Jump to content

Talk:Szmalcownik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Small"?

[edit]

"1 or 2 percent" of Warsaw would be a lot (thousands of people). I don't think there that many. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources...

[edit]

Szaniec wasn't a "anti-Semitic fascist organization". There is no evidence, that members of it took a part in crimes of "szmalcownictwo" against jewish and polish people. It would be good to compare used informations with some sources or at least with polish page of Wikipedia.


Druid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.116.44 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, show proofs that Grupa Szanca or Miecz i Pług were szmalcowniks? If not, please correct this false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.15.254 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia, not a dictionary

[edit]

This article describes a word rather than a problem suggesting that delivering Jews was specific to Poland. Any nation cooperated with the Nazis. People in the West worked for Nazis obtaining money, which was less picturesque than szmalcowniks.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grabowski's press review of this article

[edit]

Recently Jan Z. Grabowski published an article on Gazeta Wyborcza, in which he mentions this article. Below is the Google Translation of his critique of this article. PS. I did contact him and receive a permission to post that excerpt, translated, here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Not collaboration?

[edit]

User:K.e.coffman, could you explain [2] in more detail? (For the record, I of course support the addition of Category:The Holocaust in Poland, I am just not sure if the collaboration categories are really misplaced?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions collaboration in the context of the position of the government: The Polish Secret State considered szmalcownictwo an act of collaboration..., but not in Wikivoice. Related to that, were the blackmailers commonly known to betrays those in hiding to the Germans? This is not discussed in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław Bartoszewski as WP:PRIMARY

[edit]

@Piotrus:[3] Władysław Bartoszewski was a Home Army fighter and one of Żegota founders, among others. AFAICT this is from an interview with him under that "hat".[4] His opinion is highly significant, but is still WP:PRIMARY here. François Robere (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is attributed, I don't see a problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations: "Only... peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance"? This is just an interview. If I can't quote Rashke[5] and Grot-Rowecki is somehow "undue"[6] (and that's before APL!), then this shouldn't be any different. François Robere (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Kunert is a historian which means he satisfies the sourcing requirement. If in a book published by a reliable publisher he cites an interview (conducted not by him but by another professional historian, Andrzej Friszke), it is no longer primary, as the source is not just Władysław Bartoszewski, but it has been reviewed and confirmed by a reliable historian. And anyway, Bartoszewski himself has held high ranking academic and scholarly positions though, he was chair of Polish Postwar History in Humanities. So it is a historian citing a discussion of another two historians, the fact that one of them took part in those events is not relevant, particularly when we attribute everything. PS. What another editor said two years ago reverting you in another article is really not relevant here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is defined as "a selection of documents" (wybor dokumentow), not a synthesis. If you want to quote Kunert, then find the place where he states it in his own voice and attribute it to him. François Robere (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_PRIMARY_or_unreliable? (where I already pinged Francois). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish collaborators / U-boats in Berlin

[edit]

I removed the following text: "The use of Jews to capture other Jews were not restricted to Warsaw. In Berlin, after 1943, many Jews went into hiding after the deportation of 50,000 people. German authorities mobilized several Jews to capture the remaining hidden individuals named by Gestapo as ''U-boats''.<ref>Jan Grabowski Szantażowanie Żydów: casus Warszawy 1939-1945 Przegląd Historyczny 99/4, 589 </ref>" because I don't see how it is relevant to the article. Szmalcowniks were individuals who blackailed Jews and turned them in for money. People who did it for other reasons - ideology, blackmail, etc. - might be collaborators, but not szmalcowniks. Unless the source states that the Jews in Berlin did it for money than they were not szmalcowniks. And I checked and the source in question states that those U-boot Jews were working under the threat of death and does not suggest they received any financial compensation. PS. It is good to link the sources, the one cited here is available at [7]. PPS. That said, that article may contain other useful information; on the same page as it discusses the u-boots it also talks about Jewish szmalcowniks, and of course it talks a lot more about Polish and others. Anyway, it seems like a good source that is worth reading and citing here in more detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake

[edit]

"Szmalconwik" in the Etymology section. MimiKal797 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error

[edit]
Oh dear, how embarrassing! Because of a (quickly corrected) publisher error, I initially appeared as the author of “Dance with Death.” I am new to Wikipedia editing and haven’t been able to change the citation in the text and reference in the “Szmalcownik” article. Perhaps you can help. On the other hand, I should note the Dr. Jarosław Piekałkiewicz, is an elderly retired professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas and has also authored other publications. As for me, I also have a Ph.D. in Political Science, and though not an expert on Polish history, I have more than a passing familiarity with the subject, and especially on Polish-Jewish history. Prof. Piekałkiewicz asked me to help him edit and supplement a text he had written approximately 10 years earlier. We did what we could. I do not apologize for the content. Regards, Joanna Drzewieniecki JDPeruPhDBuffalo (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edit suggestion

[edit]

Change the contents of the caption of the third image from:


... sentenced for 'blackmailing, and delivering to German authorities, hiding Polish citizens of Jewish ethnicity"

to

... sentenced for 'blackmailing, and delivering to German authorities, Polish citizens of Jewish ethnicity in hiding"


The original makes it sound like the sentencing was also for *hiding Jews*, which is not the intended meaning. Hiding is supposed to be an adjective here, but when reading naturally it is interpreted as a verb by default, which causes confusion.

MimiKal797 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]