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)

Canard

I'm going to remove "or pejorative stereotype" again. The lead calls it an antisemitic canard. There's no need to add all the ways in which this could be expressed (pejorative stereotype, myth, epithet, slur, mantra, conspiracy theory, etc). So either we're repeating ourselves, or the editor who keeps restoring this (Piotrus) means something different by it, in which case that needs to be spelled out with sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Stereotype is a more common word in English, familiar to readers, and I don't see why we should change the stable description we had for many years. I support linking the canard article as it is relevant and informative, but the term stereotype is a common description of this, as used by cited sources. I don't see what benefits there are for removing it. WP:JARGON should be minimized if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it is an inelegant way of expressing it. Plus, stereotypes are usually pejorative in some way. Perhaps "[[antisemitic canard|antisemitic]] [[stereotype]]"? François Robere (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Saying I don't see why we should change the stable description we had for many years is akin to insisting on maintaining a WP:Stable version. The language should be retained because it's suitable now, not because it used to be in the article for a long time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that no valid arguments for retaining the designation as a stereotype have been presented so far. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, except the trivial fact that it is a term commonly used in literature? No valid arguments have been presented for ignoring what reliable sources say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What distinction are you drawing between antisemitic canard and pejorative stereotype? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it our job to draw such destinctions? Reliable sources use both terms, why not simply follow what they say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it precisely isn't our job to do that, but you're the one introducing a distinction. The sources don't say "an antisemitic canard or a pejorative stereotype". They use one term. The English Wikipedia calls these libels "antisemitic canards", so there's no reason for this article not to use that term, so long as high-quality sources do. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the introduction of the term canard to the article, as it is supported by reliable sources. What I don't understand is why you keep removing the likewise supported by RS term [pejorative] stereotype. Don't you agree that this is a pejorative stereotype? Are the sources using this term unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I answered your questions in my previous post. You are the one introducing the word "or" without explaining the sense in which you're using it; it is your original research (your OR in both senses). Please find a source that says Żydokomuna is "an antisemitic canard or a pejorative stereotype", so that we can see what the source means by "or". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, an I have to say I am really troubled that an editor here has trouble understanding the English word "or". Reliable sources call this phenonemon a "pejorative stereotype", and you do not say why you want to remove this term. It is a simple question and you should be able to answer it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'm troubled that you don't understand that "or" can be inclusive or exclusive. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Żydokomuna is an attempt to incite hatred. Żydokomuna may involve stereotyping but Żydokomuna has more sinister aims than merely stereotyping in a pejorative manner. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Schatz

The lead cites a book by Jaff Schatz, The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland, University of California Press, 1991. This is too old to rely on as a secondary source, unless it's well-known for some reason. Also, I can't find out who Schatz is. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How come 1991 is "too old"? I would very much like to see this argument discussed at RSN. And the University of California Press is a reliable publisher. [8] identifies him as "a sociologist, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Culture in Lund, Sweden." (this information was just a google search away...). In addition, the book got a number of academic reviews (enough to make it notable), and they seem to be quite positive. For example, a review by Zygmunt Bauman calls the book "an exceptional achievement" and " remarkable study". [9] states that it is a "meticulously researched, carefully constructed study" and "a concise yet comprehensive history of the communist movement in Poland from its inception to the decade of the 1970s while simultaneously fitting into its framework the story of a numerically small but qualitatively significant segment of Polish Jews who were arguably among the most committed "true believers" in the communist vision." [10]: "This book, by a professor of sociology and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Lunds University in Sweden, is a close and careful account of the place of Jews in the history of Polish Communism. That the subject is of importance is beyond question: Jews played a major role throughout the European Communist movement, but nowhere more than in Poland. Out of all proportion to their presence in the population, they were active in the Communist movement from the 1920s to the 1960s, and at certain key moments they were a powerful presence in the leadership of Party and state alike." Far from being problematic, this seems like an extremely relevant (and well-received in academia) source to use to improve this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If he is or was an academic, we should be able to find some trace of him. The article should stick to known historians and up-to-date sources, not 30-year-old secondary sources, especially not by unknown authors. Doing so means it may not reflect the current view. He does seem to have an unusual view, and it bothers me that I can't find that in any current source. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I found him in a 2008 book, Under the Red Banner, where he's described as a sociologist "presently active as a consultant in international business development, culture and society". He lists that one book as his sole publication. I think we should remove him. His argument is that the Jewish communism myth made Poland antisemitic; the antisemitism caused non-communist Jews to leave; therefore, most of the Jews left in Poland were communists, which reinforced the myth. But this is a really bad argument. The myth didn't cause antisemitism. Antisemitism caused the myth. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You can always take it to WP:RSN. As is, this, according to our reliable sources policy, is a perfectly reliable source. BTW, Zygmunt Bauman is a very notable academic and praise from him should put to rest any concerns. Volunteer Marek 05:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You should also reference WP:NOR. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to evaluate reliable sources' arguments and decide whether they're "bad" or "good". What matters is WP:V and that this is a reliable source published by academic press(es). Volunteer Marek 05:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The book is from 1991. That's too old for a secondary source in a history article, for obvious reasons. VM, I thought you were topic-banned from this area. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not. As the article itself said, before you removed this info for some reason, this article is about a post-war term.

As to "1991 is too old" - please point me to a specific policy which says that. Otherwise, we follow Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and WP:OR. Alternatively, as I already suggested you can bring this up at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

About half the article is about pre-WWII history, and two more sections are about WWII and its immediate aftermath.

The question of the age of a source, which I myself raised, is important here - first because it's a field of active research, and second because of the advancements made these studies in EE since the fall of communism; both of these render a 1991 source dated. François Robere (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We did find a trace for him, I quoted two. He may not be high profile academic, but his work was well received and is still being cited by more recent works. Anyway, 30 years in social sciences is not much, and I have never before heard an argument that we should not use works from 1991. Again, the appropriate venue for your concern is WP:RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another way you could persuade others here, would be for you, SlimVirgin, to produce a source which directly contradicts the one that you wish to remove (Schatz). Absent such a source, there does not appear to be any basis for the removal except the WP:OR you posted above. That's not following Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 06:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The top of this page has a link saying Volunteer Marek is banned. This is an attempt to minimise anti-Jewish hate by utilising google search results. Earthydover (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) striking blocked sock comments

Well, SV, it seems Icewhiz agrees with you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)striking my own comment per NOTAFORUM/DFTT, T here refers to the NHTBAE sock of course

No connection to that banned sod. This account is a WP:VALIDALT, created since I fear being targeted by extremist hate organizations in articles related to Polish antisemitism. Now, will you halt the minimisation and trivialisation you are doing here? Earthydover (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC) striking blocked sock comments

That's a good find. Can anyone else find anything about his academic credentials and/or acceptance as a writer? François Robere (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

From [11]: "a professor of sociology and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Lunds University in Sweden". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I collected the seven academic reviews I found at The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond being dated, the book is off topic. Schatz has written a history of Jewish communists in Poland, not a history of the anti-Semitic canard. Utilising this book in an off topic fashion is a dirty ploy.Earthydover (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)striking blocked sock comments

a history of jewish communists may well cover the issue of antisemitism. In fact, if it is omitted, then I would be concerned with author's expertise. Formally, the issue raised is valid: if the book does not discuss antisemitism, then using it here may be WP:SYNTH regardless author's credentials. (In fact, this kind of OR abuse was in the early history of the article Jewish Bolshevism: half of its contents was "Jew counting" (?? no article?), and we had hard time getting rid of it) - Altenmann >talk 18:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The reviews I read do mention some discussion of antisemitism, but it is not the main focus of the book. Although it does contain some discussion of Zydokomuna (see ex. this page); at the very least the very topic is mentioned in at least one review. Btw, the user you replied to have been banned as a sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Schatz is a reliable,scholarly source that certainly can be used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Schatz's LinkedIn profile says he has been the CEO of Schatz Consulting since 1990 and was a "senior consultant" from 1991 until 2015. The book was his PhD thesis. See "Older doctoral theses", Lund University, Dept of Sociology: Schatz, Jaff. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Generation of Jewish Communists of Poland (1990). He was described in 2008 as "a sociologist, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Culture in Lund, Sweden. He is presently active as a consultant in international business development, culture and society". The Institute for Jewish Culture is or was a part-time group that emerged from JUSIL, the Jewish University Student Club, in Lund; the institute distributes Jewish material to schools, etc (see Morton H. Narrowe in S. Llan Troen, Jewish Centers and Peripheries, 1999, p. 196).
  Also here: "Jaff Schatz emigrated from Poland after March 1968. He is a sociologist and historian (e.g. the author of The Generation: The Rise and Fall of Jewish Communists of Poland, UCP 1991), founder and head of the Institute for Jewish Culture (Lund, Sweden, 1974–2003) and consultant/advisor for organizations and enterprises. Dr Schatz defended his PhD dissertation at the Lund University, Sweden in 1990." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

All of which means he may not pass WP:PROF (although his one book is clearly notable per WP:NBOOK). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You've added to the article about the book that he was a professor of sociology. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this is what reliable source clearly states, yes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kike-Commie conspiracy

Is this term really a synonym and more importantly, is it something used widely enough to warrant a mention in lead instead of just redirect (which as of the moment I am writing it, nobody bothered to create?)? I just see 2-3 uses in books and big fat zero in Google Scholar. Seems like some scholar tries their hand at a translation of the Polish term to English, but this translation has not been adopted widely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a translation, and you shouldn't create a redirect. It's another way of saying it. More insulting. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, so if it is too insulting to warrant a redirect (although WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind), why did you decide to add it to the lead? I am confused. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

it comes from the source cited, but i do not think it is a common term to warrant a redirect. The author tried to translate żydokomuna with a similarly insulting term, ie , it is a nonnotable occasional neologism. Not to say that the translation is poor. The correct one would be "jewish-commie government". The term was used to refer to it as to an alleged fact, not to as an alleged conspiracy, ie., jewscommies did not conspire to take over, they just did it. I.e., it is *we* who describe the consept as a conspiracy theory. - Altenmann >talk 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes in lead

Per Piotrus's request (through {{cn}}) I've added precise references and quotes to three statements in the lead.[12] One of the quotes suggests that the claim that the stereotype dates to the Polish-Soviet war is wrong, and that it is older; and several quotes support more than one statement. Nevertheless I chose to keep the text as-is with just one copy of each ref; other editors can shuffle them and CE as they see fit. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 20 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)