Talk:Szmalcownik

"Small"?

"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)

Sources...

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)

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)

This is a Wikipedia, not a dictionary

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)

Grabowski's press review of this article

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)

“ From the introduction of the slogan "Szmalcownik" in English Wikipedia, we learn that the Polish underground considered blackmail as collaboration with the enemy and punished them with death as an act of betrayal. A little further we read that in Warsaw about 30 percent. of all executions from the verdict of the Warsaw Special Courts were blackmailers. For historians who know that no more than 10-15 convictions (with thousands of others) were carried out in szmalcownica (all over the country!), This is a surprise. "Editors" refer us to the recently published work of American historian J.D. Zimmerman, who writes that 30 percent verdicts issued by the Underground Court against collaborators were sentences of blackmailers. And he quotes (it is a shame) that Teresa Prekerowa's 1982 book. However, reaching into it, we find out that in Warsaw there were 200 cases before the CSS (Civil Special Courts) against CHANNELS AND SUPPLIERS [my distinction], from which the court was referred about 100. Warsaw CSS issued 60-70 death sentences after their examination. In approx. 30 percent they concerned criminals whose main guilt was the persecution of Jews. So it's not about collaborators - as Zimmerman writes - but about blackmailers and informers - and this is a much narrower group. Therefore, we are talking about 20-23 sentences, of which only a few - as Prekerowa admits - were executed. Once again, I would like to emphasize: no more than 15 blackmailers have been lost nationwide. It doesn't have much to do with Wikipedia text. When discussing the phenomenon of blackmail, "editors" repeatedly refer us to the work of Joanna Drzewieniecka ("Dance with Death. Holistic approach to saving Polish Jews during the Holocaust" ("Dance with Death: A Holistic View of Saving Polish Jews during the Holocaust"). a closer look, this "holistic approach" is not authored by Mrs. Drzewieniecka, but unknown to historians Jarosław "Jarek" Piekałkiewicz, who was - we learn from the introduction - a teenage member of the Polish underground. Mrs. Drzewieniecka, who - as she claims - does not know much about Polish history, only edited the book and specializes in Latin American countries. However, for personal reasons, she is interested in the book: her parents fought in the Polish army during the war, and distant relatives died. So ... Not a high school diploma, but a sincere desire, will make you an officer. We read further that Władysław Bartoszewski argued that the judgments on blackmailers had no major impact on controlling this scourge. But the "editors" calm us down, because Joanna Drzewieniecka gives two examples from which the victims thought that these executions scared at least some blackmailers. To call "holistic approach ..." amateur would be an insult to amateur. At Wikipedia, this work is one of the primary sources of credibility for false information in the description of one of the more shameful phenomena of occupation reality. The slogan is adorned with scans of leaflets about executed sentences, which are to convince you that punishment of blackmailers was one of the priorities of the Polish underground - which is a mere abuse. Research based on documents and Polish and Jewish accounts shows that blackmailers blackmailed Jews practically with impunity. The underground reacted only when they began to be interested in people involved in the underground. I write this with full conviction, because I am the author of the only scientific study devoted to blackmailers. [1] ”

Not collaboration?

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)

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)

Władysław Bartoszewski as WP:PRIMARY

@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)

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)

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)

• Not a suitable source for the material in question, per the ArbCom case sourcing expectations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)