs. Jayjg (talk) 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 disrupting this article by abusing tags.
I hope that was clear. Jayjg (talk) 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: [10]
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... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 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 disrupting this article by abusing tags.
I'm sure that's clear now. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"So far most of the contrary "academics" you have come up with have turned out to be antisemites or right-wing kooks." Please provide a statistical breakdown of the refs I provided and discussion of reliability of the sources critical of them before usign such slanderous arguments. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as far as I can recall first it was

  • Feliks Koneczny who according to you approached various matters in a critical manner and. He combatted the racist myths of the early 20th century [11][12][13], when in fact his was a notorious antisemite, author of Judaized Hitlerism (blaming Jewish civilization for Nazism), and his approaching of racist myths was critical to such extent that he was a true believer in authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
  • then it was Morgenthau quote, according to you saying that Polish pogroms were "of political rather than anti-Semitic nature" [14][15][16], when in fact it is saying quite the opposite - porgroms were "political as well as anti-Semitic in character"
  • previously to that it was a story I vaguely recall about you and Molobo, and Jewish-Communism yet again - I mean when Molobo was on his one year ban, but still you and other editors were proxying for him, and you came asking for a source to Molobo, that you refer to as "specialist", that would prove that Jews were into communism more than some other nations, and Molobo came up with dubious anonymous source, that was later disseminated by you and couple of other editors all over Wikipedia.
  • and then it was revert series over yet another anti-Semitic periodical Glos, that you was keen to keep in FA as a reference [17][18], apparently you did not find convincing argument that periodical that publishes hate articles calling for resettlement of the Jews from Israel to Florida, and advocating Jewish world domination conspiracy theories has no place in FA.
  • then it was Antyk antics, it's good to go blindly revert everything, why analyse stuff yourself when you can simply revert.

Should I put this and other stuff into the Galbraith plot or pie chart will do? M0RD00R (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I've refactored and consolidated the intro a bit the "anti-"s were getting repetitious and losing the point, which is that some 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.)
   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. —PētersV (talk) 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. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what you claim exists in this article. Can you provide examples? Jayjg (talk) 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.
   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).
   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.
Interrupting PetersV here.
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.radek (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
End of interruption. Back to PetersV.

Let's take one example:

The visibility of Jews in both the Soviet leadership and in the Polish Communist Party further heightened the strength of the mythology.[5]
"Political paranoia" which is what the source states as being heightened, is a far different context than indicating an anti-Semitic myth simply gained in strength.
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 giving power to 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. —PētersV (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"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. —PētersV (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(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 No Irish Need Apply to Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. 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)radek (talk) 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. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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.radek (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
But the US also has a strong tradition of immigration, of the civil rights movement and of religious freedom. If the text was written so as to exclude the existence of these other traditions it would be incorrect. Again, you'd have to be more specific and provide context. I would be fine with it if the phrase kept the "strong tradition' part but was amended to mention other, tolerant, traditions. But I also think this would make the lead clumsy and would better be dealt with in the body of the article.radek (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In the context of this article, which is about an antisemitic canard, 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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.radek (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(od, edit conflict x2, to Jayjg) It is 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 "tradition" 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 view in the article body. —PētersV (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's really not. This article is about an antisemitic canard, 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. Jayjg (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's intended or not the phrasing "strong tradition of antisemitism" implies just that. I think the problem here is that you think since the phrase doesn't LOGICALLY imply that (which it doesn't) it's ok, but when it's read by most readers it's obviously going to be taken as SUGGESTING it. Unless a broader context is provided or it's made more specific.radek (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


"Jewish historiography"

Statement by Party 1

1. "Jewish historiography" is a mainstream concept, discussion and analysis of which (or "Jewish point of view") has nothing to do with antisemitism.

2. Jewish historiography is a perfectly valid POV, but should be balanced with other perfectly valid POVs (such as the Polish historiography, quite relevant when writing on the Polish-Jewish history topics).

3. Jewish historiography is given undue weight in one version of this article. Historians representing Jewish historiography (Jan T. Gross, Joanna Michlic, Antony Polonsky are cited as unquestionable mainstream authorities, historians representing different POVs (ex. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum...), Piotr Gontarczyk, Bogdan Musiał, and Tomasz Strzembosz) are being criticized and portrayed (based on a single work by Michlic) as "ethnonationalistic fringe".

4. See short #The value of sources for some additional citations.

5. Solution: the article should be written from the neutral POV, not any particular (Jewish or otherwise) POV. Further, discussions of particular historiographies and historians is out of place in this article.

Signed, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Party 2

Please don't treat us like simpletons, Piotrus. Nobody is questioning the existence of Jewish historiography or its validity as a POV.

The issue at question is the complete lack of WP:RS that mention the existence of any "Jewish historiography" on the subject of Żydokomuna. Your attempt to tie together Jewish historians and label them proponents of "Jewish historiography" on this subject is WP:OR.

And of course the article must be written from a neutral POV. The problem is that you cannot bundle together Jews, call their work "Jewish historiography" in the absence of any sources, and present Polish historiography as a counterbalance.

Finally, when a WP:RS specifically says that Polish historiography has taken a certain approach with respect to the discussion of Żydokomuna, it is entirely appropriate to refer to Polish historiography in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion that this article, reliably sourced with sixty seven references, is tainted with "Jewish point of view" rather than a neutral one--based, apparently, on the remarkably disturbing premise that there are too many Jewish sources--is too unbelievably offensive too even respond to. Plus what Malik said: Piotrus supplies not a single source supporting a claim of these sources representing a "Jewish historiography" of Żydokomuna, instead basing his unsupported conclusion that they represent a "Jewish historiography" (and as such are not neutral) either on the fact that there are Jews among them, or that he simply doesnt like the conclusions of their research. Neither of those views is worthy of consideration as a reason to alter anything, and both are highly offensive. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion

Piotrus, you have yet to produce a single source to support your Jew-baiting contention that Jewish historians write about Żydokomuna from a point of view called "Jewish historiography". Please provide such sources. Your edits will not stand until you do so. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My major edits that you reverted were referenced, and I further discussed them above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Malik, it's more complicated than you make it out to be. According to Cherry, he made the following empirical findings:
  • Popular Jewish historiography, the man on the street, people who write Holocaust studies for school (who are in the vast majority not historians), etc. have a very dim view of (historical) Polish-Jewish relations
  • Popular Polish historiography, again, man on the street, non-historians,... have a quite positive view of (historical) Polish-Jewish relations
  • Trained historians (for the most part) have a middle-ground POV assessment of Polish-Jewish relations, and (surprise), that middle-ground assessment is ethno-agnostic ("Jewish historiography", "Polish historiography", "western historigraphy,"...). That reality is nowhere reflected in the POVs that some editors have been pushing in this article as WP:TRUTH with all of their might.
   To contend that ethnic historiographies do not exist is patently ridiculous. Unless you are contending "in other words" that there are all sorts of ethnic historiographies, but not one which can be called "Jewish" because the mere act of intimating there might be an ethnic Jewish cultural POV is a priori by definition an antisemitical contention? —PētersV (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is Cherry actually using the word historiography to discuss non-academic POVs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(1) Your reference was unrelated to the subject of Żydokomuna and, in fact, described Gross' Neighbors as having "tempered these new voices in Jewish historiography". Read in context, it suggests he's not an example of Jewish historiography at all. In any event, you haven't provided any sources that indicate the existence of such a thing as "Jewish historiography" concerning the phenomenon of Żydokomuna. You can't just lump together Jewish historians and call their viewpoints "Jewish historiography".
(2) We're speaking of professional historians here. One source (Michlic) describes the rise of a Polish historiography among Polish historians in the context of Żydokomuna ("the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew"). You haven't produced any comparable sources suggesting the growth of a Jewish historiography on the same subject. You can't suggest that there must be a Jewish historiography that balances the Polish historiography without WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
To Piotrus, I need to go back and check, it's been a while. In the meantime, I rephrased above in keeping with his statements at the seminar when I met him (and chatted afterwards). There I don't recall him using the specific word "historiography," but Cherry was quite clear about meaning views of history, accounts of history, collective memories of history--which total to a predominant historiography. —PētersV (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Malik, I did notice you are standing in for Boodles to make the daily "Jew baiting" accusation. Are you simply incapable of asking an editor a question without defaming them first? That's how the Soviets used to address the "accused" in show trials. "The procurator directs the 'criminal X' to answer...". —PētersV (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[Note: Your message previously read "If you read the Cherry book, he makes the following empirical findings"] By Cherry, do you mean Michlic's essay in Cherry's book (cited in the article), Cherry's introduction, or Cherry's essay in the book? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I mean Cherry's summary of his survey and of his discussions with Polish and Jewish community members and leaders based in the U.S. and in Poland. Hope that clarifies. —PētersV (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on very simple things. To avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN we need WP:RS for the statement "that historians X, W and Y represent Jewish historiography, regarding the question of Zydokomuna", and historians A B and C represent Polish historiography (and not ethnonationalist fringe group - what has been indicated so far), regarding the question of Zydokomuna". Until we don't have that, let's not litter wiki with more WP:SYN and substandard WP:OR. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Current discussion

Malik, if you'd like to discuss, please refactor your prior commentary above to remove defamations and insults. —PētersV (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What was defamatory? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Jew-baiting (and was a section heading in a prior edit) and contending being treated like simpletons. Points can be made without personally directed offensive rhetoric. —PētersV (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Claiming that this article presents a non-neutral "Jewish point of view" without a single reliable source or a single shred of evidence indicating such a view in this article is the very definition of a most offensive form of Jew baiting. Trying to make that argument if an RfC is treating editors like simpletons, or worse. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
One can ask for sources without the constant otherwise it's Jew baiting rhetoric. -PētersV (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You could have stated your diatribe as "No reliable sources have been provided that the article presents a non-neutral viewpoint which could most aptly be described as a "Jewish" point of view. Please provide a source or sources to back such a contention." That you're clueless (per "Huh?") pretty much makes the point that you don't hear anything you don't want to hear and you're more interested in just using "Jew baiting" at every chance you get to beat down what you consider your editorial opposition. —PētersV (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Current discussion, take two

Malik, Boodles, if either of you would like to discuss, please phrase your inquiries in the form of a question without the defamatory and accusatory editorializing. —PētersV (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a historian, but know little of the subject. My understanding of historiography is that it concerns the study of the views expressed by historians, usually academic ones, as opposed by the popular (often nationalistic) historians who produce school text books. Popular (school textbook) history is often concerned with promoting a nationalistic POV. In view of the history of anti-Jewish pograms, I am not surprised to learn that the Jewish and Polish views of the history of Poland differ from each other. Academic historians will try to cut through the dead wood of propaganda to get at the truth, but that is not necessarily easy, since the only source material may be the contemporary propaganda of each side at the time of the events in question. Reaching a NPOV position on history often has to be left to a later generation, who can look back on events dispassionately. I suspect that the end of communist regime may still be too recent and nerves too raw for any one to be able to stand back and take a truly dispassionate view. If fear that this comment does not resolve the dispute, but perhaps it will help both sides to stand back and look at theri own position. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article as is is largely based on current academic secondary sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Welp, I'm outta here

The accusations are just getting crazy. At the very least, by editing this article or even just commenting on the talk page I'm gonna be accused of being part of some cabal or whatever it's supposed to be (even though I've interacted with Piotrus, like twice, before) simply because of my background (hey! Imagine that! Editors of Polish background (and obviously unidentified ethnic and religious one) having a nerve to look at articles that have to do with Poland! Must be a conspiracy!) or get called an edit-warrior (even though I've reverted another editor's edits exactly once, which isn't something one can say about anyone else involved in this discussion right now). And that's the "at least" part. Honestly, I got RL stuff to do and putting up with crap like this just isn't worth it. Have fun.radek (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Show where anyone on this page at any time accused you or anyone here of anything based on being Polish. Where has your ethnicity been mentioned by anyone here? Quite a disingenous distortion of facts--in fact, what is actually taking place, is that explicit accusations are being made above that this article is tainted with a "Jewish point of view" without a shred of evidence or a single reliable source being provided indicating that it has such a view. It's offensive enough that such unsupported Jew baiting is taking place. To then turn it around and complain that there is some sort of anti-Polish campaign happening, when not a single editor here made any mention of Polish ethnicity being a factor, is ridiculous. But thanks for demonstrating that in fact, some editors indeed are trying to turn this article into an example of the main tenet of Żydokomuna in practice--with offensice charges (explicitly stated above--it's even put in an RfC!of pushing a "Jewish point of view" and absurd while pushing wholly fabricated charges of anti-Polonism. Amazing, simply amazing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, thanks for illustrating my point. As for previous examples, please ask your friends.radek (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed

Adding the {{POV}} by Piotrus is welcome. I wish I did it myself at an earlier point in this editorial process.

I've lost my interest in this article - it seems it has been hijacked by one party that is uncooperative, unwilling to discuss or hear other arguments, guarding against changes that are not in line with their views. The party has their sources and they treat them as a weapon "We have our sources, they are right and we are right". The value, validity and credibility of the sources has not been properly reviewed here (there are differences of opinion). With such a contentious and controversial subject there should be at least a chance to balance them with evidence and sources that come from several other historians and researchers.

This article is hopeless - you wanted your POV version, you've got it.

Kpjas (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support POV tag. After vandalism commited previously by User Malik Shabazz who has singlehandedly removed all section and frivolously changed subtitles to very biased ones [19], presenty User Boodlesthecat makes series of reverts to suit his own bias, suggesting, the term Zydokomuna is not a neologism but an anti-Jewish stereotype or a slur, coined not by Niemcewicz (a well documented event) but by someone else, an evident OR, based on questionable sources like Polansky's Neighbors respond - a review of reviews of a questionable book by Jan T. Gross - this one based on fabricated communist propaganda. For the record, I am not responding to trolls. greg park avenue (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

greg, can you provide some of the sources for the "well documented event" that Niemcewicz coinerd the term Zydokomuna? And are you suggesting that the term is not an anti-Jewish stereotype or a slur? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bye

I am also withdrawing from this article. The flames here are too much, even for me. Let arbcom decide this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously disingenous

It takes serious gall to complain about the "flamers" Piotrus after you canvassed for your edit warriors to jump in here. Amazing disingenuity. Simply amazing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that bit of canvassing. Being this has been an area of my study for some time (having, for example, met Cherry, one of the cited authors, in person), I was quite glad to be made aware of this article in our current arbitration proceedings. It's really quite sad for you that you automatically tar new participants (who have not received your personal encouragement) to the editing community here as bad faith edit warriors. —PētersV (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointless

Clearly, a civil and serious discussion is not to be expected on the part of Boodles, Mordoor, Shabazz and Jayjg, who prefer to turn the "Żydokomuna" article—which was started in good faith by a Pole—into a Polonophobes' soapbox. Piotrus' original version of November 8, 2005, is the best that I have seen so far; I propose that we scrap the present monstrosity of distortions and go back to his original concise, substantive and on-topic version. Nihil novi (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Niemcewicz

The sources clearly state that he is an original source of the stereotype of the anti-Polish Jew and an organized Jewish conspiracy threatening the the existing social order. The sources do not credit him with originating the slur Żydokomuna itself. Please stop restoring misinformation, and please stop using the mischaracterization "neologism." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the sources say entirely the opposite, Tymek has reinserted "Origins of the Żydokomuna word date back to a pamphlet (written in 1817 but not published until 1858) by the Polish Enlightenment writer and political activist Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, The Year 3333, or the Incredible Dream (Rok 3333 czyli Sen niesłychany)." Okay, lets go to the sources:
  • "This stereotype, embodied in the Polish concept of ‘Żydokomuna’ (Judeo-communism) had a long history on the Polish lands, going back to Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz’s 1817 dystopia, The Year 3333," Polonsky, p20
  • "Niemcewicz was also the author of another impoertant idea that late 19th century anti-semites incorporated into the modern representastion of the Jew as the harmful alien, with the slogan "Judeo-Polonia."" Michlic p48.
Wikipedia's own article on Judeopolonia credits him with being a source for the "antisemitic conspiracy theory positing an alleged future Jewish domination of Poland."
The STEREOTYPE, the IDEA, the THEORY goes back to Niemcewicz, (contrary to Tymeks totally erroneous edit summary), NOT the word Żydokomuna.
Now would you please stop disrupting the article with complete distortions of the sources? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So the whole stereotype of Jewish-Communism was invented by one man, years before communism itself was created? I feel like I am back in elementary school. Tymek (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point. First lesson: WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(od) Boodlesthecat mischaraterizes the source by incomplete quoting:
"Yet what is obvious is that the widespread acceptance of the stereotype of the pro-Soviet and anti-Polish Jew greatly widened the gulf between the two communities. This stereotype, embodied in the Polish concept of ‘Żydokomuna’ (Judeo-communism) had a long history on the Polish lands, going back to Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz’s 1817 dystopia, The Year 3333," Polonsky, p20
The sterotype being discussed is NOT that portrayed in 3333. Nor is it the stereotype as implied elsewhere, one dating to well-poisoning in the middle ages. Żydokomuna is CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY a stereotype of "pro-Soviet + anti-Polish + Jew". Let's start by making that clear in the article as opposed to simply painting it as the embodiment of a continuous phenomenon of Polish anti-Semitism dating from the black plague. (Jews bringing disease and all.) —PētersV (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And Greg park avenue is correct below, in that, putting it simply: first, a term needs to be coined; it can only become a stereotype over time. This article should be about that evolution and its objective impact on and reflection of Polish-Jewish relations. —PētersV (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. The sources already quoted also discusss at length the leadership role of Jewish Communists in de-ethnification of the Communist community--that is, one was neither Jew nor Pole nor Belarussian nor Ukrainian as measured by their adherence or loyalty to their heritage, one was simply a Communist. —PētersV (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Neologism or stereotype?

The word Zydokomuna means exactly Judeo-Commune and it's a neologism or it has been when it was introduced for the first time by Niemcewicz in 1800s. No neologism can become a stereotype overnight as Polansky and Michic suggest. It only says a lot about their scientific skills or rather their lack of it. And neither the part Judeo- nor -Commune was offensive back then, so where the antisemitism came from? Only the word Commune was offensive in Poland but not before 1949 when the PPR (Polish Workers Party) and the PPK (Polish Communist Party) united. After that calling someone a communist was an insult. Even the members of the new party (PZPR) reffered to themselves simply as the party or party men (partyjni). Before that, the term communist was a respected term. And Zydokomuna means a society of people who abandoned Judaism to become communists for whatever reason. 30-40% of citizens of Israel, depending on who they call citizen there, are atheists, and this term explains where they came from. To their credit I must acknowledge most of them became once atheists always atheists, unlike the most of Polish party men, who once declared communist affiliation still attended church services on a regularly basis. For the first group I have respect, for the latter one I have not. If someone finds the part Judeo- offensive it was the communists themselves. After the WWII all pogroms as the Kielce pogrom and party purges with the most known 1968 purge led by Wladyslaw Gomulka were orchestrated by communists themselves who were also the ones, as I recall from my college time, telling Jewish jokes. So don't blame it now on Poles as Gross, Polansky et al suggest, with someone incessantly inserting this junk into Wikipedia following suit. They're either ignorant or trying to get even with Polish people for some past mishappenings. greg park avenue (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A few dozen reliable sources describe it as an antisemitic stereotype. Zero sources describe it as a neologism. Now what was your question again? Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Boodles, why not discuss some of the points instead of just saying "Sources XYZ, numerous say ANTISEMITIC, Q.E.D.". I've read scholarly reviews (not Polish, BTW) of Gross's work that indicate he ignores evidence that local Poles did not lead the event(s) he blames on the Polish people. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, re (article): "his stereotype, embodied in the Polish concept of ‘Żydokomuna’ (Judeo-communism) had a long history on the Polish lands,"... this rather implies Polish communism in 1817 and completely ignoresany historical facts leading to the evolution of Żydokomuna. This is the kind of thing that just needs to be written much better to appropriately represent the evolution of Żydokomuna, whether it's a term or stereotype. If all you're going to do is insist on anti-semite and jew-baiting in every response, you're not participating in a discussion. —PētersV (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The question didn't concern Gross' work, the question was whether the term was a stereotype or a neologism (see title of this section). I am noting that many sources describe the term as an antisemitic stereotype, while zero sources describe it as a neologism. Greg put in the "neologism" bit with the entirely unsupported orginal research claim in his summary "Zydokomuna is a neologism, not an anti-Jewish stereotype", and then reverted it back in again with the truly bizarre and uncivil summary "(Undid revision 244499222 by Boodlesthecat (talk) no original research as per WP:NOR)." Discussion of Gross is not immediately relevant to the question "Neologism or stereotype?"; the overwhelming consensus is "antisemitic stereotype."
The section is still wrong, since Niemcewicz never used the term Zydokomuna (contrary to Tymek's erroneous summary " the stereotype was born later, Niemcewicz only coined the word"); he used the term "Judeo-Polonia," which is described as a early variant of the anti-semitic conspiracy theory, which later incorporated the "communism" charge. the stereotype came first, in the form of "Judeo-Polonia," the "zydokomuna" version was later (it would be interesting to track down the first appearance of the term "zydokomuna"). Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Niemcewicz did not invent the term "Żydokomuna," it should not be credited to him in the article. Nihil novi (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the misattributing paragraph. Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be deleted; it should simply be restored to the version which properly attributes his role in the development of the stereotype, as in this version, which was reliably sourced. The main problem was atributing the term to him, rather than the idea. His "Judeo-Polonia" is seen as a direct precursor of the "Zydokomuna". 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Boodlesthecat Meow?
Was it a pamphlet or a novel? How was it published during the Jewish Enlightenment—in 1858? Nihil novi (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think that a more appropriate place for discussion of "Year 3333" would be here. "Żydokomuna" hardly seems the place for a free-wheeling discussion of medieval European antisemitic calumnies and modern Romanian antisemitism. Nihil novi (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of reliable sources explicitly trace the zydokomuna stereotype to Niemcewicz, here, for example. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You refer above to The Neighbors Respond by Antony Polonsky and Joanna B. Michlic. Have you read beyond p. 214, to which you refer, with its reference to "Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz's 1817 dystopia, The Year 3333, which described a Warsaw of the future... that had been taken over by a mafia of superficially Europeanized Jews"—conceivably, more a critique of the non-Jewish Poles of his time than of Poland's Jews? If you had read beyond that isolated reference, you might have realized what complex questions still remain unanswered regarding the Jedwabne murders that the book addresses, and more broadly regarding the state of Jewish–non-Jewish relations in Poland under various historic circumstances. An understanding of all these matters is not advanced by the cherry-picking and gross oversimplifications that you seek to insert into the Żydokomuna article. For every antisemitic Roman Dmowski there are far more polonophile Artur Rubinsteins. Nihil novi (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Nihil Novi, you interpretation of "a mafia of superficially Europeanized Jews" to mean "conceivably, more a critique of the non-Jewish Poles of his time than of Poland's Jews" is a novel one indeed, but unfortunately not backed by any RS's (which instrad interpret as a "critique" of assimilated Jews attemting to undermine Poland. As for the great Maestro Rubinstein, if you have any of his comments on Żydokomuna, please feel free to add them. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that the last link supplied above by User Boodlesthecat is an illegal entry. Don't click on it until you want to lose your unsaved edits. Have checked it twice already. greg park avenue (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. The link worked fine for me. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You must have better browser or windows or antivirus program than I have. Mine was wiped out after two attempts to connect to this website (with a message illegal operation performed displayed). My warning was to editors like me with perhaps an out-of date PC. Actually, Wikipedia is for all, not just for users with state-of-the-art devices, no? greg park avenue (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Google poisoning? LOL. M0RD00R (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Well_poisoning#Contemporary_accusations? LOL. greg park avenue (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research moved to talk

I've moved the following original research to Talk:

As cited by Tadeusz Piotrowski from the summary of Jewish participation in the prewar Polish communist movement by Jaff Schatz

throughout the whole interwar period, Jews constituted a very important segment of the Communist movement. According to Polish sources and to Western estimates, the proportion of Jews in the KPP was never lower than 22 percent. In the larger cities, the percentage of Jews in the KPP often exceeded 50 percent and in smaller cities, frequently over 60 percent. Given this background, a respondent's statement that "in small cities like ours, almost all Communists were Jews," does not appear to be a gross exaggeration.Poland's Holocaust p. 37

What on earth does this apologetic material have to do with the antisemitic canard Żydokomuna? Does the source bring this material up in the context of this myth? Also, why are people again citing the sociologist's Piotrowski's cherry-picked quotations from Schatz's work? Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is one big selection of information cherry-picked by you and your buddies. And what on earth does the poisoning of wells have to do with Jewish-Communism? This is the finest example of OR I have seen. The section you wish to censor is perfectly valid. Tymek (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Piotrowski's notes on significant participation of Jews in communist movement is much more relevant than well poisoning... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that the sources you object to actually refer to Żydokomuna, unlike the material you added. Do you not notice that crucial difference? Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This Piotrowski, User Jay-G, is backed up by an established educational institution University of New Hampshire. He might be a little biased but after you supported User Boodlesthecat littering Wikipedia with his evidently biased Gross backed up by Princeton University, I wonder which side are you on: Ivy League or State Colleges? I personally prefer Monday Night Football over NFL. greg park avenue (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of cherry-picked, I was amused going through edit history to see something by Cherry (a text already cited) but added by the "wrong party" (Piotrus) summarily deleted. Apparently even Cherry is cherry-pickable by the "right parties" (Boodlesthecat et aliter). PētersV (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Greg, Piotrowski is a Professor of Sociology at University of New Hampshire at Manchester, a junior public college with under 2,000 students, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't even grant graduate degrees. Gross, by contrast, is Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University, one of the most prestigious universities in the world. In addition, far from being "backed up by an established educational institution", Piotrowski's book Poland's Holocaust, which you used as a source, was not "backed up" by any university press, but was instead published by McFarland & Company, a commercial venture. By contrast, Gross's work Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, to which you so vociferously object, was first published by Princeton University Press, as was his more recent work Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Money talks, bullshit walks, User Jay-G. Did you know Princeton tuition is highest among Ivy League set at $60,000 a year and 60% of the students there are foreigners, like sons and daughters of rich oil sheiks? Most Americans simply cannot afford it. For comparison Harvard tuition is only $40,000. Did you know that at Rutgers, NJ or at that little college in Manchester, NH, you may attend the college for just little over $3,000 a year and not have to drive a $40,000 car and even live on campus without other snobs making jokes of you? But you must pass tests, dad's money means nothing. Did you know Princeton maintains a private airstrip for VIPs? But that's cheap, may come from tuitions. But did you know they also maintain a two mile small particle accelerator called Tomakawk to produce controlled fusion, an experiment which so far after 20 years of operating brought zero results? Do you know how much does it cost? 2 billion dollars just to build it and who do you think pays for that? I tell you who - that money comes from our government grants meaning us taxpayers, not from tuitions or their results of research which are none or close to nil. Harvard at least prints valuable scientific books I use since years like for example Jacobian elliptic funtion. Lately I also use Latex program made by Harvard. There are at least 20 bestselling writers like Robin Cook I know of they're coming from Harvard. I never heard about one coming from Princeton. Sorry, Jan T. Gross , Polansky and Michnic is a miserable exception. I once wrote here in Wikipedia: if you wanna find a crook follow the money - if they can skim US government of billions, what a book like Fear or Neighbors respond would cost, what do you think? Piece a cake. greg park avenue (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A brief comment, I think the second part of Jay's entry is much more important than the first part, that is publications and the relative standings of the publishers rather than the mere comparison of the places of employment. The standing of the researcher is much more determined by where he publishes than by who is his current employer. The books being published by Princeton University Press is the highest validation of the scholar, especially when it comes along with many publications in the peer-reviewed academic journals which is evidently the case for Gross. --Irpen 20:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the mechanisam of university presses, such as PUP. They don't print or reprint manuscripts submitted by outsiders, only by employees and persons affilitated with Princeton University. The books published by PUP are not highest validation of the scholar since they don't take responsibility for its content, only its author does. If it's a hoax, the author takes responsibility and no one else. In this case Jan T, Gross is responsible for its findings and so far no peer-reviewed academic journals corroborated his revelations. No one but politically involved newspaper editors as Thane Rosenbaum from LA Times or Margolick from NY Times and such, who applaud it for their personal reasons (Rosenbaum is a lawyer and political activist directly involved with an ongoing civil lawsuit Holocaust survivors vs Poland). Their headline is you read it it breathlessly - this one even made it to Wikipedia thanks to the activity of Boodles et al. Irpen, are you going to join their club? I think you as an editor who started over 100 articles can do better than that. greg park avenue (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It's clear you don't understand how university presses work. Princeton University Press prints books by authors from other universities. As one example, it published Anarchist Voices by Paul Avrich, who taught at Queens College. Princeton University Press is typical of university presses in this regard. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reliably sourced information

This deletion by Nihil Novi removed a whole section in which multiple reliable sources trace the origins of the Zydokomuna stereotype to the "Year 3333" publication. Removing it, with multiple reliable sources, and other relevant reliably sourced material tracing the history of this antisemitic concept is pretty close to vandalism. I recommend trhat it be restored. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why indeed referenced information over the origins of this canard is constantly removed? Respectable scholars agree that this just another (modern) form of old anti-Semitic myth (and this is explicitly said in the references), and here in Wikipedia some users not only delete this referenced information, but are trying to deny on talk and in article, that it is a stereotype at all. Well, I'm sorry guys, but this a road to nowhere. Zydokomuna is not a term, it is not a historical fact, it's an anti-Semitic canard, and any attempts to make it look like real fact, a deemed to failure. Therefore article needs to be rewritten from scratch, under supervision of neutral editors. So far I'm tagging this article appropriately. M0RD00R (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between sources that trace back the anti-Semitism reflected in Żydokomuna to not just "3333" but the middle ages and sources that discuss what Żydokomuna (actually) was. The article is about Żydokomuna, not about the history of anti-Semitism in Poland. PētersV (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But if scolars trace Zydokomuna canard back to the classic anti-Semitic myths and not only it is referenced, it is explicitly said in reliable sources, this obviously does belong to the article. M0RD00R (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources make the connection. End of discussion. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Tracing the ancestry of Żydokomuna is one topic, discussing what Żydokomuna is, is another. PētersV (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, Żydokomuna is a proper noun. It is not an adjective (Żydokomuna myth, Żydokomuna canard, Żydokomuna... whatever). Whatever political paranoia it embodied, that paranoia was real and palpable. Paranoia (by definition) is not based on reality. Żydokomuna is not a generic anti-Semitic stereotype, let's stop trying to make it into just a continuation of anti-Semitism dating to the black plague.
   "Jewish communism" did not come to being in the Middle Ages. "Jewish communism" evolved as the result of Bolshevism during the inter-war period in Poland and elsewhere. At best, to say Żydokomuna traces its roots to "classic", if you will, anti-Semitism is no more than two sentences. Instead, all the article appeared to be doing was going further and further back in time for the origin of Żydokomuna. Middle ages? Let's not be silly, here. —PētersV (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Żydokomuna is not a proper noun it is a pejorative slur. It does not translate as Jewish Communism, but rather something as Jewish-commie. It has very strong pejorative connotation. If you want to discuss ethnic composition of Bolshevik Party, please do so at appropriate article. But to do this under article named after slur, is simply offensive. To make my position more clear, I'll make simple analogy - it's just as inappropriate as would discussion about Polish immigration into France would be, if it was done at this article. A slur, a stereotype or a canard, should only be discussed as such. Regarding whether Żydokomuna is a generic anti-Semitic stereotype or not, you surely must understand, that your opinion that it isn't, is not universally and academically accepted fact. M0RD00R (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you really at a loss for material that is germane to the topic of Żydokomuna? As authors cited at length by Polonsky and Michlic show in Neighbors, some non-Jewish Poles in the 20th century felt that they had grounds for associating some Jews with an international ideology and political movement that they saw as inimical to Poland. Why not include a balanced discussion of this, instead of loading the article down with remote historic references of questionable direct relevance? The latter loading is indeed a "poisoning of the wells." Nihil novi (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The sources directly tie the anti-Jewish stereotypes to "Żydokomuna". Thus your claim that they are "remote historic references of questionable direct relevance" is specious. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Delineation of relevant reliably sourced material that has been deleted/vandalized

Statement: "The stereotype behind Żydokomuna is rooted in medieval anti-Semitic myth, that of Jews spreading the disease. Source: Stola, In: Robert Blobaum. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland Cornell University Press p293-294. Confirmed.

Statement: "Modern forms of demonization of Jews included accusations of white slave trade, criminal activities like counterfeiting and racketeering." Source: Blobaum Antisemitism and Its Opponents 81-82 Confirmed.

Statement:

" The specific Żydokomuna stereotype of the anti-Polish Jew and an organized Jewish conspiracy threatening the the existing social order dates back to a pamphlet (written in 1817 but not published until 1858) by the Polish Enlightenment writer and political activist Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, The Year 3333, or the Incredible Dream (Rok 3333 czyli Sen niesłychany).[6][7][8] The novel reflected the widespread fears of Jewish economic influence and a desire to slow down or halt the process of Jewish assimilation, and presented a doomsday vision in which Poland would become a sinister "Judeo-Polonia" run by assimilated Jews. It described a Warsaw of the future, renamed Moshkopolis (in the Polish, Moszkopolis) after its Jewish ruler Moshko (in the Polish, Moszko),[8] and was published during the period of European Jewish history known as the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah).

Sources:

  • Magdalena Opalski, Israel Bartal. Poles and Jews: A Failed Brotherhood. University Press of New England, 1992. P29-30. Confirmed.
  • Joanna B. Michlic. Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present. University of Nebraska Press, 2006. Pages 47-48. Confirmed.
  • Antony Polonsky, Poles, Jews and the Problems of a Divided Memory, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, page 20. Confirmed.

All of these sources present their material in discussions of Zydokomuna, Judeo-communist myths, and stereotyping of Jews as fomenting anti-Polish conspiracies. Which is what this article is about. So stop the BS. The removal of this totally relevant, reliably sourced information is pure disruptive POV pushing and perilously close to vandalism of this encyclopedia. I strongly recommend that it be restored. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've hit the nail right on the head regarding the issue here. Including other unrelated forms of demonizing Jews and devoting as much extended narrative here to tie Żydokomuna to anti-semitism having nothing to do with Communism--medieval well-poisoning is really not required even if it is reputably sourced--makes the article read more like a coat rack that has nothing to do with Żydokomuna. The purpose of the article is to inform about Żydokomuna, not to be a soapbox to endlessly denounce Żydokomuna. —PētersV (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Peters, this edit [20] is questionable . Let's build article based on reliable sources, and not on opinions, which statement that "conspiracy theory" is ***far*** more accurate than "stereotype" is. It is your opinion, you have a right to it but is it shared by reliable sources? Looks like it is not - [21] v [22]. M0RD00R (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" works fine for the Jewish Bolshevism article, and it is used in real (non-WP) sources. Also, as it read, it was perilously close to plagiarism of the cited source. The purpose here is to write a cohesive descriptive narrative, not to merely daisy chain a bunch of citations nearly verbatim. Do you believe "conspiracy theory" is not descriptive or applicable? After all, the word "paranoia" is used in at least one source cited in the article. The term fits well without misrepresenting the cited source. I don't think there's any controversy around the ultimately anti-Semitic nature of Żydokomuna or that the term evolved into a stereotype. But how many times does one have to repeat "anti-Semitic" and "stereotype" in one article? —PētersV (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the difficulty is you are having. This article is "Żydokomuna," Żydokomuna is an anti-semitic sterotype. In the course of the article, we can either say "Żydokomuna" or we can refer to it by what it is (an anti-semitic stereotype, or a stereotype).
The Titanic article is about a ship. If you look at that article, you will see that, in a few dozen instances, rather than repeat "Titanic" every time the ship is referred to, the word "ship" is used. It would seem odd to register a complaint to the effect of "how many time do we have to repeat "ship" in one article?"
There are, no doubt, some sensitive readers who may feel themselves getting a bit seasick by seeing the word "ship" repeated a number of times; in which case it would be advisable for them not to look at the Titanic article too often. Likewise, it might be the case that there are readers and editors who may get queasy looking through well sourced material documenting the origins and history of the anti-semitic Żydokomuna stereotype, and it's relationship to antisemitic violence, pogroms and purges over many decades. In which case, ti may be advisable as well for such sensitive readers limit their viewing of this article to those times when they can do so in an objective frame of mind. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy to "Titanic" and "ship" is flawed. Such an article on the Titanic would not paint the Titanic as the endpoint of poor ship-building technique dating to the middle ages as its first paragraph of content, "ship" being a stereotype for "leaky death bucket." —PētersV (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well repetition of "anti-Semitic" and "stereotype" is not a major problem with this article because: a.Zydokomuna is "anti-Semitic stereotype" b.I don't see any undue repetition What I see that may be a major problem with this article are the attempts to depict this phenomenon not as a myth, but as a real historical fact. If we are playing the analogy game, I'll throw in another one. Imagine Wiki article about Irish alcoholic problem stereotype, not focusing on "stereotype" part of the subject, but rather going into details of James Joyce or George Best alcohol related issues, spiced up with Shane MacGowan photo etc. Such an article didn't have any chance to survive AfD, for obvious reasons. M0RD00R (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "attempts to depict this phenomenon not as a myth, but as a real historical fact" is a misstatement. No one here is saying no, it's not a stereotype, it's real. What is being said that every stereotype, good or bad, starts with some grain of fact. You cannot deny that fact, nor does affirming that fact affirm the stereotype. Understanding the facts behind a negative stereotype is the first step in understanding its origins. Understanding its origins allows us to understand its lies. Simply shouting from on high that Żydokomuna is based on lies, lies, lies, all lies, and nothing but lies with anti-Semitism as their only raison d'être starting with baseless medieval well-poisoning accusations, is disingenuous at best. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform and educate, not be a personal platform to witch-hunt and obfuscate. —PētersV (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No Vecrumba/Peters, you once again have it backwards. Contrary to your claim "every sterotype starts with some grain of fact," what is more accurate is that every sterotype starts with BIGOTRY. The sooner you accept that reality, and stop trying to find that "grain of truth" that you think is so central to this myth, the sooner this article will approach the quality of a 21st century encyclopedia article, rather than a backwoods propaganda pamphlet. Which means understanding the bigotry behind a negative stereotype, not the "fatcs" behind it. The "facts" always follow the bigotry; any bigot can find "facts" to fulfill a racist stereotype. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Timelines

I fixed several timeline problems:

  1. the use of the term Żydokomuna (it didn't become popular with the Bolsheviks, it originated with the Bolsheviks);
  2. using 1817 as a primary date for 3333, not 1858 when it was published and could influence public opinion;
  3. the whole "modern demonizing" quote provided no context for when or where (other than the source title including reference to Poland); I moved it down in the article and made the note that accusations such as the white slave trade at the start of the 20th century were not just Polish.

As for reference to my difficulties above, these are some that I see. A more fundamental timeline issue is that "Origin" needs to start not with anti-Semitism (well-poisoning in the middle ages--why not go back even further?) but with Jewish Communism (that is, 20th century). That doesn't mean eliminating the first paragraph, but there are much better means of working such scholarly perspectives into the body of the article. —PētersV (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the material as stated in the article in the timeline is reliably sourced. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, the article is about Żydokomuna, which did not exist before the Bolshevik revolution. It's really quite simple. You have two choices:
  1. Start with Żydokomuna, discussing what realities, paranoias, and stereotypes (in that order) fed it
  2. Start with anti-Semitism, discussing medieval well-poisoning, white slave trade, criminal activities as stereotypes. If we do that, I'll be glad to provide historical data on where those anti-Semitic stereotypes all evolved from--none having anything to do with Żydokomuna. And then we can move on to #1.
As written, the article presents Żydokomuna as a culmination/summation of Polish antisemitism drawn from other stereotypes/demonizations with no context for how those prior stereotypes arose. Just as Communist Jews provided a seed (not as "justification", just as a "fact" that could be used to grow something quite different) for Żydokomuna, there are similar "seeds" for many of the other stereotypes mentioned. If you're going to include a laundry list of anti-Semitic stereotypes, then you need to provide that same historical context for their origin. You would present an additive one-dimensional view:
  • anti-Semitic stereotype 1
    + anti-Semitic stereotype 2
    + anti-Semitic stereotype 3
    +....
    + anti-Semitic stereotype n
    + alleged Jewish Communist leadership (historical seed) => Żydokomuna
when it's an evolution:
  • historical seed 1 -> anti-Semitic stereotype 1
  • historical seed 2 -> anti-Semitic stereotype 2
  • historical seed 3 -> anti-Semitic stereotype 3
...
  • historical seed n -> anti-Semitic stereotype n
  • = summation of all historical seeds and all corresponding anti-Semitic stereotypes
    + historical seed n+1 = Jewish Communism => anti-Semitic stereotype n+1 = Żydokomuna
 
If you're going to include historical context, you have to include all of it. —PētersV (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You are making it too complicated
1. Origins--reliably sourced descriptions of precursors of Zydokomuna--the various strains of Polish anti-semitism, scapegoating of Jews, allegations of Jews as enemies of the Polish state, Jews as subversives, Jews as criminals, Jews as alien body within the Polish nation, Jews as polluters of Catholicism--->Jews as socialists--->communists. Its currently summarized; there is plenty of additional mareial that can be added on this, from Porter, Weeks, Michlic 2006--these books are all about this issue. But the origins section should just be a summary. I can expand it if you like.
2. The advent of the full blown zydokomuna stereotype c. 1918
This is roughly what we have now, all reliably sourced. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
My point is that each of the prior strains of anti-Semitism each have their own origins. If you are going to paint anti-Semitism building up into Żydokomuna like a cancer tumor finally erupting, then you are talking the evolution of anti-Semitism in Polish/Slavic Eastern Europe, a lot bigger than Żydokomuna. Or we can deal with Żydokomuna specifically without the complete history lesson (an "Origin" section that should be a fraction of the current size). Or we can simply delete the article and fold into Jewish Communism. —PētersV (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you are offering three different ways to dilute the fact--establsied by multiple reliable sources--that there is a distinct phenomena called Zydokomuna, which is specific to the history of antisemitism in Poland. However, the reliable sources establish it as a distinct phenomena in Poland, with specific origins in earlier strains of Polish antisemitism. If you want to pursue your various avenues of diluting the the undeniable historical relaity of the existence of this phenomena (and it seems that you are intent on doing that by any means you can think of) then feel free to take your proposals to the appropriate boards. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(od) Only on WP would putting the actual topic of the article FIRST in the body of the article and ADDING information (in this case, historical origins of stereotypes that LATER fed into Żydokomuna)--one of the three latest options and the intent behind my original #1 and #2 earlier--be "diluting" facts. To my mind, it rather proves the point your interest here is to present as black-and-white a condemnation of Poles and their (according to you "distinct" meaning unique) anti-Semitism as possible.
   I'm not here to defend or attack anyone. Unlike you, I'm only interested in HISTORY here. You betray your anti-Polish prejudice (whether you recognize it or not) by insisting that Poland is a case unto itself. No, it is not. Virtually all the stereotypes--for example, white slave traders--are, if not multi-ethnic, then certainly "multi-Slavic" and in no way "Polish-specific."
   I'm a bit occupied right now, but I do expect to devote time to organizing the article so the topic comes first and to addressing the abysmally one-dimensional portryal of Jewish-Polish/Slavic relations which it currently presents. It's so lacking any historical perspective that the article should be tagged for coatracking until it's fixed. —PētersV (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
   That said, I don't believe in tagging to make a WP:POINT. PētersV (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the most cogent critique I've seen so far of the article as it now stands. (And a "coatrack" notice would not be out of place.) Nihil novi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Żydokomuna does not translate as Jewish Communism, but rather something as Jewish-commie

Żydokomuna is a proper noun denoting Jewish-Soviet collaboration, which is why it is popularly translated as "Jewish Communism" or "Jewish Bolshevism," the English-language terms it is analagous to. However, properly translated, it means Jewish commune or commonality--collective might be a less stilted definition. By its very choice of words it means "Jewish conspiracy theory." —PētersV (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I did add "highly" to pejorative. "Jew commie" or "Yid commie" (no intent to offend anyone here) may well capture the pejorative part, but "Jewish-Soviet conspiracy" probably best captures the descriptive part given post-war memory is predominant. —PētersV (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Endecja

Boodlesthecat's latest addition paints the Endeks as anti-Semites incarnate. More anti-Polish extremism. It took all of two minutes to find another reputable source stating, in a review of a book on the topic, "Chodakiewicz focuses on the emergence of the Polish Nationalist Movement. Also known as the Endeks [Endecja], it became the largest right-wing formation in Poland. Endeks were anti-German, anti-Communist, anti-liberal, and anti-Jewish. Chodakiewicz cites several sources to support his argument that conservative, nationalist Poles at this time were less anti-Semitic in a racialist sense than they were profoundly pro-Catholic. The Endeks rarely promoted violence against Jews. Chodakiewicz discusses at length how the complex involvement of conservative Poles during the Spanish Civil War reflected their all-consuming hatred of Communism." Refers to Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism--The Borderlands of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries, edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and John Radzilowski.
   Again, using "reputable sources" to paint the most virulently anti-Polish conclusion possible. This one-sided coatrack regarding the evil Poles is getting tiring. —PētersV (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This topic demands a multiplicity of sources, cross-referenced, and woven into a narrative. Not find a source that paints the Poles as really evil and present it as definitive evidence. —PētersV (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with Zydokomuna, which is what this article is about, and which is what the fully sourced material on the Endeks and Zydokomuna discusses? Note also that, as you note, the book review you cite says "Endeks were anti-German, anti-Communist, anti-liberal, and anti-Jewish." Not sure what your point is. Are the Endeks anti-Jewish and not anti-Semitic? I'm lost. Are they less anti-Semitic because they were "pro-Catholic?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
My point is that there are multiple reputable sources on the Endecja and to what degree they did or didn't advocate violence, how many bought into extremism, which "anti-" were they primarily driven by, there's actually their theory of Jews and Masons taking over society, and so on. You keep insisting "fully sourced" while also insisting on not constructing a balanced narrative which provides historical perspective.
  • On the one hand, nothing I bring up applies to Żydokomuna.
  • Whereas everything you bring up from medieval myths to white slave traders—none of them Polish-specific—all directly apply to Żydokomuna.
That's my point. Historical perspective must be restored to the article. Otherwise it's a one-dimensional coatrack. —PētersV (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A coatrack is exactly what it has become. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can either of you point to a specific problem? That would be more helpful than complaining. Remember, this is an article about the Zydokomuna stereotype; the material in our article briefly discusses the Endeks relationship to that antisemitic stereotype. Very many sources describe the Endeks as propagating antisemitism, and specifically, the Zydokomuna stereotype; Vecrumbra feels including that in this article about Zydokomuna is somehow "more anti-Polish extremism." So is there other sourced material regarding the Endeks relationship to this antisemitic stereotype that either of you feel should be included? Otherwise it sounds as if you are complaining that an article about a prominent antisemitic stereotype talks too much about an antisemitic stereotype, which seems a bit silly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(od) Re: "Otherwise it sounds as if you are complaining that an article about a prominent antisemitic stereotype talks too much about an antisemitic stereotype, which seems a bit silly." What I am "complaining" about is an article about a prominent antisemitic stereotype providing no historical perspective on either the stereotype which is the subject of the article or the stereotypes which are listed as feeding into it. Except for the fact that there were, in fact, Jewish communists (something that per your edits one is not to mention in the lead of any article regarding any such Jewish communist "per MoS"--say, why don't you go delete that Elie Wiesel is Jewish in his bio article lead?), there is precious little of anything that discusses where any of the stereotypes originated--either they are all purely conjured out of pure "distinct" hatred for Jews by the Poles or it's "not related" to the "subject."
   Your entire agenda here is to supress any historical context whatsoever in support of your personal view of Polish antisemitism being "distinct"--and by that contention, I can only take that to mean "distinctly" widespread and virulent. —PētersV (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
When you are finished ranting and throwing around uncivil accusations, and can cite a specific problem, feel free. As for following the Manual of Style for biographies, which you reference regarding edit to an entirely different article (please note that this talk page is for this article) if you feel that the MOS:BIO needs to be changed regarding not including ethnicity in the lead, please bring it up at the appropriate board. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic ancestry

What is the purpose of this POV-ish section and its weird title? In what way is it related to the XX century myth? Is it only to prove biases of some editors here? This is completely unrelated to the subject. The article is not about Polish/Eastern European history of antisemitism, but about a specific stereotype. Otherwise, we can merge it with some other articles. Tymek (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. Nihil novi (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It was only an initial step to separate out the bucket of stereotypes back to medieval Jews poisoning wells from the later paragraph which actually mentions the origin of Żydokomuna and to move the "Origin" title to that paragraph. There's a lot more reorganization that's required and the filling in of historical perspective (or scale) which is entirely missing. If this were a normal article, the "Origin" section would obviously come first, as that deals with the origin of Żydokomuna.
   Żydokomuna in no way directly refers to Jews poisoning wells, as is being portrayed here, that is, the article should be about the origin of Żydokomuna: its birth and evolution into/as an anti-Semitic stereotype, NOT about a litany of all possible antisemitic stereotypes any Pole might have held close to their hateful heart, the portrayal that Żydokomuna embodies them all across all those centuries of hate dating to medieval times--and that there were Jewish communists is pretty much immaterial and not to be mentioned in WP bios of such Jewish communists. —PētersV (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The brief phrase you are complaining about (a far cry from your description of "buckets of stereotypes!) is taken from a reliable source which states

Its early twentieth-century iteration was in part based on the linking of older assertions of Jews as as ritual murderers and poisoners of wells with "modern" anti-Jewish images of sexual predators, white slave traders, and poisoners of public morality...The criminal Jew lingers mainly in association with the myth of the Zydokomuna and its purported political atrocities against the Polish nation. Blobaum 101-102

So as you see, this source discusses the older assertions as part of a discussion of Zydokomuna, which once again, let me remind you, is the subject of this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
User Boodlesthecat, what is the purpose of adding this material

The National Democrats emerged from the 1930 Polish Sejm elections as the main opposition party to the nationliats, right-wing, authoritarian Pilsudski government. In the midst of the Great Depression and in a climate of widespread nationalist and anti-semitic sentiment, the Endeks launched an anti-Jewish campaign aimed at exploiting dissatisfaction with the government at a time of economic crisis. The anti-Jewish agitation included calls for reducing the numbers of Jews in the country and an economic boycott (launched in 1931), leading to outbreaks of violence against Jews, particularly at universities. Following the death of Pilsudski in 1935, the Endeks made a move towards seizing power in Poland, and began to exploit the "Jewish question" in full

It is completely unrelated to the Zydokomuna stereotype and it does not belong here. The fact that it is referenced means nothing here. It is off-topic, and the article is not about history of Polish antisemitism. It is about a stereotype of Jewish-communism. BTW nationalist, right-wing Pilsudski government. I would say that a little knowledge of Polish history would be helpful here. Too bad some people have no clue about it. Tymek (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the sources, both of which are linked to the text:
  1. ^ Joseph Marcus. Anti-Semitism and Jewish Economic and Social Condition, 1918-1939. In: Herbert Arthur Strauss, ed. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39. Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Page 1106-1116.
  2. ^ Jaff Schatz. Jews in the Communist Movement in Interwar Poland. In: Johnathan Frankel, editor. Studies in Contemporary Jewry. Oxford University Press US, 2005. Page 15ff
Both of these sources describe the launching of an anti-Jewish campaign by the Endeks specifically as it evolved with the propagation of the zydokomuna stereotype, discussed explicitly here and and here in the cited text. For you to say "It is completely unrelated to the Zydokomuna stereotype and it does not belong here", when the clearly cited sources explicitly relate it to the Zydokomuna stereotype is a bit baffling. Your insults about knowledge of Polish history don't help your argument much, either, by the way, although they do clearly violate WP:CIVIL. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you see it as a personal attack. But whoever sees Pilsudski as nationalist, right-wing simply does not know anything about him. A reliable encyclopedia should not misinform its readers. Tymek (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The description comes directly from Strauss, p 1107, a reliable source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can comment on my understanding of history, that being the Endecja and Pilsudski government were in opposition with Piłsudski being the centrist (nationalism does not automatically mean right wing) and the Endecja forming the far right. The Endecja found its participants by scouring the ranks of the disaffected, for example, college students with little prospect for a job in the post WWI economy. My understanding of the discontent stirred up by the Endecja regarding Jews was related to economics and alleged economic control, not the fear of Bolshevik Jews.
   BTW, note that Boodlesthecat's source speaks of the Endecja later "resurrecting" Żydokomuna, so it's not appropriate to paint an unbroken continuum.
   And lastly, per Boodlesthecat treatment of myself and leveling accusations of incivility against others, I suggest to Boodlesthecat that they keep their conversation here to the content of the article. —PētersV (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The sources describe the Endeks launching an anti-Jewish campaign that quickly evolved into resurrecting Zydokomuna. The sources do indeed describe a continuum. both you and Tymek continue to counter sourced material with your own personal opinions. This talk page is not intended for that. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The section should be renamed to something less likely to cause confusion. "Origins of the myth", for example, or just "origins".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Origin of myth" followed by "Origin of term" might be possible. I wanted to insure that "Origin" if only in one subtitle was appropriately associated with the term/subject of the article. The article needs a better division between Jews poisoning wells and Jews who were, in fact, Communists. —PētersV (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pilsudski government

Re: "the nationalist, moderate right-wing, authoritarian Pilsudski government". Sources can be found which question whether the government was "nationalist" (say, more so then the government of France) [23] - "he did not proclaim nationalist slogans", and whether it was right-wing and authoritarian [24] - "Pilsudski still thought of himself as a democrat", "he criticized the Polish right", etc. Or that it was "progressive" [25]. And maybe, the fact that "under Pilsudski the party opposed antisemitism and was regarded with favour by the Jewish community" (same source) should be clarified. Or we could just say "moderate Pilsudski government" and leave the irrelevant stuff out.radek (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could go with just "Pilsudski government", or "authoritarian Pilsudski government" which is also true and factual. Regarding "right-wing", "moderate right wind" etc labels, we should not go into details, because the issue is too complicated, to even start debating it at this article. M0RD00R (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"the issue is too complicated" - yes, exactly, and even with respect to the "authoritarian" part (since unlike authoritarian governments of the time Poland remained a multi party parliamentary democracy with sort of a basic understanding that destabilizing political movements would not be tolerated by Pilsudski and the army). So just go with "Pilsudski government" or even "centrist Pilsudski government".radek (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Centrist would be a stretch, and not the description that is widely accepted [26]. Adjective "moderate" is also not so pupular[27], regarding Pilsudski "authoritarian" regime [28]. How about factual description - "Pilsuski Sanacja regime"? M0RD00R (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The Endecja suffered a major defeat in 1928. Piłsudski hated political parties. What was built up over the next two years and came to power in 1930 was the conservative Non-Party Bloc for Cooperation with the Government (BBWR) which while the clear victor didn't win enough seats to form a government without entering into a coalition, which it mainly did with the centrists. It's odd that the Sanacja article doesn't even mention the BBWR. "Conservative-moderate coalition government" would be appropriate. —PētersV (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Endecja were right-wing, Piłsudski started left wing (Polish Socialist Party) and moved to the center after 1918, eventually creating Sanacja and BBWR. After his death, the colonels group moved Sanacja closer to the right wing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The adjectives (and the sources) describing Pilsudski's government are all over the map. There's definitely some ways in which that government was 'moderate' or 'centrist' - part of the reason behind the coup was to prevent a Weimar-like destabilization due to threats from both the far-right and the far-left, despite the undemocratic ways in which that was implemented. So I'd prefer to go with just "Pilsudski's government" without adjectives. I also have a bit of a problem with qualifying it with the "Sanacja" adjective for some of the reasons stated above and also because that term is more associated with the 'colonel's rule' after Pilsudski's death. Or at least the Sanacja pre-Pilsudski's-death was substantially different from the Sanacja post-Pilsudski's death. So again, leave the adjectives out of it, particularly since this isn't that relevant to the topic.radek (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Żydokomuna-discussion in Jewish magazine Jidełe

Jidełe was a magazine of Jewish minority in Poland in years 1992-2000. It discussed the life of Jews in Poland, Judaism, relation to Israel. It's full description can be read here:[29] Among other topics the magazine led the discussion about the legacy of Żydokomuna in Poland. It can be read online here[30]. Among others were the chief editor of Midrasz(I believe its the leading periodical of Jewish minority in Poland) and the chief editor of Jidełe. I believe it can be an interesting source to read.

--Molobo (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, page 60
  2. ^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Gerrits71 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).