This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1. The motif is falsely classified as "antisemitic canard of the Jewish moneylender". First, it is not antisemitic (unless lending money is considered bad). Second, "canard" implies a false, unfounded stereotype, while this one is not unfounded. Polish Jews used to work in money-related services (money lending, banking, accounting, etc.).

2. Link to "Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia" is particularily bad. It is unrelated, as African Americans are unrelated to Polish Jews, and the "Jew with a coin" has nothing to do with racism, as Jews are a nation, not a race.

While the "Jew with a coin" is an interesting phenomenon and it is worth describing in Wikipedia, the description in the article is far from neutral and is in fact an example of antipolonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.17.210.2 ( talk) 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The article seems to be a clutter of misleading accounts. eg. the given source ^[1] states – “ which was exploited in both Polish and German, especially Hitler’s anti-Semitic iconography” not – “which was exploited in Nazi and Polish anti-Semitic iconography” which might misleadingly suggest Poland’s connection to German Nazism. Someone from Wikipedia editorial volunteers should take a closer look at the entire clutter and confirm what sources say.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gablejibs ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Granted, anecdotal, but that is how it works in Poland in 2019: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mF4UtL4M7I8 Zezen ( talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 02018 0505 Solina-Stausee cropped.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 02018 0505 Solina-Stausee cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted (keeping the constructive caption change, and modifying practice to imagery) as:

1. "nonesense" [1] is not a rationale when multiple RSes - e.g. [2] state "This stereotypical depiction is thus controversial, although it seems quite innocent next to the common and widespread phenomenon of the Zydki – the figures of a Jew holding a coin, thought to be a talisman that brings good fortune and wealth, which has overtaken nearly all other such depictions".
2. [3] - " most likely a self promo" - reported in two independent RSes.
3. [4] - " rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations" - the author is an academic in a relevant field who sees the widespread stereotyping of Jews in Poland relevant to these figurines.
4. [5] - "POV COATRACK" - the source - a reliable source - clearly ties the two phenomena together. I clarified the language - diff - to reflect that the source ties this together - "another possible reason for the existence of the Zydki: It has to do with a newly published book in Poland that is creating an uproar similar to the one that Jan Gross’s book “Neighbors” elicited. The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews..

Icewhiz ( talk) 14:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The figurines do exist but they are not common, and as several sources note, they are a recent phenomenon. The source does NOT "tie two phenomena together". You do. It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article. You are, once again, using false edit summaries. My changes were explained, so why do you claim otherwise? WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus and these needs to stay out, also per WP:REDFLAG. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop following me around, as I requested here. As for your response - reputable NEWORGs and academic experts tie this to Polish antisemitism, your assertion this is "racist" is a personal attack as well as a BLP violation (vs. the cited BLPs in the article) and should be struck. IDONTLIKE is not grounds for removing sourced information. I provided two sources for "common" and "popular" - your personal OR that they "are not common" - is of no value without a source - please provide sources to back up your claims. You did provide a coherent response to points 2,3, and 4 above ("racist" does not cut it). In addition, in your blanket revert you removed new content with the expert views of Erica Lehrer, and Stanisław Krajewski, as well as a newly added section on "Customs and superstitions" - you did not provide a rationale for these 3. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article represents extreme POV and is very selective in use of sources.For example Erica Lehrer is quite positive about many aspects of these(cringy IMHO) lucky charms, and asks not to see them solely as negative.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a new article. Lehrer doesn't disagree on this being antisemitic, in fact she agrees it is - "Dr Lehrer agreed that the figurines showing a Jew holding a coin drew on a long history of antisemitic imagery. "It's hard to cleanse the figurines of that no matter how positively some Poles say they intend this image to be. The idea of the moneyed Jew as a sinister character has deep roots in the Christian world." - [6] - she does however believe that other aspects of this phenomena should be highlighted as well and that the figurines should be displayed from an ethnographic curatorial perspective. If you have sources to expand the article - all power to you. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I added Lehrer. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Content from literature researcher Bożena Umińska-Keff has been removed + [7]. The text in the article read:

According to literature researcher Bożena Umińska-Keff [ pl, the stereotyping of Jews in Poland is widespread, particularly so in the church. Umińska-Keff sees in the imagery and superstitions surrounding the figurines all the basic elements of antisemitism, and sees the figurines as part of a wider tradition of antisemitic images in Poland (Jewish wizards, Jews making blood from children, Judensau, Żydokomuna, etc.). Umińska-Keff ties the current figurines to the dispossession of the Jews by the Germans and Poles during the Holocaust. ^[1]

The following in the source supports this: (all in the final section - her conclusion - "JAK POWISI, TO SKRUSZEJE")

1. "W Polsce najczęściej antysemityzm nie jest rozpoznawany jako antysemityzm, czyli jako własny, wrogi wobec pewnej grupy mit czy zestaw stereotypów. Jednocześnie treści tego mitu są ogromnie popularne i nadal bierze się je za fakty. I tak trwa powielanie mitów oraz stereotypów, aż do poczucia oczywistości, czyli w sumie do braku refleksji, do otępienia. Jedyną skuteczną odpowiedzią na to byłaby edukacja, ale jej nie ma. Za to powielanie stereotypu zachodzi w wielu miejscach, głównie w Kościele. Jedynie z tych powodów wizerunek Żyda z pieniążkiem może w Polsce uchodzić za neutralny. Ale naprawdę jest on wpisany w długi szereg antysemickich wizerunków: jest w nich Żyd kuzyn świni (Judensau), Żyd diabeł, Żyd czarownik, Żydzi wytaczający krew z dziecka, Żyd gruby kapitalista z cygarem, Żyd chudy bolszewik z nożem, Żyd Trocki na górach trupich czaszek, żydokomuna, szczury, robactwo; google translate: "In Poland, the most common anti-Semitism is not recognized as anti-Semitism, ie as its own, hostile to a certain group of myths or a set of stereotypes. At the same time, the contents of this myth are extremely popular and are still taken as facts. And so it continues to duplicate myths and stereotypes, to the feeling of obviousness, that is, to the lack of reflection, to dullness. The only effective answer to this would be education, but it is not. For this, stereotyping takes place in many places, mainly in the Church. It is only for these reasons that the image of a Jew with a coin may be regarded as neutral in Poland. But he is really inscribed in a long series of anti-Semitic images: a Jew, a cousin of a pig (Judensau), a Jew, a devil, Jew, a wizard, Jews making blood from a child, a Jew a fat capitalist with a cigar, a Jew a skinny Bolshevik with a knife, a Jew named Trotsky in the mountains of corpses skulls, Judaomunas, rats, vermin;.
2. " Są w tym wizerunku i w tym, co należy z nim robić, wszystkie podstawowe elementy antysemityzmu: człowiek, który nie jest zindywidualizowany, jego bezduszna istota, czyli pieniądz, i przemoc, której wolno wobec niego (jego wizerunku) użyć. A tyle już oddał, ten Żyd. Domy po nim zostały i mieszkania, sklepy i sprzęty, często dziadowskie co prawda, świadczące o dziwnym braku pieniążka." google translate: "They are in this image and in what should be done with it, all the basic elements of anti-Semitism: a man who is not individualized, his soulless being, or money, and violence, which is allowed to him (his image) to use. And that's how much he gave away, this Jew. Houses after him have been left and apartments, shops and utensils, often saddly, which testify to the strange lack of money.".
3. "Może wtedy Niemcy wieszali ich głową w dół i nastawiali kieszenie, no ale nie sami. „Część getta była już po troszeczku zamieszkiwana przez Polaków. Kobiety polskie najspokojniej na świecie robiły już porządki w mieszkaniach, gdzie leżały jeszcze gorące trupy, obierały kartofle przed mieszkaniami, a Żydzi to wszystko widzieli. Ich współobywatele Polacy zakładali nowe, beztroskie życie, zajmowali ich mieszkania, dziedziczyli ich majątek" – pisał Calek Perechodnik, właściciel otwockiego kina, we wspomnieniach z tamtejszego getta zatytułowanych „Spowiedź". Takie było pożegnanie z patronami polskiego powodzenia fiskalnego – upokorzonymi, obdartymi ze wszystkiego. I nie tylko przez hitlerowców, ale bardzo często – jak pisze ironicznie Perechodnik – przez „współobywateli". Upokorzeni, wyrzuceni poza wspólnotę ludzką, zaszczuci, gazowani, rozstrzeliwani, pochowani „w powietrzu/tam nie leży się ciasno" (Paul Celan, „Fuga śmierci"). Tak odchodzili ci władcy polskich sieni i kieszeni. Skoro cały ten kontekst nie ma znaczenia..." google translate: "Maybe then the Germans hung their head down and set their pockets, but not alone. "Part of the ghetto was inhabited by Poles. Polish women were already doing the cleanest in the world, in the apartments, where the hot corpses were still lying, peeling potatoes in front of the apartments, and the Jews saw it all. Their fellow citizens set up a new, carefree life, occupied their apartments, inherited their property, "wrote Calek Perechodnik, the owner of the Otwock cinema, in the memoirs of the local ghetto entitled" Confession. " Such was the farewell to the patrons of the Polish fiscal success - humiliated, stripped of everything. And not only by the Nazis, but very often - as Perechodnik wrote ironically - by "fellow citizens." Humiliated, thrown out of the human community, arrested, gassed, shot, buried "in the air / there lies not too much" (Paul Celan, "Fuga death. ") So the rulers of the Polish court and pockets have left you, since all this context does not matter ....

Very clear, black on white. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the whole Prechodnik, instead to cherrypick. Are you sure you want me to quote him?

Millions of Poles were expelled by Germans, their property robbed by German state or individual Germans. Many lost their homes and families.

carefree life -I understand that Perechodnik envied the Poles, but do you claim that life of Poles under Nazis was carefree? Your statement is immporal and ignorant, black on white. Xx236 ( talk) 11:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish-Jewish contacts were defined by economy. Milions of Poles rented rooms or flats from Jews or sold them their agricultural products. Uneducated people ignored economical laws, they personalized them. Millions of peasants had to compete with Jews, better educated, supported by their families or community. People need to explain their failures using conspiracy or magic. Instead to study the economy, crazy left studies gender, feminism and literature. Quoting Perechodnik isn't advanced methodology. Xx236 ( talk) 11:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is a description of Otwock life under Nazis. http://mazowsze.hist.pl/files/Rocznik_Mazowiecki/Rocznik_Mazowiecki-r2002-t14/Rocznik_Mazowiecki-r2002-t14-s141-173/Rocznik_Mazowiecki-r2002-t14-s141-173.txt Xx236 ( talk) 11:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Rich people, Jews including, were described by Julian Tuwim, a much more important person than Umińska-Keff. https://cia.media.pl/julian_tuwim_gieldziarze Xx236 ( talk) 12:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Whose identity? Xx236 ( talk) 11:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

common and widespread? Perhaps in Kazimierz (Kraków) and Old Town (Warsaw). No market chain sells them. Xx236 ( talk) 11:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The idea of cruel and gready Poles is sold by Israeli media and quoted frequently Icewhiz in this Wikipedia exactly like some Polish artizans sell Jews with a coin. The difference is that many Poles dream to be smart like Jewish bankers but Israeli people hate primitive Poles. So we need a page Bloodthirsty Polish Nazi with an ax, sources JTA, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post. Xx236 ( talk) 11:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unclear why you are pointed out "Israeli media" - JTA is not Israeli for instance - it is based in New York, founded in 1917, and reports extensively from Europe and Poland (even reporting from occupied Europe in WWII - e.g. this report from Serbia in 1941 or these reports from Poland - [8] [9] [10] [11]). Vice News isn't Israeli either. Nor The JC, The Times, or a bunch of other sources. As for common and widespread - this is widely reported, including by anthropologists Joanna Tokarska-Bakir and Erica Lehrer. As for "symbol of identity" - per Tokarska-Bakir:

this popularity clearly makes it one of the few Polish symbols of identity, with which almost everyone can identify, including the intelligentsia. The ‘Jew with a coin’ is not just another amulet (apotropaion) sold in a market stall. It is a unique, specifically Polish regional product. It can be found not only in houses, but also in legal firms3, banks4, in larger or smaller shops, workshops and studios, offices, mountain lodges, and even in kosher restaurants (such as the ‘Anatewka’ in Łódź), where customers receive figurines like these together with their bill5

I'm not quite sure where you are getting "primitive Poles" or hate thereof - this isn't in the article - which merely documents this widespread custom as per coverage of it in reliable sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in texts quoted by you here and in tens of your contributions to Wikipedia pages and discussions. If you don't see your hate, you may consult an expert, I'm your victim. Xx236 ( talk) 12:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As you know typical Polish restaurants are Kosher and Tokarska-Bakir is a reliable source. Icewhiz, be sometimes critical. Not any glittering trash is made of gold. Xx236 ( talk) 12:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Three texts about Tokarska-Bakir's manipulations. http://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/p/spis-tresci.html Xx236 ( talk) 12:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Most Polish restaurants are very not Kosher. However, some Kosher restaurants do exist. Anatewka in Lodz (which Tokarska-Bakir mentions) - website - even has a figurine in their website. Images of figurines from there abound on the net - [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Ignoring pictures for a moment - multiple reliable sources report on figurines there - e.g. - this book, or this book. This is really quite easy to verify. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As for quotations from WP:RSes - please take them up with the sources, I merely summarize what is available. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What does one restaurant prove?

I merely summarize what is available. so you obtain a terrible mess. Xx236 ( talk) 05:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The polish version of the source doesn't say anything about the popularity of the figurines, now or in the 90s. Mostly, it's about dumb shit people say on the internet (whoa! Who knew people said dumb shit on the internet). The English version appears to be a clumsy translation by... somebody... of the Polish, but it has that extra paragraph about the 90s. Is that even written by Tokarska-Bakir or is it one of those people on the internet taking their own initiative? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 English paper is not a translation of the 2012 Polish - it is an updated version by Tokarska-Bakir with additional findings (it does, however, contain much of the analysis that is present in the linked Polish paper). It is listed on AAPJS as authored by Tokarska-Bakir, 2019 and is listed at pan-pl.academia.edu/JoannaTokarskaBakir/Papers as well. I will note that Tokarska-Bakir has been giving talks in English on the subject (e.g. at Indiana University) and has also published a chapter in this 2014 dual-language English/Polish book (every chapter there, in my understanding, is in both languages) - Lucky Jews: Poland’s Jewish figurines ( amazon) - From the versions I do see, I suspect that each one here in the chain (2012 in Gazeta, talks, 2014 English/Polish in the book, and 2019 paper) is based on the previous works with updates (as is common when a scholar writes on the same topic over the years). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A Jewish critics of Bakir's theory. http://www.fzp.net.pl/opinie/mam-inny-poglad-na-zyda-z-pieniazkiem Please summarize and add to the article. Xx236 ( talk) 08:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Joanna Tokarska-Bakir jest antropologiem kultury. Antropologia kultury to dziedzina nauki bardzo odległa od nauk ścisłych.- any speculations critical toward Poles is accepted by Icewhiz and quoted here. Xx236 ( talk) 08:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What are Paweł Jędrzejewski credentials here? (Software developer? [20] or is the editor of the forum? [21]) This is an opinion piece posted on the Polish Jews Forum. We could add this - but we need some sort of credentials for the author. Being Jewish (is he?) is not a qualifying attribute. @ Xx236: - if you have appropriate credentials for him, I'd be happy to add. (or you could do so yourself?) Icewhiz ( talk) 09:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

[22] Her 2012 article on this in Wyborcza. I don't think it even mentions the term antisemitism? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It uses other words for the same (stereotype IIRC). However neither do we say she said that. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I had to check the term, 99% of the readers won't understand it. The fair is organised in Kraków only, which puts the description into Kazimierz context. Kazimierz was a Jewish quarter and now it is business - souvenirs, kosher restaurants, probably the biggest Jewish business in Poland. Kaqzimierz is a Disneyland, has no connection with real Poland. Xx236 ( talk) 05:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Tartakovsky's text starts with Cracovie - Kraków. Kraków is one region, Polańczyk a second one, of many creating Poland. California is a part of the USA but some parts of the USA are cold and wet.

She starts with a tourist in Kraków as an introduction (relating what he would see and hear as he walks around in present-day Kraków). After the introduction, through the eyes of a visitor, she continues with a more studious analysis which is not related to Kraków. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

And she meets polar bears. Xx236 ( talk) 05:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Polańczyk is a spa village, not a real village. Xx236 ( talk) 05:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While content sourced to Tokarska-Bakir's 2019 English language paper has been challenged above - Talk:Jew with a coin/Archive 1#Tokarska-Bakir, the mass-removal (seems like a blanket revert to an old version? The revert also broke formatting fixes to a raw url (which were added here by MyMoloboaccount, and fixed here) in these two edits of content was unexplained. Therefore, I've restored the following content, due to the rationale below:

1. diff - as the content is sourced to multiple reliable sources (NEWSORGs and academic sources).
2. diff - as the content is sourced to reliable sources, including The Art Newspaper which specialized in art - the topic of this article being folklore and falling under that topic. Additional sources covering this are available in Polish and Hebrew. uninvlved input at RSN was to include.
3. diff - As Erica Lehrer presents both sides of the coin at length - she presents how this is viewed as deeply offensive by jews and others, while also presenting how Polish common people view this is a harmless good luck charm and how the artisans treat this with love and care. I also fixed the reference.
4. diff - As reliable source makes this connection (which is also noted by others sources). Content is attributed.

I left out content sourced to Tokarska-Bakir's 2019 English language paper, as that is being discussed above. If there are objections to this content - please discuss these one by one, as opposed to mass-reverting back to an arbitrary old version. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Haaretz, murdered Jews were a source of enrichment for Poles who charged high prices for hiding Jews and plundered Jewish property - it's a part of the image, which dehumanizes Poles who helped Jews. The righteous didn't charge high prices. The image of plundering Jewish property is based on ignorance. Jewish property was nationalized by Germany and any plundering of it was punished. Stealing a rag (from Germany, not from a Jew) meant sometimes death. Xx236 ( talk) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why According to Haaretz? It is not an editorial, it's opinion of one person. Xx236 ( talk) 08:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The association of Jews with money has historical roots. Jews and Italians did banking in Europe during ages. Many pre-war peasants didn't have almost any money, they exchanged food and work with their neighbours or family members. Commitments, debts, were to be paid by things or deeds rather than by money. Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does have historical roots. Roots that are themselves based in oppression, so to simply describe it neutrally, especially as a justification for continuing the practice is a form of furthering the anti-semitism and oppression. Jews were forbidden from owning land or from participating in merchant classes, and were forced to be money lenders by Christian rulers, who both wanted to avoid the biblical prohibition on interest/usury and were comfortable allowing Jews, who they considered to be damned anyway, filling that role. it also meant that Jews would bear the brunt of resentment for debts owed and, when especially powerful people owed debts, the Jewish creditors could be simply be exiled.

This is no different than any other racial stereotype, that may very well have some historical basis. But without acknowledging the role of oppression or white supremacy in the creation of the stereotype or the conditions that led to it, you further normalize and perpetuate it.

Boundandheard ( talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The article describes Kraków, once more. Xx236 ( talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While we could use this unattributed (this is not an opinion piece - but straight up reporting) - attribution in the case of material that may be analysis (as opposed to finding of fact) subject to interpretation is prudent. The piece itself is not about Krakow. It does reference the Souvenir, Talisman, Toy at Krakow. It discusses markets in Warsaw and Krakow, as well as the Emaus fair. However the article as a whole is about Poland. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Emaus fair is organised in Kraków, so we still have two cities. Xx236 ( talk) 13:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we get a quote for this paywalled source? (Also I changed the heading of this section, please remember WP:NPA). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's used for a bunch of stuff. But:

1. "This stereotypical depiction is thus controversial, although it seems quite innocent next to the common and widespread phenomenon of the Zydki – the figures of a Jew holding a coin, thought to be a talisman that brings good fortune and wealth, which has overtaken nearly all other such depictions."
2. "The exhibit illustrates just how much these figurines are emblematic of Jewish-Polish relations past and present, and traces the representation of the Jew in general, and of other minorities. One of its aims was to make Polish visitors more aware of the problematic aspects of the Zydki."
3. "As long as they’re around, these figurines will continue to stir debate. They will continue to have their fierce detractors as well as their innocent, or purportedly innocent, supporters. The catalogue documents this debate and also participates in it, but fails to mention another possible reason for the existence of the Zydki: It has to do with a newly published book in Poland that is creating an uproar similar to the one that Jan Gross’s book “Neighbors” elicited." (paragraph break) "The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews.".

What else (which bits of our text) do you need quoted? Icewhiz ( talk) 13:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please prove that people who buy Jew with a coin read any books. Xx236 ( talk) 13:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is biased, it quotes only select3ed opinions.

Is the Haaretz article reliable? It says that Poles call the figurines Żydki. Which Poles? Google doesn't support the story. Xx236 ( talk) 08:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

żydek and the plural żydki are supported by this Cambridge Univerity Book, in page 324, published in 2011 (published well prior to Haaretz) and Tartakowsky's paper. There are additional sources available for this as well - but I think 3 reliable sources are sufficient. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Tartakowsky's source is Internet advertisement. Two of them. Do we use any Internet advertisement in this Wikipedia? Xx236 ( talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, not to be tautological, but reliable sources, like Haaretz, are reliable by definition — we don't google the reliability of their findings. El_C 09:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If Haaretz is reliable and publishes lies, are the lies true? Xx236 ( talk) 10:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Innuendo is not helpful. El_C 10:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If you aqre smart, why don't you see bias and lies? Xx236 ( talk) 10:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This level of discourse is not up to par, Xx236. El_C 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange, I have exactly the same opinion about Icewhiz' anti_Polish propaganda. Please consider that I'm not a native speaker so don't patronise me. Xx236 ( talk) 10:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, either. And I'm not patronizing you. El_C 10:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford source is one Jewish-Polish friend. Academy. Oxford. Harvard. Methodological research. Xx236 ( talk) 10:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, respectfully, that is scarcely intelligible. El_C 10:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also paintings, I think it's a motif. See commons:Category:Jew holding Coins. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I know. The lead describes this as "images and figurines of Jews holding coins". There are 3d figurines, 2d figurines/magnets, as well as 2d square paintings. Motif perhaps, or is there some other word that would capture images+figurines (or the concept) in a single word? Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For now I lean towards a motif. PS. I also found through google keychains with that motif, and who knows what else is out there. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should cite the primary source [23] rather then the French derivative which cites it... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing we have the French now in English we should cite both. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Lucky Jews" as used in [24] be a better name for the article? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It is somewhat deragatory. Both names are used, and all the other language wikis (Polish, Russian, Hebrew) are going with Jew with a coin. It is mainly Lehrar (and derived activities - e.g, the lucky Jew street thing was connected to her) who uses lucky Jew. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when is calling something lucky derogatory? Can you provide a ref for this title being derogatory? Again, as the English title for the exhibition about this phenomenon, I think this is more of a proper name then the current title. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be used almost exclusively by Lehrer (who has indeed driven quite a bit of publishing in English - in 2013-4 and in 2017-8), however others -e.g. Dobrosielski in English - workshop presentation use "Jew with a coin". Icewhiz ( talk) 06:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

https://booksandideas.net/The-Jew-with-the-Silver-Coin.html Xx236 ( talk) 11:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's useful. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Paweł Dobrosielski who is used as source in this article writes that Tokarska-Bakir claims were subjected to ridicule including such figures as Ludwik Stomma(ethnologist,anthropologist, columnist of weekly Polityka, and Sorbona University professor) and Paweł Jędrzejewski(publicist from Jewish Forum_. Also her initial claim was published in weekend edition of Gazeta Wyborcza and not as science paper [25] Based on the above I suggest either removing her completely or signficantly reducing the content from her as it seems to be rejected by well renonwn scholars and publicists. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a clear quote for the assertion above. She is chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies - widely cited and respected. Her particular work here has beeb cited by subsequent work here and is clearly DUE. It was also published (in expanded form) in a 2014 academic book. If less accomplished scholars (Stomma, a publisher, has been involved in a controvesy on his own PhD per plwiki) criticized her - then perhaps they may merit inclusion. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"less accomplished scholars"-he is a professor who lectured Sorbonna University. Is she one as well?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your BLP attack against Tokarska-Bakir forthwith. Dobrosielski does not say rejected. He does note the indignation by someone in the Polish Jewish forum and Stomma. Stomma attacks Tokarska-Bakir as well as Freud. In short - you have Stomma disagreeing. Dobrosielski does not endorse Stomma - merely quoting him and Tokarska-Bakir's response to him. No big deal - sources in languages other than Polish seem to ignore Stomma. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Ta diagnoza, opublikowana w weekendowym wydaniu „Gazety Wybor-czej”, wywołała drwiny i oburzenie. "

"This diagnosis, published in weekend edition of "Gazeta Wyborcza", evoked ridicule and outrage". Which basically means rejected. I can quote more of course. And Polish sources are fine. Cheers.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

outrage by Stomma (and someone in the Polish Jewish Forum) - as per the continuation of the paragraph. Dobrosielski does not endorse Stomma's view. Most other sources don't even mention Stomma's outrage. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Dobrosielski does not endorse Stomma's view"-Dobrosielki has his own view-which I look forward to writing down. Cheers.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

When you modify your comments - please strike them, then modify. They are still false - "well renonwn scholars and publicists." - as you have one publicist in an internet forum, and one publicist/scholar (who per pkwiki also writes for Hustler magazine). At best you have one scholar. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"(who per pkwiki also writes for Hustler magazine)" Yes he does.And? A professor can write for Hustler(he also writes to dozens of other magazines), we live in free country after all ;) He might also written for Playboy too :) How is this relevant at all, please explain. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, if you're gonna scream "BLP!" at people, it might be a good idea not to violate it yourself. What or where Stomma writes for is irrelevant unless we want to use that particular source. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Stomma's background is clearly relevant for use of him as a source - as is the fact that is seems quotations/references of him on this subject are limited to Polish language publications, and are sparse at that. Please do point out the BLP vio above - relating to the source primarily being a publicist is not a BLP vio. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• After reading Dobrosielski in its entirety - it seems that Dobrosielski quotes Tokarska-Bakir throughout his paper, and seems to accept her conclusion (adding on to it) in his conclusion in page 74. It would seem that Dobrosielski merely noted the indignation of some Polish popular publicists - who are themselves of little note. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek: please explain this removal. You are are alleging misrepresentation of sources. Please state explicitly what is misrepresented from Tokarska-Bakir's piece - the text in the article (Freud, Toten and Taboo, grotesque, fuily son, moral initiation, etc.) - is present in the Polish original and in her subsequent 2019 English article. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Also this placement of citicism of Tokarska-Bakir next to customs (documented by others - we don't actually have to do an "according to.." other here) makes no sense. Stomma is criticizing Tokarska-Bakir's use of totemic religions, Freud, father figures, etc. - all in the text removed in the diff above - but does not relate to Polish common customs. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

https://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2012/04/zyd-lejbus-przez-polskie-chlopstwo.html

https://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2011/04/joanna-tokarska-bakir-cytuje-carla.html

https://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2012/04/joanna-tokarska-bakir-cytuje-wojciecha.html

https://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2011/04/joanna-tokarska-bakir-wychowuje-oriane_28.html

Tokarska-Bakir has not rejected the critics.05:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Any why should a full professor and chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies address an anonymous write on blogspot? Please also see WP:BLOGS. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you don't understand the texts, so don't comment them.

Please find one error in Kompromitacje. As far noone succeded. Unfortunately many full professors are unable to quote precisely their sources. Some professors plagiarise.

Żyd Lejbuś... describes a discussion of Bakir and Stomma. Stomma is equally progressive and liberal as Bakir is. Xx236 ( talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek: - please explain why diff - figurines of Jews from Israel (or figurines of British people in the UK) are relevant to the article? Lehrer discusses this in the context of wider Jewish figurines - not specifically the ones with the coins. Furthermore - why is content sourced to a podcast DUE for the lead? Icewhiz ( talk) 06:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it's the same topic from the same researcher that you yourself are using? Are you saying Lehrer is not reliable? Why wouldn't it be reliable just because it's a podcast? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's related to the wider use of Jewish figurines - not the specific Jew with a coin figurine. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Discussions of Jewish figurines made and sold in Israel wanders far off topic and does not belong in this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ MyMoloboaccount: - you have repeatedly introduced that Dobrowolski states this isn't popular - e.g. here, here, and here, and here. Even if Dobrowolski had said this, it would still be UNDUE given we have like 20 sources claiming it is very popular. However, besides this been contradicted by the survey data (19% of Poles have one of these! That's huge), Dobrowolski actually writes - "Choćobrazek pojawił się w polskim pejzażu kulturowym na początku lat 90. XX wieku, to ostatnie lata przyniosły znaczny wzrost popularności tego wizerunku. Hasła „żyd” lub „żydek”, wpisane w wyszukiwarkę Google Grafika dają w pierwszych kilku stronach wyników przede wszystkim obrazy „Żyda z pieniążkiem”. Na największym polskim portalu aukcyjnym Allegro codziennie pojawia się około 80 nowych aukcji tego przedmiot , stale jest ich tam prawie tysiąc. Jak podaje Jan Gebert, w krakowskich sukiennicach w lipcu 2013 roku wystawiono do sprzedaży 177 tego typu obrazów (dla porównania, wizerunków Smoka Wawelskiego – 67)8 . Obraz można kupić nie tylko w internecie, ale również w stacjonarnych punktach sprzedaży na terenie całej Polski – poza sukiennicami także w markecie budowlanym Leroy Merlin, w kwiaciarniach, na targowiskach, sklepach papierniczych, ze starociami, pamiątkami itd." - (google translate) "Although the picture appeared in the Polish cultural landscape in the early 1990s, recent years have brought a significant increase in the popularity of this image. The terms "Jew" or "Jew", inscribed in the Google search engine. The graphics give the first few pages of the results primarily images of "Jew with money". On the largest Polish auction site, Allegro, there are about 80 new auctions of this item every day, there are almost a thousand of them. According to Jan Gebert, in the Krakow Cloth Hall in July 2013, 177 paintings of this type were put up for sale (for comparison, images of the Wawel Dragon - 67) 8. The image can be purchased not only on the Internet, but also at stationary outlets throughout Poland - apart from the Cloth Hall, also in the Leroy Merlin DIY store, florists, marketplaces, stationery stores, antique shops, souvenirs, etc." - per WP:NOENG, please provide an quotation to support you assertion regarding Dobrowolski. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I will also note that the claim in the lede that this can be bought at "Polish souvenir shops", while correct in and of itself, diminishes from the wide scale of the availability of these items. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Also in Dobrowolski's conclusion - "„Żyd z pieniążkiem” jako fenomen kultury wernakularnej" (translate ""Jew with money" as a phenomenon of vernacular culture"), his sole reference to statistics is: "Jest także szeroko rozpoznawalny – kojarzy go aż 65% dorosłych Polaków, z których ponad połowa (55%) widziała obrazek u kogoś w domu, funkcjonuje on więc raczej w kontekście rodzinnym czy familiarnym." - translate - "It is also widely recognized - it is associated by as many as 65% of adult Poles, of whom more than half (55%) saw a picture of someone at home, so it functions rather in a family or familiar context." - which indicates a widespread phenomena. In any event - quote please. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, have you asked yourself what's the point of you cutting off whole quotes of the text you cite? You do realize other editors have access to it, so it will be just a question of somebody looking into the source to see that you left whole parts of what author wrote, right? "Co więcej, jedynie 16% respondentów kiedykolwiek wykonało którąś z powyż-szych czynności – zapewne najczęściej powieszenie na ścianie u siebie w domu(19% badanych potwierdziło, że posiada ten wizerunek). Jedynie 26% uważarównież, że obrazek powinien być otrzymany w prezencie, żeby zadziałał. Wy-daje się, że niska znajomość oraz popularność magicznych rytuałów czynionych na wizerunku – skontrastowana z wysoką rozpoznawalnością „Żyda z pieniążkiem” – What's more only 16% of surveyed ever carried any of the above activities , mostly like hanging on the wall at home(19% of surveyed confirmed they have this). Only 26% believe that this image should be received as a gift to work. It seems that low familiarity and popularity of magic ritual on the image, contrasted with high recognition of "Jew with coin"". In other words Dobrowolski writes that it is recognized but has low popularity in Poland. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. All that this supports is that the magic ritual (for which Dobrowolski notes there are a large number of varying and non-uniform customs) associated with the figurines has a lower popularity than the very high popularity of the images themselves. Pure WP:OR - and contradicted by the very article you are citing. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope Icewhiz-you don't read Polish language quite correctly.He says they are recognized but their popularity is low and not grounded in Polish society.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Dobrowolski quite clearly is referring to the magical rituals - e.g. placing a Grosz behind the frame, flipping it over on Saturday, and a number of other superstitions. He is not referring to the possession (19% - huge!) and recognition (65% - huge! 55% saw it in a house of somone they known - huge!), but merely to the associated superstitions which have not yet taken root (per Dobrowolski - possibly since this is a very young superstition). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I made this edit, to correct a gross misrepresentation, per above, of Dobrosielski. For starters, there aren't "two surveys" - there is a single 2015 survey reported first by Dobrosielski (in his technical report), which was then cited and covered by Dr. Tartakowsky (who rounds numbers different - e.g. 18% instead of 19% for 18.6%, and who summarizes it differently). The survey had several sub-parts. The sub-part in question is on knowing how to use the object:

1. "Jak widać, zdecydowanie więcej osób rozpoznaje wizerunek niż wie, do czego on służy – choć odpowiedź „zapewnia powodzenie finansowe” była wybierana najczęściej, to jedynie połowa ankietowanych kojarzyła „Żyda” z „pieniążkiem”. Podobnie niskie wyniki uzyskano w pytaniu, mającym zbadać rozpoznawalność praktyk, które czynione są na wizerunku, a które po raz pierwszy zostały zrekonstruowane przez Joannę Tokarską-Bakir na podstawie kwerendy internetowej: google translate: "As you can see, definitely more people recognize the image than they know what it is used for - although the answer "provides financial success" was chosen the most, only half of the respondents associated the "Jew" with "money". Similarly, low results were obtained in the question, which is to examine the recognition of practices that are performed on the image, and which were first reconstructed by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir based on an internet query:".
2. "Co więcej, jedynie 16% respondentów kiedykolwiek wykonało którąś z powyższych czynności – zapewne najczęściej powieszenie na ścianie u siebie w domu (19% badanych potwierdziło, że posiada ten wizerunek). Jedynie 26% uważa również, że obrazek powinien być otrzymany w prezencie, żeby zadziałał. Wydaje się, że niska znajomość oraz popularność magicznych rytuałów czynionych na wizerunku – skontrastowana z wysoką rozpoznawalnością „Żyda z pieniążkiem” – może wynikać z krótkiego rodowodu tego przesądu, który nie zdążył się jeszcze ugruntować jako praktyka automatyczna.". google translate: "What's more, only 16% of respondents have ever done any of the above - probably most often hanging on the wall at home (19% of respondents confirmed that they have this image). Only 26% also think that the picture should be received as a gift to make it work. It seems that the low knowledge and popularity of magical rituals made on the image - contrasted with the high recognition of the "Jew with a coin" - may result from the short lineage of this superstition that has not yet established itself as an automatic practice."

The source in its analysis explicitly states this is widely recognized, and that "low knowledge and popularity" refers to magical rituals (or superstitions) only. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This really does not reflect well on editors involved here. At present, the following is attributed to Dobrosielski, from his Polish language paper:

Cultural studies scholar Paweł Dobrosielski concurs that the motif associating money with Jews used in such figurines or paintings has antisemitic origins, however according to Dobrosielski this was tamed and redirected to a positive meaning in supporting Poles seeking wealth. Dobrosielski suggests that it may represent a desire to situate Poland in the history of capitalism, stressing the fact that the mercantile Jewish traditions are also Polish traditions. He concludes that this motif has implications for the discussion of "superstitions, capitalism and anti-Semitism" in the Polish society.[1][8] According to Pawel Dobrosielski the image disturbs mostly researchers and publicists, and for most Poles the Jew with a coin seems harmless, friendly practice connected to positive view of Jews. Dobrowolski writes that the debate among academics is conducted in an isolated circulation, where specialist knowledge invokes context of multilayered history of antisemitic prejudice, which is however absent from real social life.[8]

While one could argue this is not a reasonable summary per the Polish language paper, luckily Dobrosielski was so kind as to provide an English language abstract, while reads: last page on PDF :

The first part of the article is devoted to the vernacular image of the “Jew with a coin” and its connection to systemic academic and media discourses relating to anti-Semitism. The author analyzes historical roots of this practice, placing it in the context of historical prejudices, as well as in contemporary debates over the attitudes of the Polish people towards the Jews during and after the Second World War. The second part of the article presents preliminary results of quantitative research designed and conducted by the author, the aim of which was to establish the extent and exact forms of the practices related to the image of the “Jew with a coin”. The third, concluding part, shows the way in which the proposed concept of vernacular culture enables to shed new light on traditional interpretations of these phenomena, at the same time reassessing the results of quantitative research. This ‘familiar image’, wellestablished within the sphere of traditional superstitions, can be perceived as a reaction to the feeling of alienation that results from the level of complexity of the Polish Holocaust discourse – at the same time taking over its general sense and reversing its meaning. Thus, the above practice can be realized regardless of the awareness of alienation. It questions the asymmetry between the specialized public discourse and the common reception of it. Emphasis on the image itself simplifies the multi-layered debate on superstitions, capitalism and anti-Semitism, focusing solely on the material shape of the image.

We're also lucky enough that Ewa Tartakowsky summarized this for us in English: [26]

Paweł Dobrosielski reaches the same conclusion by analyzing the image as an element of vernacular culture. According to him, the “‘Jew with the gold coin’ draws on the anti-Semitic stereotype that associates Jews with money, but it also displaces this stereotype, tames it, gives it a positive meaning, and assigns it the role of supporting contemporary Poles in their search for wealth.” [9] The image would thus reflect a “reaction to the feeling of isolation produced by the highly complex Polish discourse on the Holocaust, and simultaneously by the internalization (via taking into account common interpretations) and contestation (via inverting its meaning) of that discourse.”

One should note, that Tartakowsky says Dobrosielski reaches the same conclusion as Joanna Tokarska-Bakir. The present text in our article does not faithfully represent Dobrosielski. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC) I suggest you remove your bad faith attack on other editors above. If you question any of the statements Dobrowolski makes, feel free to ask for a quote or tag it as such withi nmain text.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how the present text reflects Dobrosielski's conclusions - it bears no resemblance to his conclusion in Polish, his abstract in English, or summaries of Dobrosielski by other scholars. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor does our summary bear any resemblence to the summary/abstract of Dobrosielski 2017 conference paper (which unfortunately - I'm unable to locate - a (probably English or with a translation to English) paper in "The 4th Annual Polish Jewish Studies Workshop" (2017) would be better than the 2015 initial report). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstracts do not always represent what is discussed in depth and reliably in the article. Quite a few times I've seen abstracts using terminology not used in the main body, or even make claims that are not properly substantiated. So I wouldn't worry too much about abstracts, unless they clearly contradict what the article is supposed to be about. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tartakowsky is a summary of Dobrosielski, and is quite different from our summary. The conclusion portion (the last section) in Dobrosielski's article reads quite differently, and frankly some of the portions - e.g. "According to Pawel Dobrosielski the image disturbs mostly researchers and publicists, and for most Poles the Jew with a coin seems harmless, friendly practice connected to positive view of Jews. Dobrosielski writes that the debate among academics is conducted in an isolated circulation, where specialist knowledge invokes context of multilayered history of antisemitic prejudice, which is however absent from real social life" - seem absent in this fashion and context from the Polish language article. Dobrosielski treats Holocaust discourse at length in his conclusion (as does Tartakowsky's summary of Dobrosielski) - somehow that is absent from our summary. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire 'Holocaust discourse' issue needs a separate discussion here. I am having trouble wrapping my mind about the connections a post-1989 tourist souvenir can have with TH or its discourse. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well - multiple scholars - Tokarska-Bakir (whom we're disrespecting in a manner not congruent with her position nor treatement in the literature), Tartakowsky, Dobrosielski, and possibly others - tie this both to general Holocaust/Holocaust enrichment guilt (see Golden Harvest (book)) and to the Polish public debates on the Polish role in the Holocaust ... The question here isn't how it started (e.g. some random artisan) - but how it became so popular (19% of Poles have one, recognized by 65% of adult Poles, of whom more than half (55%) saw a picture at someone's home, sold all over Poland (no, not just in a "number of Polish souvenir shops" as our lede falsely states) - both in brick and mortar shops and in online shops (e.g. ebay, allegro) ... It's no so hard to understand - if Polish media goes on about Holocaust this, Holocaust that, fighting Holocaust memory wars (a phenomena very much modern Polish - I don't think anywhere else comes close - the US ain't close, in Israel it is mainly relegated to around the local memorial day - Holocaust historians don't get interviewed on TV (unless they are reacting to the "Polish Holocaust Law" or some other development in Polish media - it is entirely reactive coverage and not that much of it)) - then there is a popular reaction. Tokarska-Bakir actually sees this as a positive sign of moral initiation..... And no - per actual sources - this is not a "tourist souvenir" (who generally do not understand Polish or the arcane superstition behind this) - it may have started as one, but it definitely is not one now - tourists don't buy items in Allegro - [27] [28] - besides the sources not treating this as a tourist item. Regardless - both academic sources and NEWSORG sources clearly tie the phenomena to the Holocaust and devote quite a bit of space to it. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

[29] Wojciech Wilczyk also thinks Holocaust debates are relevant and in particular Golden Harvest. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is about Kraków. Xx236 ( talk) 10:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

From the article: " To mocno stereotypowe wyobrażenie na temat wyglądu przedwojennego sąsiada Żyda każe się jednak zastanowić nad charakterem zbiorowej pamięci o wymordowanych w trakcie Zagłady współmieszkańcach". I couldn't find a better reference to the Holocaust in the article. The abstract does say " However, it is Holocaust that took place in Poland during the German occupation that should be its valid reference. " but the essay (because it's hardly is anything else, there's no scientific analysis of any sort) does not make a case for that claim from the abstract well. I don't think there's much that is usable from this source except a few anecdotes. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we (as in, you and me) are disrespecting TB. That some other scholar disagreed with something she said, well, hardly the first time, it's not like this area is debate free, eh? Something can be both a souvenir and used by the locals. Anyway, I think that the explanation for the popularity of this is better explained by theories which tie this to the popular (if antisemitic, of course) 'Jewish greed stereotype'. Even today, I am sure there are many Poles who don't know much about the 'Holocaust debate' (some issues to consider: what percentage of Poles did actually profit, directly, from events of that era, and how many people today know about the 'Golden Harvest' and the argument that some Poles were war profiteers? I'd be surprised if more than a quarter of the society knew; let's not overestimate common folk - most don't pay attention to any news outside sport/celebrity gossip columns...), but I am pretty sure everyone knows that stereotype (it is international, too). And as at least one source, I forget which one pointed out, there's also the association of Jews with success in the modern capitalistic world (and historical, too). Which I think is not particularly antisemitic, outside invoking some common jealousy. It stands to reason that a talisman for financial luck would be tied to common stereotypes and modern-day envy, rather than some 'Holocaust enrichment guilt' concept. Particularly as the individuals who are buying this talisman seem to be reported as relatively young, so unlikely to have participated in any 1940s era crimes. A few, perhaps, may be, but I think that vast majority of the individuals who buy it are driven by the common stereotypes/general envy 'of the rich West' (where 'rich Jews live') and desire to 'be rich like them', and only a small minority make any, even subconscious, ties to the Holocaust events which, as I said, I don't think are 'common knowledge'. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you write Dobrowolski? Xx236 ( talk) 05:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Copy-paste hypnosis. I probably copied-pasted from this diff (as I tend to do with long names) - and indeed made multiple mistakes in the talk page (copy-pasting each time from a previous instance). I [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jew_with_a_coin&diff=898994748&oldid=898906097 corrected the instance in the article. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Such name seems to be quite common. Xx236 ( talk) 10:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

http://pismowidok.org/index.php/one/article/view/205/351 Xx236 ( talk) 11:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Erica Lehrer Xx236 ( talk) 11:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Erica Lehrer, an anthropologist at Concordia University and Canada Research Chair in Post-Conflict Memory, told me scholars have traced the presence of Jewish figurines in Polish art back to the late 1800s. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnewm/hey-poland-whats-up-with-those-lucky-jew-statues Xx236 ( talk) 11:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

http://cyfrowaetnografia.pl/Content/3264/Strony%20od%20PSL_XXXIV_nr3-4-10_Goldberg.pdf the late 1700s, Beehives Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

pl:Olga Goldberg-Mulkiewicz, no English nor Hebrew page. Xx236 ( talk) 12:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting and useful. Thanks! Zezen ( talk) 15:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Figurines of Jews - yes (e.g. in Krakow fair, and elsewhere - long tradition) - the Jew+Coin+Slogan (this motif - Jew with a coin) - is new (per sources 2000 or 1990s). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is much older and also popular among Jews themselves. See e.g. Hanukkah gelt

In Hasidic communities, the Rebbes distribute coins to those who visit them during Hanukkah. Hasidic Jews consider this to be an auspicious blessing from the Rebbe, and a segulah for success. The amount is usually in small coins.

For these Poles it is just (folk) nostalgia. Zezen ( talk) 11:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC) This has nothing to do with Hanukah gelt, which is giving out money, not giving out figurines of Jews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if there has been some analysis done of the geographical prevalence / distribution of these gadgets. I've never seen a single one in Silesia for example. Logically, I would expect those to be used more frequently in regions inhabited previously by Orthodox Jews, e.g. Subcarpathia, Podlachia and generally eastern areas. - Darwinek ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The only empirical study with survey data I know of is Dobrosielski - and he doesn't have a regional panel IIRC. Several scholars/media have noted these are very common around Krakow (with traditions (other types, not coins) going way back - e.g. he Emaus Easter fair) - I may have seen scholars/media writing of other locations, but do not recall anyone writing of Silesia specifically. Icewhiz ( talk) 03:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

are not experts on the subject of whether or not Polish rescuers charged "high prices" for hiding Jews. In fact, this claim - which is a WP:COATRACKed into this article - is contradicted by scholarly research in the field, for example Grzegorz Berendt. ^[1]

It's not coatracked - it is cited to a WP:RS - Haaretz, which makes the claim in the context of these figurines. Please provide a quote (and page number) from the source you are citing for this being a contradicted by other sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Author is not an expert on the subject matter, it's an offhand remark in an opinion piece and it is indeed coatracked. Since it's not really on topic here, we can discuss it ... on whatever article it's relevant to, but just for completeness, most of the article I mentioned deals with the subject matter, but specifically page 129 and 162, and the author also mentions Paulsson as another work which makes a similar point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No - this is not an opinion piece, but a full length newspaper article on a contemporary phenomena. Nor is this an offhand remark - the final two concluding paragraphs of the source cover this - [30]. Please avoid misrepresenting sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The final paragraph quotes "Klucze i kasa". Interesting - does the journalist read Polish or rather he quotes an unknown review of the book? "a newly published book in Poland that is creating an uproar similar to the one that Jan Gross’s book “Neighbors” elicited." - wow, I live in Poland and no uproar here. Gross and Grabowski cause uproars, but Klucze i kasa doesn't. Xx236 ( talk) 09:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't found such opinion in the quoted article. Apparently neither the journalist nor the interviewed people have verified how many Poles have a figurine at home. Xx236 ( talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Krakow Sukiennice 001.JPG shows real figurines, but surprisingly without coins. The picture in the page shows two-dimensional objects, so not exactly figurines. Xx236 ( talk) 10:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The quoted article is about Warsaw. Poland is big. Any extrapolation of Warsaw is OR. Xx236 ( talk) 10:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This still doesn't seem right. Presumably they blame the figurines? This is kind of the problem with cobbling together an article by pulling together random quotes from the internet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Source say "the Jews". The other source also refers to Jew's fault. We avoid WP:OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This source is used to support several claims (a few of which have even been proposed as a DYK hook). The problem is that while the source mentions the "Jew with a coin" the parts that are being used to support are NOT about the topic. They're about older, previously existing, pastoral type figurines; "figures from a destroyed world (...) steeped in nostalgia (...) based on literature, imagination, superstition and memory" and it's explicitly talking about "Polish folk carvings" and "pieces of peasant craftsmanship". This is NOT about the "Jew with a coin figurines". That is mentioned at the end of the page as a "new" line of figurines.

You can't use a source which is talking about X to support claims about Y. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not used for a hook. Removed given challenge - part of the passage refers to the superset of all Jewish figurines of which the coin clutching ones (from same source) are the newer and common subset. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The number of surveied Poles is 506. Xx236 ( talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Added "surveyed". Icewhiz ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• https://brill.com/view/journals/zuto/6/1/article-p131_17.xml Xx236 ( talk) 11:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• http://frank-meisler.com/ Xx236 ( talk) 11:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• https://www.ebay.com/itm/Silver-Statue-figurine-Ukrainian-and-Jew-/182536480899 Xx236 ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

http://anatewka-manufaktura.pl/ Xx236 ( talk) 11:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Two paintings show a Jewish violinist. Is is anti-Semitic to sell paintings of Jewish violinists? It's a stereotype, isn't it? Henryk Wieniawski was the best Polish violinist. Xx236 ( talk) 11:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-lucky-jew-imagery-is-so-popular-in-poland/

"[T]he sale of stereotypical figures of Jews as good luck charms started in Poland in the 1960s. It closely followed the last large wave of Jewish emigration from the country, where 3.3 million Jews lived before the Holocaust."

Could someone please correct the date and information in the wiki article? Softlavender ( talk) 03:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

But not the ones with the coins (there is a distinction between general figurines (also mentioned in the article) and the coin holding ones) - we cover figurines sold in the communist era in the history section - saying they were sold in Cepelia. All the other sources state 90s or 00s as a start date for coin holding Jews. Icewhiz ( talk) 03:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• 1.I have tagged some wide reaching generalizations that seem unsourced.
• 2.The article gives impression that it is widely used tradition.It is however very fringe and even claim that this is something far reaching has been criticized by scholars.
• 3.The article depends heavily on work by Tokarska Bakir who was harshly critized by others.
• 4.The information that this has been described as "scholars issue" that is as something that existed more in the discourse of scholars rather than in society is missing.
• 5.Dobrowolski doesn't agree with Tokarska, he underlines that another, different interpretation from Tokarska can be proposed.

-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted this tag, and changes, as changes were contradicted or not supported by sources;

1. "The figurines aren't widely used " - not supported by any cited source. In fact contradicted by many sources stating this is common, owned by 19% of Poles, etc.
2. fact tag on - "Scholars offer various interpretations of the motif's nature and origin, though they generally agree that most modern Poles see the motif as a talisman for financial luck" - consider tagger just added - " According to Pawel Dobrosielski the image disturbs mostly researchers and publicists, and for most Poles the Jew with a coin seems harmless, friendly practice connected to positive view of Jews. " - this seems more than spurious. other sources support this as well.
3. "The motif is usually[citation needed] accompanied with the saying..." - cited source - " this image is linked to two Polish proverbs from before the Second World War, and it is often accompanied by one of these proverbs.". Modifying language to reflect.
4. Dobrosielski and Tokarska-Bakir - "Paweł Dobrosielski reaches the same conclusion by analyzing the image as an element of vernacular culture." - source. This is also evident from reading Dobrosielski - his last paragraph agrees with Tokarska-Bakir (besides relying heavily on her throughout). That Dobrosielski mentions some criticism of Tokarska-Bakir (without agreeing with said criticism) - does not modify his acceptance of her findings.

Icewhiz ( talk) 09:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• 1.not supported by any cited source. In fact contradicted by many sources stating this is common, owned by 19% of Poles, etc. So not wide. 19% means 81% do not use this.
• 2.This is sourced and supported by quote from author that we use.
• 3.? This has nothing to do with Tokarska it seems which I mention in my point, but please elaborate.
• This is also evident from reading Dobrosielski This is your OR, and Dobrowolski actually stated that another conclusion, different from Bakir's can be made and which he proposes.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, Dobrosielski agrees with Tokarska Bakir. This is evident from his conclusion (page 74) where he reaches the same conclusion (+credits Tokarska-Bakir) - "Z psychoanalitycznego punktu widzenia można więc powiedzieć za Joanną Tokarską-Bakir, że jest to „powrót wypartego”, że wizerunek „Żyda z pieniążkiem” to uwewnętrznione przez polskie społeczeństwo poczucie winy za współudział w ograbieniu i wymordowaniu polskich Żydów" - "From a psychoanalytical point of view, it can be said, after Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, that it is a "repressed return", that the image of "Jew with money" is a feeling of guilt internalized by Polish society for complicity in robbing and murdering Polish Jews.. However we don't have to read the Polish to say so, as we have a secondary source explicitly saying they agree: "Paweł Dobrosielski reaches the same conclusion by analyzing the image as an element of vernacular culture." - source. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, he disagrees, you cut off the part where he does so.

Jednak tę samą diagnozę możnarównież wyrazić w języku teorii wernakularnej(...)Skoncentrowanie się na samym obrazieupraszcza wielowątkową debatę na temat przesądności, kapitalizmu i antyse-mityzmu do materialnej postaci wizerunku However the same diagnosis could be in form in language of vernuclar theory. Focusing on the image itself, simplifies multi-thread debate on superstition,capitalism and antisemitism to material form of the image.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes - and he reaches the same conclusion using vernacular culture - as stated outright by Tartakowsky who says "Paweł Dobrosielski reaches the same conclusion by analyzing the image as an element of vernacular culture.". Icewhiz ( talk) 10:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• As for "The article depends heavily on work by Tokarska Bakir who was harshly critized by others" - the article actually uses Tokarska-Bakir very little. Your source for "harshly critized" actually agrees with Tokarska-Bakir as do other sources who cite her extensively. That Dobrosielski notes popular audience outrage at Tokarska-Bakir (while agreeing with Tokarska-Bakir himself) is of little weight. Most of what we do have of Tokarska-Bakir - is via secondary use of Tokarska-Bakir by other scholars who cite and quote her (e.g. Tartakowsky). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This diff is beyond the pale. Beyond the odd claim that 19% constitutes "aren't widely spread", this is contradicted by Dobrosielski who comments extensively on the extent of the phenomena. Dobrosielski does note that the superstitions behind the object as weakly grounded (not "weekly") as it is a new object. Furthermore, other sources extensively treat this as common and widespread:

1. [31] - "They are so popular that they make common wedding and housewarming gifts",
2. [32] - " they became particularly popular after the fall of Communism"
3. [33] - "common and widespread phenomenon of the Zydki – the figures of a Jew holding a coin,"
4. [34] - "The statues are commonly given as gifts on special occasions"
5. [35] - "one display case is filled with “lucky Jews” — little clay figurines of Orthodox Jews clutching a shiny coin, which are popular across Poland."
6. [36] "This artifact could be considered an ethnographic banality, were it not for the unique scale of the phenomenon24", footnote: "It is sufficient to browse the Internet forums in order to see that the ‘Jew with a coin’ outdoes any other positive mascots such as witches, elephants with elevated trunks, frogs holding jewels, and fish."
7. [37] - Dobrosielski himself, at page 64 (beginning of his article): "Wizerunek „Żyda z pieniążkiem” wpisuje się, zdaniem Bożeny Keff6 , w ciąg antysemickich klisz, które wydała kultura europejska – Żyda-diabła, Żyda-czarownika, Żyda-kapitalisty, Żyda-bolszewika itd. Wieszanie tego obrazka w domach, biurach, barach, różnych punktach usługowych, hotelach, kancelariach adwokackich, stacjach benzynowych, warsztatach, bankach, a nawet koszernych restauracjach czy sklepikach przy synagogach i żydowskich muzeach, stało się – wedle Joanny Tokarskiej-Bakir – szeroko rozpowszechnioną praktyką współczesnej polskiej kultury, unikatowym, specyficznie polskim produktem regionalnym7 . Choć obrazek pojawił się w polskim pejzażu kulturowym na początku lat 90. XX wieku, to ostatnie lata przyniosły znaczny wzrost popularności tego wizerunku.", English: "According to Bożena Keff6, the image of the Jew with the coin is part of a series of anti-Semitic clichés that European culture issued - Jew-devil, Jew-sorcerer, Jew-capitalist, Jew-Bolshevik, etc. Hanging this picture in homes, offices, bars, According to Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, various service outlets, hotels, law offices, gas stations, workshops, banks and even kosher restaurants and synagogue shops in Jewish museums have become a widespread practice of modern Polish culture, a unique, specifically Polish regional product7. Although the picture appeared in the Polish cultural landscape in the early 1990s, recent years have brought a significant increase in the popularity of this image."

@ MyMoloboaccount: - please self revert. Your text is blatant WP:OR - and extremely poor OR at that (seems to be a misunderstanding of Dobrosielski's writings on the superstitious practices being new (and therefore - divergent and weakly grounded in relation to the popular image) and an even poorer inference that 19% is somehow not widespread) - and is contradicted by multiple sources quoted above (and several others I haven't quoted). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

the stereotypical Jewish figurines serve as an item that may be "scratched". This sentence makes little sense, what does it even mean? It seems to me it might mean something to the author, but in general it doesn't add anything to the article as it is difficult to understand what he means by it-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Made abundantly clear by analogy, made by scholar, to a phantom limb in the same sentence. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Icewhiz and MyMoloboaccount: I removed the "scratched" part of the analogy. I personally felt it read awkwardly without the full context of the whole quote. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 00:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)