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)[reply]

Perhaps we should say a couple words why Jews were attracted to revolutionary movements. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 03:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As rabbi Soloveitchik said, there are Jews and Jews. `'mikka (t) 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna (2 nomination)

The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV

This article is full of antisemitism and needs to be rewritten.

Then rewrite it. Mieciu K 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I don't write in Eghlish good enough to help you... On Polish Wikipedia we have two articles:

Żydokomuna about the word and how it's used
Jews and communism - about all concepts related with Jewish part in communist movement, including conspiracy theories.

Maybe splitting the article is the good step? A.J. 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]