Talk:The Pianist (memoir)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

A novel is a work of fiction, and is found in the fiction section. This is a a memoir not a novel. Mintguy (T) 08:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The book is neither fiction nor a novel: it is a memoir and generally regarded as accurate historically. What's your point? Jim_Lockhart 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you are responding to a comment made almost three years ago. I would assume that the article used to be titled "The Pianist (novel)" and that guy was saying it should be changed to "The Pianist (memoir)". It is a bit odd that nothing else was written on the talk page for such a long time. --Mathew5000 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the date. Should've check the edit log, I guess. Jim_Lockhart 06:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Performance Section

• I just added it, after seeing the performance myself. I intend to expand and improve upon this section, and any suggestions or constructive criticism is welcome. LiamUK 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

There seems to be a dispute about authorship. For all I can tell the 1946 version had dual authorship, with Jerzy Waldorff doing the writing and following what Szpilman told him. An additional source to that effect would be this book. We currently don't mention that Szpilman was credited as co-author of the 1946 edition; we should add that. Huon (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreword

Hi Poeticbent, in case it helps, the quote added here comes from the Picador paperback:

My father Wladyslaw Szpilman is not a writer. By profession he is what they call in Poland 'a man in whom music lives': a pianist and composer who has always been an inspiring and significant figure in Polish cultural life (p. 7) ... My father wrote the first version of this book in 1945, I suspect for himself rather than humanity in general. It enabled him to work through his shattering wartime experiences and free his mind and emotions to continue with his life" (p. 8).

See Andrzej Szpilman, "Foreword", in Wladyslaw Szpilman,​ ​The Pianist, New York: Picador, 2000. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know, SarahSV. The above quote in the Polish edition of Pianista, Warszawskie wspomnienia 1939-1945 by Wydawnictwo Znak, Krakow 2002, reads:

Mój ojciec Władysław Szpilman nie jest pisarzem. Jest pianistą, kompozytorem oraz inspiratorem życia kulturalnego. Jest „człowiekiem, w którym mieszka muzyka”, jak to niegdyś określono.

Translation: My father Władysław Szpilman is not a writer. He's a pianist, composer, and an animator of cultural life. He's a man inside whom the music lives, as it was once said.

The exact quote was never a problem. The problem (since day one), leading to vicious attacks by User:94.254.197.112 back in 2013 was the denial of due recognition of the true author of this memoir, renown Polish writer Jerzy Waldorff, who met Szpilman in 1938, became a friend of his, and after the war wrote down his story. Poeticbent talk 05:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead, with refs, to try to clarify how the authorship evolved between editions. I don't think either version of that quote helps to clarify, so I left it out. The body of the article can offer more about the publication history if anyone wants to develop it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. One small issue though is that according to Wikipedia, Waldorff died in December 1999. So it's unlikely that Andrzej Szpilman reached an agreement with Waldorff after an article was published in 2000. I think the story is true though, as it is corroborated with much details by this Wprost article. Just year 2000 must be wrong. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Biwom, I'll take a look at the source again and try to find others. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Let me amend what I said earlier. The Wprost article doesn't corroborate the whole story. What it says is: 1. There was indeed an article in Warsaw Life, in which Waldorff said he was hurt that he was not credited in the 1998 German translation. 2. There was later an agreement that Waldorff would be credited in future editions of the book. 3. It was always clear that the copyright belonged to Szpilman. 4. Waldorff received some payment. So, it's a much "softer" version of the story. Unless we find other sources, I would not revert the IP who removed that "story" today. As for the other changes the IP made, well... I actually wished they were not blocked and they made use of the talk page. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't restore the following: "In an article in Warsaw Life, Waldorff accused Władysław Szpilman of plagiarism and theft; Szpilman's son paid Waldorff to renounce any claim to the work." SarahSV ^(talk) 16:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, in case anyone notices per CITEVAR, I changed one of the refs from template to manual, because it had the wrong parameters (naming the editors as authors), and rewriting was faster than struggling with the template. If anyone wants to re-template it, I won't mind.

It was:

• Jan Parker, Timothy Mathews (2011). Tradition, Translation, Trauma: The Classic and the Modern Classical Presences. Oxford University Press. pp. 278–. ISBN 0199554595. Retrieved May 27, 2012. Google Books preview

and is now:

• Piotr Kuhiwczak (2011). "Mediating Trauma: How Do We Read the Holocaust Memoirs?", in Jan Parker, Timothy Mathews (eds.), Tradition, Translation, Trauma: The Classic and the Modern. New York: Oxford University Press, 287–288.

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

Notes "b" and "d" are identical, perhaps defined twice. Note "d" should therefore be modified in a link to note "b".

Same for notes "c" and "e". 79.53.226.135 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fixed now. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Waldorff

The article previously said:

"In an article in Warsaw Life, Waldorff accused Władysław Szpilman of plagiarism and theft; Szpilman's son paid Waldorff to renounce any claim to the work." SarahSV ^(talk) 16:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We now have:

"Waldorff, whose name was omitted from the German edition, gave an interview to Życie Warszawy explaining that he was deeply hurt, even though formally everything was legal because Szpilman owned the copyrights. After the interview, Szpilman and Waldorff broke off their friendship, wrote Jerzy Kisielewski from Życie Warszawy (The Warsaw Life). Representatives of Polish Society of Authors and Composers (ZAiKS) worked out a settlement, which stipulated that in the subsequent reissues the name of Waldorff would be included."

The quote from the Polish interview includes that there was a lawsuit (according to Google Translate). But we say that Szpilman owned the copyright. Which version is correct, and what was the lawsuit about? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A case of lost in translation. – There was no lawsuit. In her article for the Wprost weekly Justyna Kobus employed a phrase (quote in Polish): "Waldorff złożył nawet pozew w sądzie" meaning, he filed what is typically referred to as a "complaint." – In the next sentence she writes: "Przedstawiciele ZAiKS doprowadzili do zawarcia ugody ..." The representatives of ZAiKS [Polish Society of Authors and Composers] negotiated an agreement between parties ... and Waldorff was compensated for not being credited in the German edition; however, she didn't say who recompensed him for it. Agata Tuszyńska (Vera Gran) did not mention the German edition at all. It was only Dr Krzysztof Lichtblau (cited in mainspace) who explained everything in detail: ... prawnik zażądał od Szpilamana połowy zysków z niemieckiego wydania komiksu. Do rozprawy jednak nie doszło. Autorzy umówili się na 12 tysięcy marek za zrzeknięcie się wszelkich roszczeń i praw autorskich do Śmierci miasta.^[19] Symptomatyczny w tym kontekście jest fakt, że polska wersja ukazała się 2000 roku, czyli już po śmierci Waldorffa. Podobnie sprawa wygląda ze sprzedażą praw do zekranizowania wspomnień i ukazaniem się filmu w reżyserii Romana Polańskiego, co miało miejsce w drugiej połowie 2002 roku. Z prawnego punktu widzenia fakt pozbycia się praw do utworu nie jest możliwy. Jak stanowi art. 16 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych.^[20]

Working translation: – Waldorff's lawyer asked Szpilman to give his client one-half of the proceeds. The particulars of their final agreement remain private. However (here's a good part), Polish copyright law (article 16) stipulates, that after the sale of copyrights the original author still retains them. Loosing the rights entirely is not possible. If a different author appears in print, the only legal alternative is an investigation of plagiarism. Jerzy Waldorff died in 1999. No claim of plagiarism has ever been filed. Comparisons between prints made by scholars (Lichtblau, others) reveal that all changes made to later editions were only cosmetic.[1] Poeticbent talk 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Is the Warsaw Life article referred to by Tuszyńska available or quoted by anyone? (Is it the same article as the one by Jerzy Kisielewski that you cite, or is it a different one?) I'd like to know whether Tuszyńska is correct that Waldorff accused Szpilman of plagiarism in a Warsaw Life article. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Agata Tuszynska (Vera Gran) writes on page 191:[2] Jerzy Waldorff, whose name was removed from the title page and whose role in the drafting of these memoirs was ignored, published in 2000 an article in the daily Warsaw Live accusing Szpilman of being an impostor, a plagiarist, and a thief. – The only problem with her claim is that Jerzy Waldorff died in 1999. Poeticbent talk 22:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd like to know whether he did say that, even if the source got the year wrong. I've removed that source for now, by the way, largely because of this NYT review. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Most importantly: the German translator was Karin Wolff (but probably not this Karin Wolff), not Wolf Biermann.

I was thinking the article Tuszyńska speaks about and the interview with Jerzy Kisielewski would be the same thing but in truth I don't know. I have searched but could not find this article/interview online.

I think our article should state more clearly that the German translation was the first reissue of the book in 50 years. And that it became an international bestseller, translated in 38 languages! On the other hand, I think repeating twice in the introduction "Władysław Szpilman as the sole author" is WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't necessary mention the 2000 Polish edition in the introduction either.

My third paragraph would be: "forgotten for decades ... resurrected by 1998 German translation including text by Wilm Hosenfeld (memoir), Andrzej Szpilman (intro) and Wolf Biermann (essay)... 2000 English ... many other languages ... international bestseller". Then maybe a fourth paragraph about the movie?

In the "Publication history" section, I would add that the 2000 Polish edition is a modernized version of the original text. And one point that would be worth clarifying is whether the 1998 German edition was indeed a translation of the 1946 Polish, or if it was a translation of a modernized Polish version. Or a modernization of a translation of the 1946 Polish...

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Biwom, good suggestions. I've corrected the name of the German translator (thanks), and removed the repetition about the author in the lead and that there was a new Polish edition in 2000. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked around, and I was unable to confirm whether the quote from Tuszyńska (Vera Gran) attributed to some article reportedly published by Jerzy Waldorff in 2000, was in fact a reference to his interview with Jerzy Kisielewski in the daily Warsaw Life (Życie Warszawy). The interview in Życie Warszawy was mentioned by Justyna Kobus in Wprost (without exact date of print). Życie Warszawy was purchased by Presspublica in 2007,[3] and went through a lot of changes; their new archives do not have it. Meanwhile, Krzysztof Lichtblau (Szczecin University) did not mention Kisielewski's name even once in his expose. His own sources include: H. Grynberg, "Kto jest autorem 'Pianisty'?" (Who's the author of Pianist?), pp. 84–87;[4] J. Leociak, "Zdumiewająca przemiana." Rzeczpospolita, 3.01.2001; and M. Urbanek, Waldorff, p. 114; among others. Mariusz Urbanek said that he's under the impression that the memoir was revised in order to justify the removal of Waldorff's name (as its first editor) from the new edition. That's all. Poeticbent talk 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was wondering about the quote for two reasons: to find out whether Waldorff did call Szpilman a plagiarist, but also to learn more about the accuracy of that source. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Synopsis

The very detailed synopsis ought to be checked and tightened. It was added by a little-used account, Johnmusic, [5] who pasted it into this article in May 2006 after removing it from Władysław Szpilman, [6] where it was added by 203.129.40.112 in two edits on 23 May 2006. [7][8]

I'll try to take a look, but I can't guarantee that I'll get round to it. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have explained myself better. I removed some of the excessive quotations from the synopsis. In particular, one paragraph filled with nothing but Antisemitic canards attributed to a newspaper with no name, no author, and no date. The alleged content was a loose first-party memory of something, which is made to look in our Wikipedia article like a real thing. Unfortunately, the paragraph was restored. In my view, there's no place for it here. It is not about Szpilman and his life. It's pure hearsay as far as our WP:RS policy guidelines are concerned. Poeticbent talk 04:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in the book. I'm not sure what you mean by an antisemitic canard in this context. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't known how say it better but this so-called direct quote from a memoir about an unknown Warsaw paper is offensive and in poor taste, with no place in an encyclopedic article like this. I contains nothing but sourceless ruminations of God Knows Whom (considering the memoir's controversial authorship) about Goebbels propaganda painting the Jews as dirty with claims about history of the ghetto I have never seen. These claims (i.e. ghetto's alleged "total freedom" etc.) are being made without a third-party source anywhere in this article, and therefore they cannot be attributed to any (!) known Holocaust historian. Poeticbent talk 07:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is a synopsis of the book. If there's anything historically inaccurate, or anything we want to elaborate on, we can do it in a footnote, or if it's important to point out that it's false, then in brackets. But in this case, what is it that you see as false? The Germans did indeed say these things, and created a typhus epidemic by cramming half a million people into a small space without the ability to keep clean. I've added a source to that effect, but are you really doubting it? Or have I misunderstood your point? SarahSV ^(talk) 07:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, do you see what I see? Let me quote here. Please, just look at it. They were not, said the report, to be shut up in a ghetto; even the word ghetto was not to be used. The Germans were too cultured and magnanimous a race, said the newspaper, to confine even parasites like the Jews to ghettos, a medieval remnant unworthy of the new order in Europe. Instead, there was to be a separate Jewish quarter of the city where only Jews lived, where they would enjoy total freedom, and where they could continue to practise their racial customs... – This is atrociously bad writing within the memoir itself. This is not (!) about the history of the ghetto. There's no source mentioned in the memoir. I have never heard that the word ghetto was not to be used. Poeticbent talk 08:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as bad writing. I see it as an ironic representation of the German propaganda. I don't have a source to hand about whether they called it a ghetto, but they did present the construction of these areas in positive terms, and the Jews may have taken a similar view at first. For example, see this section of Night, from "The barbed wire which fenced us ...". I don't know whether that applied here; I'll have to read more. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's worth adding that the whole synopsis section (indeed, the whole article) needs to be rewritten. I'm considering doing it, but I haven't decided yet. In the meantime, I've been trying to get a version in place that's an improvement. But this particular quote isn't one I'd want to remove, unless there really was no such newspaper article, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:SlimVirgin, you will never find out where (?) this so-called direct quote lifted from a memoir – which describes an article from unknown Warsaw paper – originated from ... because nobody can. It is a sinkhole! The quote (within a quote) was at least partly paraphrased. It is based on someone's loose recollection of something perhaps seen somewhere in Warsaw. – But first of all, our Wikipedia memoir quote begins with a lie. The opening line says that it was: The only Warsaw newspaper published in Polish by the Germans... Wrong! The list of newspapers published in Polish under the German rule during the occupation of Warsaw was quite extensive and included 58 publications in the Polish language alone (all of them were closely monitored by the Germans). They were published under the threat of a concentration camp for any subversive content. The most popular titles in occupied Warsaw were:

Nowy Kurier Warszawski, Goniec Krakowski, Gazeta Lwowska, Kurier Częstochowski, Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, 7 Dni, Fala, Co miesiąc powieść, Rolnik, Siew, Las i Drewno, Rzemiosło, Wiadomości Aptekarskie, Ster, Mały Ster, and Zawód i Życie.

The popularity of these collaborationists papers (some of them referred to as "gadzinówki" in Polish, or the "reptilians") was closely connected with the complete ban on schoolbooks. These papers were the only officially approved news sources as well as teaching aides for children, crazy as it sounds.[9] Poeticbent talk 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "so-called direct quote" or "quote (within a quote)". He doesn't seem to be quoting. The passage refers to "the only Warsaw newspaper published in Polish by the Germans". According to the WP article Nowy Kurier Warszawski, the Germans established eight Polish-language daily newspapers. It doesn't say how many were in Warsaw. It says that Nowy Kurier Warszawski was the largest; perhaps it was the only one in Warsaw. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The opening line reads "[T]he only Warsaw newspaper published in Polish by the Germans provided an official comment on this subject: [colon-point] not only were the Jews social parasites, they also spread infection. They were not, said the report, to be shut up in a ghetto; even the word ghetto was not to be used." Szpilman "doesn't seem to be quoting" you say. He wrote what the report said: that "the word ghetto was not to be used". He does not copy words, he repeats something he remembered, with an indication that he is not the original author. This is what I meant by quoting the newspaper. — But actually, I didn't mean to get involved with this article so much, and this is not all that important to me. All I can say is that I really liked the film Pianist by Roman Polanski. Poeticbent talk 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation query

I'm having difficulty understanding this citation:

Krzysztof Lichtblau (2013). "Wymazywanie autora/ autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana" [Erasing the author/authors. Memories of Władysław Szpilman] (pdf) (in Polish). Uniwersytet Szczeciński. 219–220. VI Międzynarodowa Konferencja Doktorantów Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego (6th International Conference of Szczecin University Doctors of Philosophy). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

It's not clear what the publication is, or what the significance is of the second link. The source itself suggests this:

K. Lichtblau, "Wymazywanie autora/autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana, w: "Adlojada. Prawo i Kultura", pod red. J. Brejdaka, D. Kacprzaka, J. Madejskiego, B.M. Wolskiej, Szczecin 2016, 219–226.

SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made that source invisible until it's clear where it was published. I've been wondering what it meant by "the memoir was written entirely in the first person, and therefore equating its protagonist with Szpilman gave the work more credibility." Also, how did the author know that the decision to present Szpilman as the author was made by the publishing house; and where does the source say that this was confirmed by Waldorff's biographer Mariusz Urbanek? Finally, Google is translating "Doktorantów" as PhD student(s). SarahSV ^(talk) 06:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see my explanation below. The second link (to Conference of Szczecin) was a well-intended mistake. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 19:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Quick answers. 1. I was also wondering what the second link is about. 2. I think the correct quote is "equating its author with Szpilman gave the work more credibility". 3. It's Poeticbent and not the source who says that this was confirmed by Waldorff's biographer Mariusz Urbanek. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at the footnote please. The source of information provided by Krzysztof Lichtblau was M. Urbanek (p. 220) The information is confirmed by a footnote from Urbanek (preview of Urbanek's book is not available in Google).

Original:
Waldorff był niezadowolony, że jako autor Śmierci miasta przedstawiony jest bohater, a nie rzeczywisty autor, choć krytyka doskonale zdawała sobie sprawę, kto odpowiada za publikację. Zmiana autora była wynikiem ingerencji wydawnictwa.[6] Nieznane są powody, dla których wydawnictwo postąpiło w ten sposób. Być może powodem ingerencji było to, że Śmierci miasta opowiedziana została w pierwszej osobie. Wpisanie Szpilmana jako autora było więc potwierdzeniem wiarygodności wspomnień ...
---
6. M. Urbanek, Waldorff ..., op. cit., s. 156.

Translation:
Waldorff was not happy, that the protagonist of Śmierć Miasta was presented as the book author instead of the real author, even though the literary world new very well, who's responsible for this publication. The changing of the author was an input made by the publishing house.[6] It is not known why the publishing house did that. Perhaps it happened, because the story was told in the first person. Putting down Szpilman as the author was therefore a confirmation of credibility of his memories...
---
6. M. Urbanek, Waldorff ..., op. cit., s. 156.

Please tell me, where was the following information found, because I did not see it anywhere in the sources I looked at, which also explains the second link in my reference, which was my attempt at locating the source of Lichtblau's paper (quote): K. Lichtblau, "Wymazywanie autora/autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana, w: "Adlojada. Prawo i Kultura", pod red. J. Brejdaka, D. Kacprzaka, J. Madejskiego, B.M. Wolskiej, Szczecin 2016, 219–226. Poeticbent talk 15:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

O.K., I found it now! For the first time! The above information is hidden under the "info" popup menu without clear indication what the info thing is for from www.academia.edu. Thanks for bringing it up, this is why peer reviews in Wikipedia work. I wasted a lot of time trying to find what was already there. Shit happens, Poeticbent talk 15:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a few questions about this still. Does doktorantów mean doctors of philosophy or doctoral students, and what did that link and conference have to do with the citation? Also, how did "author" end up as "protagonist"? (That almost made it sound as though it might bave been someone else's story.)

As for the original source "confirming" it, he's not confirming it, he's the source of it, so that's the source that should be used. At it stands, we don't know what he says, and we're approaching it through several layers of interpretation and translation. Finally, it doesn't make any sense to say that the book gained credibility by naming Szpilman as the author because it was in the first person; rather, it was in the first person because it was Szpilman's story.

What happened with this book is not unusual with Holocaust literature (or, indeed, any other). An eyewitness account is written up by someone else, based on a diary, notes or interviews, then published "as told to", or ghostwritten and published under the name of the eyewitness. The first version of Rudolf Vrba's story about his escape from Auschwitz was written by a journalist, Alan Bestic, and serialized in a newspaper. Both were later named as authors of Vrba's book; depending on the edition, they were co-authors or "Rudolf Vrba with Alan Bestic". Later editions of the book named Vrba alone.

Joel Brand's story was published as Advocate for the Dead: The Story of Joel Brand by Alex Weissberg, but much of it is written in the first person, presumably based on interviews or Brand's diary. (I'm writing from memory; it's a while since I've looked at the book.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Could someone explain this citation to me, please? Who is the publisher, and it is a journal article or book chapter?

Krzysztof Lichtblau (2016). "Wymazywanie autora/ autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana" [Erasing the author/authors. Memories of Władysław Szpilman] (pdf) (in Polish). "Adlojada." Prawo i Kultura, edited by J. Brejdak, D. Kacprzak, J. Madejski, and B.M. Wolska; Szczecin 2016. 219–226. ISBN 9788363365424. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

The ISBN identifies the publisher as "Szczecin: Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie", but that's not in the citation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to answer you questions to the best of my abilities, from top to bottom. Indeed, pl:Doktorant means someone who attends doctoral studies, while the "Doctor of philosophy" is "Doktor filozofii" in Polish (not "doktorant"). I was unable to confirm (as of yet) if, and when, did Lichtblau complete his doctoral studies. He works on the board of the literary journal "eleWator" based in Szczecin.

Lichtblau's article was published in Adlojada. Prawo i kultura, (256 pages; see complete copy in PDF) ISBN 978-83-63365-42-4. It was a special occasion scholarly book sponsored by the Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie (National Museum, Szczecin), commemorating the annual "Adlojada" festival of Jewish culture in Szczecin 2016, named – in that particular year – as "Prawo i kultura" (Law and culture). The festival took place in 17–20 March 2015 with conferences devoted to Holocaust and the History of the Jews in Poland. The 18 papers presented at those conferences constitute the bulk part of this book.

Lichtblau focused his paper on controversies surrounding Holocaust memories resulting in court cases. He presented Waldorff as the book 'author'. – The proof of Waldorff's authorship is in the Przekrój magazine, where the sequential instalments were signed by him.^{(p. 219)} Szpilman was a 'protagonist' in those stories, not the author of articles. The two men were friends when the articles were published. However, the memories were written in the first person ... not about Waldorff, but about Szpilman. Lichtblau quotes Philippe Lejeune's book The Autobiographical Pact while trying to explain major challenges of literary writers recounting someone else's lives. The ensuing conflict between Waldorff and Szpilman erupted with full force as a result of the book's popularity after the year 2000. Poeticbent talk 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm wondering why the "6th International Conference of Szczecin University Doctors of Philosophy" was added to the Lichtblau/academia.edu citation. [10] It seems to have no connection to Lichtblau's article that I can see. And also why the name of the conference was translated that way, when doktorantów suggests that it was a student conference. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You inspire my research SarahSV, so the results are getting progressively better each time. I don't live in Poland therefore my Polish can be rusty. "Students" is "studenci" in Polish ... not "doktoranci" (meaning "doctoral candidates"). It wasn't a "student conference" but a "doctoral candidates" conference ... the mistake in translation was mine about the "bona fide PhDs" in its title; BTW, the conference did not offer their own English translation. My attempt at naming the conference attended by Lichtblau was a mistake. I knew from Google search snippets that there was a conference in Szczecin, but I named the wrong one. I am still surprised to see how scattered the online information is ... as if the Polish hosts didn't think of having their work ever quoted by the English language researchers, such as myself. If I didn't run into the PDF copy of the Adlojada book with Preface about the correct conference I would have never known what "Adlojada" Jewish festival in Szczecin was either, etc.

The pl:Adlojada translates as English Adloyada (Hebrew: עדלאידע or עדלידע, lit. "Until one no longer knows"), a humorous procession held in Israel in the Jewish holiday of Purim. Poeticbent talk 06:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I just learned that the Jewish Cultural Days “Adlojada” in Szczecin run their own website, which is available in English. It is hosted by the National Museum, Szczecin. The festival website presents all four volumes of Adloyada commemorative book series.[11] The fourth edition of Adloyada entitled “Law and Culture” has its own webpage there also with general book description in English, and the built-in 'issuu' viewer which does not require a PDF reader.[12] Poeticbent talk 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I've removed the template and some details to try to make the citation clearer (I couldn't see how to write it with the template).

It now says:

• Lichtblau, Krzysztof (2015). "Wymazywanie autora/autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana" ("Erasing the author/authors. Memories of Władysław Szpilman"), in J. Brejdaka, D. Kacprzaka, J. Madejskiego, B. M. Wolskiej (eds.). Adlojada: Prawo i Kultura, vol. 4. Szczecin: National Museum of Szczecin, 219–226 (academia.edu).

Previous:

• Krzysztof Lichtblau (2016). J. Brejdak; D. Kacprzak; J. Madejski; B.M. Wolska (eds.). "Wymazywanie autora/ autorów. Wspomnienia Władysława Szpilmana" [Erasing the author/authors. Memories of Władysław Szpilman] (pdf). "Adlojada." Prawo i Kultura (in Polish). Jewish Culture Days Adlojada, National Museum, Szczecin. 219–226. ISBN 9788363365424. The 4th volume of Adloyada commemorative book series (256 pages, complete) (Czwarty tom z serii szczecińskich Dni Kultury Żydowskiej Adlojada pod tytułem „Prawo i kultura”). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the footnote that quotes Lichtblau, because he's using an unusual definition of author. His abstract states:

Although Szpilman was named the author of the publication, the authorship should be ascribed to Jerzy Waldorff, who wrote down the memoirs, but was listed as their editor. The next edition, entitled Pianista (The Pianist), was published in 2000. This time Andrzej Szpilman, the composer’s son, was the author. Despite the fact that at the very beginning of the book the reader is informed that the two editions differ significantly, the two versions of the memoir are, in fact, very similar, not only on the factual layer, but also language used, which indicates that it was inspired by the first edition.

The new Polish edition doesn't name Andrzej Szpilman as the author, although he edited it and wrote an introduction. Lichtblau goes on to (it seems) contradict himself by acknowledging that it's very similar to the previous edition. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiedza

The sources give the publisher of Śmierć Miasta as Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza; Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Wiedza; or just Wiedza. Our infobox says Wiedza, and the citation says Spoldzielnia Wydawnicza Wiedza. The body of the article says Wiedza Powszechna.

Is the Wiedza that published the book definitely the same publisher as Wiedza Powszechna? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, it is the same publishing house, at least by name, because everything else has changed over the years. "Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza" means "publishing cooperative" in Polish (Soviet times), and is not a part of the actual publishers name Wiedza Powszechna meaning "Popular knowlege", which can be shortened to "Wiedza" (Knowlege).[13]

1. 1946 – publishing cooperative "Wiedza Powszechna" was formed as branch of "Czytelnik"
2. 1952 – nationalized as state publishing house (i.e. Państwowe Wydawnictwo) Wiedza Powszechna
3. 2007 – privatized as "Wydawnictwo Wiedza Powszechna Sp. z o. o." (Ltd.)
4. 2011 – closing its doors, apparently declared bankruptcy
5. 2012 – reactivated as "Wydawnictwo Wiedza Powszechna" (with different profile)

"Wydawnictwo" means publishing house in Polish. Poeticbent talk 16:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I couldn't find any source citing the book as published by Wiedza Powszechna. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. We have numerous sources telling us that the full name of the Wiedza that published the book in 1946 is Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Wiedza. And according to this 2016 article and this 1948 resolution of the council of ministers, Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Wiedza merged in 1948 with Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Książka to become Książka i Wiedza. Comparing this with the chronology of Wiedza Powszechna summarized by Poeticbent above, I am tempted to conclude that "the Wiedza that published the book is DEFINITELY NOT the same publisher as Wiedza Powszechna". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Biwom, that seems definitive. Thanks for finding those sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've changed "published in 1946 by Wiedza Powszechna" to "published in 1946 by Wiedza", linking to the later name, Książka i Wiedza. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Warsaw Uprising by Deczkowki - Kolegium A -15861.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Pianist (memoir" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Pianist (memoir and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#The Pianist (memoir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)