Talk:Schnorrer

Move to Schnorrer

There is only one other link with a similar name, and that is Karl Schnörrer; a disambiguation page would require more than two articles, though: It suffices to say that Schnorrer is a Yiddish term used in other languages as well, while saying "for a similar spelling see Karl Schnörrer" --Flammingo^Hey 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line "For the WWII ace pilot, see Karl Schnörrer" caused a long debate over its pages in May 2004. In its wake there were several polls about including him or variations to do so, the "prominent disambiguation" (that very same line) reached a majority of 9 versus 6; no neutrals. The opposition argued it should not be mentioned at all in Schnorrer, as proposed in the previous poll (no mention at all: 8 pro, 7 contra).

• WP:D clearly says that
  • the most obvious idea of a lemma is the article (Alexander the Great)
  • the same word may be used in another context (Alexander the Great (1956film)), it may use a Top Link
  • Lists like a disambiguation page must list more than two items.

I conclude that per majority decision, and to avoid revert warring, the Schnörrer should be in top link. Note that there were ambiguous participants like the now indefinetly blocked (by Jimbo) notorious vandal User:Wik. The edit history from 24 October 2005 until 8 March 2007 is here because of this unexplained and unrequested move in the heat of a revert war. The content had only been changed slightly (two sentences added, 3 grammar, 1cat.) Unfortunatly because of this move, WP:MOVE would be violated, so there should at least be a hint in the history page to that half year. --Flammingo^Hey 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - the top link would do the job. Seeing as his name is Schnörrer not Schnorrer, I don't think there should be any problem. Don't German ös become oes when umlats are undesireable or not possible to type? Jimp 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PAGE MOVED per discussion above. I sent the talk page that was already here to /Archive 1, and the article history that was previously here is deleted, as it contained no contribution history that's missing from the current version; just a bit of edit warring. Please let me know if there are any questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimp, yes, they do - Schnoerrer now redirects to Karl.--Flammingo^Hey 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Schnorrer is a great Yidishism and the original article is excellent. On'y an anal retentive putz would dispute it.174.16.168.20 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and Expand tag

This article does not include sufficient historic and geographic data, and changes in meaning over time, especially since much is readily available in the c.1906 Jewish Encyclopedia ref and its follow-on links. The article is non-neutral because of non-inclusion of cherry-picked RS'd content. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bialik

Was the first Hebrew usage, or the first famous one, from Bialik's poem "City of Slaughter"? - Lazer Stein (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

What does the image have to do with the article? Is somebody "begging" from somebody else in that illustration? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The caption says "Polnische Schnorrer", so, yes. Beggars sometimes wore top hats in 1875, though the hats probably weren't new. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of that image, originally added here seems pretty clearly antisemitic. The image depicts Polish "Schnorrers" as identifiably Jewish, and the caption presently lacks any elaboration or contextualisation of the antisemitic trope. The periodical the image is from had a history of antisemitism: Die Gartenlaube (q.v.). The article caption does not currently present the image as a duly contextualised historical example of non-Jewish hostile usage of the term, and the image does not actually clearly show someone begging – its contemporary in-image caption "Polnische Schnorrer" relies on the reader's pre-existing antisemitism; the reader is expected to already implicitly understand identifiably Jewish people to be schnorrers, otherwise the caption doesn't even really make sense. That, btw., is something this has in common with Mein Kampf, which also never even really tries to offer a convincing fundamental justification for its antisemitism; at a certain point the reader is simply expected to already be on board with it. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The concept is 100% Jewish, and your speculations are your fantasies: it is as antisemitic as the rest of Jewish humor. - Altenmann >talk 22:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether the term is originally Yiddish and whether the concept of a schnorrer attitude is "100% Jewish" (even when the word now also exists in other languages and the concept is known to goyim) is besides the point. What you so politely call my "speculations" only has to do with the image. Look at it. Cover the "Polnische Schnorrer" caption with your hand and look at the image. What part of what's shown there identifies the depicted individuals as schnorrers? (Or Poles for that matter?) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is one shnorrer, the one with a sly look in his eyes trying to convince other guy in something. I admit without caption one may think he is, say, telling a funny joke, but that's what a caption is for. After all, how I know without caption that some picture shows, say, a Lithuanian peasant. - Altenmann >talk 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so and then there was just one? Does one singular schnorrer now conform with the caption, or is this "your speculation", "your fantasy"? (If any of this sounds harsh, see above.) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I was answering your question "What part of what's shown there identifies the depicted individuals as schnorrers". I dont undrestand your follow-up. Please avoid sniggering: this does not contribute to mutual understanding: different cultures have differet sense of humor and irony and the likes. Please explain clearly why you thing that my explanation was unclear and I will try to clarify further. I may add that both the cartoon author and I see a shnorrer in the picture, so I think it is a reasonable illustration. I didnt pick a random cartoon and say "gee, sure this one looks like a shnorrer to me". So your irony is misplaced. - Altenmann >talk 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Image removed. I found the contemporary context for the term "Polhische Schnorrer", which refers to German (even Jewish German) racism towards Polish Jews. I will try to find the place (History of the Jews in Germany? An extra section about Polish Jews there?) where the info from the book can be added to Wikipedia, together with the picture. Thank you for the discussion, which made my lazy ass move and do some research. - Altenmann >talk 23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

References