Talk:Żydokomuna

Two articles

We have two articles about the same antisemitic canard:

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

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

I am leaning towards the view that it may be a good idea. Polish Wikipedia does not have an article about Jewish Bolshevism. Only Bulgarian, French and Ukrainian seem to repeat our fork. I think the difference is only in the fact that Żydokomuna is a Polish term and so the article (and sources) focus on how this canard/stereotype is relevant to the Polish context, whereas the Jewish Bolshevism is a wider context. But in order to oppose the merge we would need to find sources that explicitly differentiate between those two topics. If no such sources are found, a merger seems reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is most of Żydokomuna is specific to Poland and doesn't repeat in the more general Jewish Bolshevism, so merging would result in a giant "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland" section within "Jewish Bolshevism". A better option for now would be to expand "Jewish Bolshevism", and possibly rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". Also see Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#Propose WP:MERGE with Zydokomuna. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the ping. François Robere is right that it would be a better option rename "Żydokomuna" to "Jewish Bolshevism in Poland". Altenmann is right that the title "JB" is misleading, because 'Jewish Bolshevism' is an unfounded myth, conspiracy theory and antisemitic slur. It's also a misnomer, hence my proposal on 4 April for 'Jewish Bolshevism' in Poland, which would not contradict our policy on shock quotes in article names. (Canard would be right to include, but unfortunately fewer native speakers of English seem to be familiar with this accurate term than know it's the French word for 'duck'.) 'Jewish Communism' in Poland would work even better than JB in P, because scholars writing about the antisemitic canard in Poland in English refer to it in this way. About a month ago I was persuaded [1] by TFD that a merge is not the solution per WP:SPLIT regarding: "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article." The only way to make that merge work would be to drastically cut down content on the canard in Poland in order to maintain balance over at JB; per WP:PRESERVE we're not meant to rush to destroy sourced content. By the way, for final emphasis bear in mind that unclear to the native English reader, "Żydokomuna" is a racist Polish slur which Wikipedia is perhaps unwittingly hosting, without italics or inverted commas; it would both please and embolden a Polish antisemite to see this. It also propagates the lack of awareness of people who presumably in good faith think it's a fact rather than a misconception, such as User:Szymon Frank here [2]. If there really was a 'Jewish alliance with the communists' then per Timothy Snyder (Bloodlands p.140) around 8% of the communists' victims at the Katyn Massacre would not have been Jewish and representative of, the 8% Jewish population of Soviet-occupied Poland 1939-1941. Szymon might be able to adjust in the light of that evidence as it simultaneously challenges another stereotype that he's presumably aware of, if 8% of the men promoted by the Polish Army to officer rank were Jewish in the first place. It's helpful for Wikipedia if we can undermine stereotypes not with counter-stereotypes but by undermining binary opposition of adversarial stereotypes that feed each other. Renaming this article for accuracy alone would therefore happen to also have a helpful side effect. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  

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

Close enough: the evil is in the insinuated connotation. All three terms are supposed to refer to something bad. Why we guess that feminazi is something bad and by implication feminism is bad? - because we know "nazi" is bad. Similarly silicon, i.e condoms, are presented as evil? - holocaust.

Now, to the topic. Why judeobolshevism is (expected to be perceived as) evil? Because of the Jews. In other words, the "recipients" of the term judeobolshevism are already supposed to be antisemitic. The message is: Bolshevism is evil because it is run by the Jews. In other words, the term is not so much an antisemitic canard, as an antibolshevik propaganda. Yes it is antisemitic, because it elaborates on the all-encompassing concept of "world zionist cabal", but the specific target is russia with its bolshevism.

Now from germany to poland. The dislike of russians by poles is well known. Then why not "moskalska komuna" (muscovite communist regime)? Because, i guess poles are russophobes in a lesser degree than they are antisemites. And despite the fact that the hated regime was brought onto them by russians (ok, ussr, but who cares the detail) and controlled from moscow/kremlin, "zydowska komuna" was a stronger insult than "moskalska komuna". Komuna, i.e. polish communist govrrnment was bad because it was run by the jews. Again, antisemitism is a prerequisite, not the goal of the message.

I guess, now you see my point, the two articles are about two different notable attempts to capitalize on the canard "jews conspire to rule the world" to speak against something else. Also, in the case of germany tbe target was ideology, while in poland the target was the state (the secret service (UB) especially, and not without the pretext). - Altenmann >talk 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Altenmann, I appreciate very much your explanations about this, particularly the point that antisemitism is a prerequisite. That point is often not understood. My concern about this article is that it's written as though this was a real thing, or a stereotype just a little exaggerated. And it's used that way in articles. For example, in History of the Jews in Poland:

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

And in Kielce pogrom, it's a "perception": "the Bishop of Lublin, Stefan Wyszyński ... stated that the widespread hostility to Jews was provoked by Jewish backing of Communism (there was a widespread perception that Jews were supportive of Soviet-installed Communist administration in Poland; see Żydokomuna) ..."

I was thinking a merge to Jewish Bolshevism would help deal with this. As for the length, this article is probably too long because it discusses it as a real thing. For example, see the Interbellum section. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

the two cases you quote are examples of one of the typical justifications of antisemitism. I do not know how wikipedia must be fixed to stress this. And yes, the article describes the "real" thing: how it was and how it was perceived, of course with bits and pieces of original reserch and stretching the sources cited. And once again: in poland the issue had nothing to do with ideology, so I dont see how to mix the two, other than under the top-level umbrella "jews are the source of evil". Anyway, I will not take any part here further, because more deep work will require to dig into sources and evaluate them. - Altenmann >talk 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of keeping the two articles separate per WP:SPLIT; both articles are substantial enough to stand on their own. As far as any potential issues go, it would probably not be solved by merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine because one is about the topic in general and the other is about it specifically in Poland (Zydokomuna translates as Jewish Communism.) If we merged the articles, half of it would be about Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, which would be undue weight. For consistency, we could re-name the article Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. TFD (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading the arguments I now lean to the idea that the two topics, while related, deserve separate articles (ZK is a subarticle / subtopic to ZB, per Altenmann's convincing arguments). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You now lean to that idea? That's been your position for years. For example, Talk:Żydokomuna/Archive 3#Proposal of merger with Jewish Bolshevism. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So why these?[3][4] François Robere (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Because a source discussing Jewish Bolshevism and not Zydokomuna belongs in the JB article, not here, particualrly given the consensus not to merge the two articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You claimed that this quote is related to the Jewish Bolshesivsm not Zydokomuna (the Polish variant. -FR) - it does not mention this subtopic[5] and that I don't think his book even uses the term Zydokomuna. And the book is primarily about OUN/UPA (Ukraine), not Poland. Or is Zydokomuna part of Ukrainian culture too?.[6] Well, the book is named "Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-day Ukraine" (emphasis mine) - Galicia having been Polish for much of its history, including the interwar and WWII periods. What's more, the book clearly speaks of this phenomenon in Poland (emphasized bit at the end is was quoted in the article):

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

— Omer Bartov, Erased, pp. 38-40

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

Misrepresent how? We are talking about a specific sentence, which your own edit summary links to the other related article, what is misrepresenting is adding a quote about Jewish Bolshevism to this article where it clearly belongs to the other. Please adhere to our policies, including UNDUE, and don't add semi-relevant content to the lead (where does the quote - or even the book(!) mentions the term 'Zydokomuna'? Also, while it mentions Jedwabne in passing the entire section of the source is about Ukrainian OUN; are you arguing that this book or even chapter is in-depth or relevant to this topic?). The lead is for the summaries of stuff discussed in the body, not for one's favorite semi-relevant quotes. In general, MoS does not recommend quotes in lead as best practices, anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You've presented this source as if it has nothing to do with Poland, when in fact it has everything to do it. Galicia was part of Poland. The book clearly talks about Jewish experience and the stereotype of "Judeo-Communism" in Poland. Hence WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations.[7]

As for WP:DUE - you're arguing that a piece of important background - specifically the statement that "FYI THIS STEREOTYPE IS FALSE!!!" - is undue for the lead of an article about antisemitism? This is not grounded in Policy. François Robere (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, in my view it is you who is clearly misrepresenting this source as relevant and due. Perhaps it's time for an RfC or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Jewish Bolshevism?

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

Ups, I missed this discussion above. Yes, I can see the argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the English Wikipedia is anti-Polish. Noxian16 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)