Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 1

AFD
This page was nominated on the Articles for Deletion page, but I closed it as an incomplete nomination, so it should not be considered as either a 'keep' or a 'delete' recommendation from the community. I mention it here to ensure that any future nominations start with a "second nomination" subpage, as described in the AFD documentation. Turnstep 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewording
Perhaps we should say a couple words why Jews were attracted to revolutionary movements. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 03:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As rabbi Soloveitchik said, there are Jews and Jews. `'mikka (t) 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that an attempt at an excuse? By that logic, all opression is justified. While Jews have been persecuted, they are not themselves free of such crimes as well. That would illustrate a "holier-than-thou" mentality, esp. in the light of current events in the Middle East.


 * Article is antisemitic. For to delete 84.204.107.177 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not. It does describe an antisemitic sentiment of the time. We have Nazism article, which does not mean that it is a nazist article to be deleted. `'mikka (t) 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of the term
I corrected the article to describe the term as it was used through the times, and not simply its the late 20th abuse. I don't think the estimates and their documentation are available online, but the overrepresentation of Jews in the pre-war and early after-war Communist government is universally accepted among the mainstream historians.

It is also pretty much universally accepted that Jews were more likely to cooperate with the Soviets during 1939-1941 occupation than the Polish, but I don't have any hard numbers here. For example Jedwabne massacre seemed to have some elements of anti-Żydokomuna backlash, as Lenin monument was destroyed during it. It would be nice to write something about that part of the phenomenon too. Taw 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

tagged as unverified
this article cites no sources for the term or information listed here. Sources need to be added.--Isotope23 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of "verification" is needed?
There are countless books on the subject - I have just added a link to one of them published by Columbia University Press. What other information needs sourcing?

I had nothing to do with this article until now, and do not participate much in Wikipedia, but the criticism of the article as well as attempts to delete it are not genuine as they simply are means to enforce a taboo on the specific subject of active participation of SOME Jews in the Communism movement and oppression that happened even at the risk of alienating their co-citizens.

Whether we like it or not, the events happened, all can be done now is an attempt to collect the views on the subject from both sides of the conflict. Saa 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Book links are fine. I just want to verify the books, then I will remove the tags.  My only concern is that this was not sourced at all and verification by reliable sources is absolutely a must for articles.--Isotope23 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna (2 nomination)
The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropa gitica) 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No sources
The entire article lacks sources; and presumes that antisemitic ravings have some basis in fact; they do not. Antisemitism is a part of Christian, (and Moslem), theology (and therefore exists in the absence of Jews; and arises because of doubt about the truth of these aforementioned religions, and the need for an enemy to blame who is unable, due to size and resources, to effectively reply). All, or substantially all, of the Jews in Poland were murdered during WWII (in the Holocaust). It is common in backward and superstitious societies, such as Poland, for many to believe outragious fantasies. According to Robert Wistrich most of the Polish peasantry still believes in the Blood libel (see: Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, Pantheon, 1992). --Lance talk 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Żydokomuna" is not antisemitic by definition
Yes, I agree it's derogative, but it's directed not against Jews as a nation, but against Jewish communists. It is often used by antisemists, who change meaning from "most Communists are Jews" to "Jews support communism", but it's also used by people neutral or even by anticommunistic Jews. A.J. 11:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Adam Michnik wrote in Powściągliwość i Praca (nr 6, 1988 r.) "środowiskiem, z którego pochodzę, jest liberalna żydokomuna." (I'm comming from liberal żydokomuna environnment). Did Adam Michnik use "antisemitic" word to describe his own roots? Surely not, so while most used in negative meaning, the term itself has another, more neutral sense and can be used to describe Jewish communists regardless of their hypothetical or actual position in communist movement. A.J. 13:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article is full of antisemitism and needs to be rewritten.
 * Then rewrite it. Mieciu K 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused POV
I don't get it. If you read the beginning of the article, it appears that Żydokomuna is a "conspiracy theory" i.e. something that is not true. However, much of the article reads as if the claim (that Communism was supported by Jews) is true. Thus, the article seems a bit schizophrenic about which stance it is taking. It's OK to present multiple POVs (i.e. that some people say it's true and some people say it's not true) but the article needs to adopt an NPOV stance which views all POVs from a neutral and objective third-party perspective. This article fails to do that. --Richard 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Read conspiracy theory - it's not the same as "false theory". A.J. 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not the "same" but close enough. From the Conspiracy theory article...


 * The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[2] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.


 * The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[3] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.


 * Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.


 * The above text is itself schizophrenic and suggests that there is POV pushing within that article.


 * If this article wants to cast Żydokomuna as a "conspiracy theory", then it needs to say "according to this theory....". If it wants to cast Żydokomuna as being a true concept, then it can do so but the standards for sourcing are higher.


 * We can have the article assert that Żydokomuna is true and qualify it by saying "but some argue that it is a conspiracy theory". Or, we can assert that it is a conspiracy theory and qualify that by saying "but some argue that it is true".  In both cases, proper sourcing will be requireed.


 * What we should not do is start with one POV and subtly crossover to another without signalling to the reader that there has been a shift in POV. Doing that is just confusing.

--Richard 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't write in Eghlish good enough to help you... On Polish Wikipedia we have two articles: Maybe splitting the article is the good step? A.J. 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Żydokomuna about the word and how it's used
 * Jews and communism - about facts and concepts related with Jewish part in communist movement, including conspiracy theories.


 * Unfortunately, I don't read Polish. English Wikipedia has an article titled Jewish Bolshevism which mentions Żydokomuna but the Jewish Bolshevism article is mostly about Jews and the Russian Revolution and not about Jews and communism in general.


 * Here's what I think we need to know... what factual evidence is there that Polish Jews were more involved in the Communist takeover of Poland than non-Jewish Poles? Can it be shown that they were disproportionately represented in the Polish Communist party?  I don't think there is much support for the idea of a "Jewish conspiracy" although there should perhaps be some reference to the use that Nazi propaganda made of that allegation.


 * --Richard 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just read article after your coorrections and I doubt that Polish version could be better. I don't have access to sources you ask: there are however plenty of sources prooving, that overpresence of Jews among communist leaders was (and still is today) a popular theory. A.J. 11:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So the problem is... is Żydokomuna to be treated by Wikipedia as fact or "popular theory" that is unsupported by fact? There are some "facts" provided in the article but without sources.  Is it possible to list the Jews among the Communist leaders?  Also, what is the support for the assertion that Communism had little popular support among Poles?  Are there current sources (in the last 10-15 years) that mention Żydokomuna as being current belief rather than past belief?  --Richard 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some facts, one can list communist leaders with Jewish nationality, as it's done ni pl:Żydzi a komunizm. The main problem is interpretation of these facts :) I'm not expert in this subject, though. Communism is not very popular at all nowdays, so even current beliefs are more about history than today. EOT for me, my vocabulary seems to be not good enough :) Cheers! A.J. 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know Polish but I presume the list you are talking about is in the section titled "Niektórzy polscy komuniści pochodzenia żydowskiego". Can you translate this section title into English for me?  Thanks. --Richard 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's "Some Polish communists of Jewish origin.".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline in Jewish influence
I think the name of this section is completely inappropriate. It can be seen as justification for this conspiracy theory. Overall state of this article is also very poor. Almost nothing is said about results of this antisemitic myth on lives of Polish Jews - from Pinsk massacre of 1919 to Jedwabne pogrom to post WW II pogroms in Poland such as Kielce pogrom. M0RD00R 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So fix it! Write a section about the impact of the myth on Polish Jews.  However, if you claim that a pogrom was inspired or influenced by the myth of Jewish communism, you will need to provide citations to reliable sources to establish the linkage.  --Richard 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The myths were very realistic, when Jewish officers tortured, Jewish lawyers accused and issuded death sentences and Jewish editors printed Marx/Lenin/Stalin's "Collected works". Poles relaced Jews after 1956.Xx236 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This allegation was denied by official sources which claimed that the Ministry of Security employed only one Jewish officer, presumably the head of the Ministry, Jakub Berman
Don't write nonsence -
 * Berman wasn't an officer, he was a party supervisor.
 * Many officers were of Jewish origins, 37% according to Szwagrzyk http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/12/17671.shtmlXx236 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found Szwagrzyk publication independently and added it to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term
The text is POV. It doesn't inform what was the ratio of people of Jewish origins in the Communist Party before 1937. BTW - the article Żydzi a komunizm contains some academic informations. Xx236 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly that article is mostly unreferenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope
I think we should limit this article to discussion of the conspiracy theory/slurr 'Żydokomuna', and the rest should go to History of Polish Jews or even better, to article about Polish Jews in the communist movement or something similar. That said, the line can be blurry - as they say, every great lie is based on a grain of truth (as Szwagrzyk, for example, shows in his research on Jews in SB).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully there will also be an article about Polish Jews and the Catholic Church and even Polish Jews in the Roman Catholic Church. Let's work on it. IZAK 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Frankism.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research & Antisemitic analysis

 * 1) This section below consists of Original research, an attempt to explain an Antisemitic ethnic slur by showing that Polish Jews were more often Communists than Catholic Jews, or by some similar kind of demographic analysis.
 * 2) Also, there is no Single source given, but statistics are taken from all kinds of source.
 * 3) So why does it matter how many Jew were or were not Communist? The situation is the same. There is no possible place for this kind of analysis - because both are equally inappropriate.
 * 4) Furthermore, a text which tries to explain why Jews were Communists as being relevant to this ethnic slur is prima facie antisemitic "on its face." Both are ipso facto derrogatory - and any kind analysist of this kind, associated with abusive terms is absolutely improper. It cannot but somehow justify the abuse of Jews and Poles in the same way.
 * Accordingly, the paragraph below should and must be deleted:


 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS:What does any of the above have to do with the Antisemitic slur?
 * How is it that no one has yet realized that it is totally irrelevant to the article?
 * All these statistics are simply designed to blame Jews for Communism (and to say that Poles were their victims).
 * It is not like asking how many Poles are Republicans or Democrats at all.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

original research excuses and qualifications
The following is wrong:


 * There is no justification for making excuses for this antisemitism by saying other countries did it too, and it was because things were bad during the war. That's original research that's unacceptable.
 * If there are similar terms in these other countries, why are they not simply listed?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestng reading

 * Żydzi skazani na komunę, Polish historian August Grabski in Gazeta Wyborcza, 2002.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename?
I propose that the article be renamed to Jewish Communism in Poland with a new introductory paragraph, and improved historical background about the vast differences in the political role of Jewish communists in prewar and postwar Poland. --Poeticbent talk  17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I agree, although I'd suggest the name Communism and Jews in Poland, and I'd suggest splitting the content to the article, as the żydokomuna slurr is notable - although perhaps it may be merged with something.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But if that's allowed, how come the following is not allowed at Wikipedia Antisemites in Poland? --Ludvikus 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And why not Polish communists in Poland? Why must Jews be singled out for such special scrutiny, but not the Polish people? --Ludvikus 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting "Jews" and "Communism" together is an ethnic slur. Adding "Poland" to it merely makes it a Polish ethnic slur. --Ludvikus 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The role of Polish communists in Poland beginning with the government of Bolesław Bierut and the place of Polish United Workers' Party is already explained under History of Poland (1945–1989) and so, there’s no need for yet another fork, as suggested by Ludvikus. However, the significance of the role played by Jewish communists in the history of postwar Poland is undeniable and can best be explained in this article under the condition that all pejorative terms be used only as illustrations of various reactions of the general populace, if at all. --Poeticbent talk  19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK.
 * Since Polish Communists are discussed in Polish History. By analogy, Jewish Communists should be discussed in Jewish Hostory.
 * Regarding the Polish United Workers' Party I note that there's no artificial, Wikipedian, juxtaposition of terms. Accordingly, we do have a real organization called the Jewish Bund. Any real organization can be discussed and written about. But why create Original Research categories that do not exist outside Wikipedia? I don't know how the Polish Communist Party is written about. I doubt they separated themselves into Catholic Poles and Jewish Jews. It may be interesting and informative to look at it. But since there's no such thing as the Jewish Polish Communist Party I would object writing about that too. --Ludvikus 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here I found two (2): Poalei Zion and the Vereinigte. Both are 100% OK to write about. --Ludvikus 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And here's another OK real organization: Jewish Communist Bund. a.k.a. Kombund. --Ludvikus 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe this counterexample will help make my point better: History of Non-Jewish Poland, or History of Non-Communist Poland, or History of Non-Jewish and Non-Communist Poland. There is something wrong with these, no? I think that all of these deny the Jews the starus of Polish citizenship. There were 4,000,000 Jews in Poland before Hitler, no? So they must have played some role in Polish history just because there were so many. But why separate them into Communists and Non-Poles. I see no legitimate purpose in that. --Ludvikus 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, studying Jews as Communists in Poland is a part of Jewish history. But it is not Polish history. Rather, it is merely Polish antisemitism. --Ludvikus 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree with this kind of logic. Studying Polish Jewish participation in the development of communism in Poland IS an integral part of Polish history including closely related subject of History of Jews in Poland. Denying it is merely Jewish anti-Polonism. --Poeticbent talk  20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I move that the author of this article, P.P., has an opportunity to further shape the name and structure of this article. While no one has exclusive ownership of an article, he seems to have a great grasp of the subject of Jews in the Pale. Dr. Dan 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of komuna
According to the Dictionary of Polish Language (Słownik języka polskiego) by Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN the word komuna has a generally accepted official meaning as well as two colloquial ones:

Lista haseł

wyniki od 1 do 2 z 2 znalezionych

komuna  1. «grupa ludzi żyjących razem na zasadach wspólnoty własności i pracy»

''2. pot. «komuniści»''

''3. pot. «ustrój komunistyczny»''

komuna miejska «organizacja samorządowa w miastach średniowiecznej Europy» 

Henceforth, in translation komuna could amount to any of the following: 1.a) a commune or 1.b) a municipality, 2) the communists (slang) or 3) a communist system (slang). However, in keeping with the Wiki encyclopaedic format, the only acceptable translation of the article name would be Judeo-Communism. Attempts at trying to be even more precise, while veering away from the official nomenclature would inevitably amount to WP:OR. --Poeticbent talk  18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange wording about Niemcewicz
Did Niemcewicz wrote about "Żydokomuna" in 1817 ? And if so it couldn't have meant what the article describes as Żydokomuna, since at that I don't think Jews weren't associated with communism or that term was in widespread usage. So either he didn't wrote that sentence, or Żydokomuna has different meanings then the introduction says it has ? Of course I could be wrong, but it seems strange to me.--Molobo (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just changed this portion of text. Niemcewicz was thinking about the French Revolution, not Bolshevism.--Cellorando (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Światło not relevant?
One of the most popularized defections of a Polish Jewish operative:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to the Żydokomuna conspiracy theory? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The story whose main "hero" was an important UB officer of Jewish origin reinforced the popular feeling that high UB officers are Jews... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as what's wrong with this article. First off--do you have a source that indicates that the story of this particular contributed to the anti-semitic Żydokomuna phenomena? In the absence of a reliable source about Żydokomuna making that connection, surely you see that this is pure original research.
 * But on to the fundamental problem. Notice that the editor who removed the information (which you had characterized as " very relevant info") removed it with an edit summary that said "Removed a piece which as inserted looks like an attempt of justification of this ugly conspiracy theory. Sources on Z[ydokomuna] make no such connection"


 * That summary is exactly correct, and exactly sums up the problem with this article, most of which looks like an original research synthesis just such "an attempt of justification of this ugly conspiracy theory."


 * Compare this article with, eg, the Anti-Polish sentiment article. Should we pepper that article with uncritical factoids illustrating every racist claim made by Nazis or other racists to justify their brutality against Poles? Should we have a delineation of all the Polish actions and qualities that bigots have manipulated in their bigotry against Poles? Complaints about cuisine? Results of intelligence tests? You get the picture. The two articles are like night and day, and this article, as it stands, is hopelessly encumbered with a style, tone and construction that is indeed ""an attempt of justification of this ugly conspiracy theory." Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrowski as a source
The dominant citations for this artcile are uncritical references to Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust. This is quite problematic; in addition to being a sociologist rather than a historian, Piotrowski is himself essentially a proponent of the Żydokomuna myth. He has no stature as a scholar of Polish Jewry, and is generally a marginal figure on the subject. Such a heavy reliance on his book is quite problematic for an encyclopedia article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)