Talk:Roman Vishniac

Biology

I'm not sure that Viahniac specialized in "circulatory systems in unicellular plants" as I think that a circulatory system is composed of a lot of cells, so in an unicellular plant... Alamar

In this case, and for the questionable statements below, have you examined the cited sources? I myself do not have access to a good library at the moment, so I cannot do it; but it seems that this would be a good place to start fact checking. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No I don't have access to these sources for now but I'm looking for them.

But for the unicellular problem I have a master degree in Biology and I can assure you that unicellular (plants or animals) have no circulatory system! You can read circulatory system and you'll see why this is impossible with only one cell.

About Zbaszyn I also have other sources that don't agree with this article, like the Zbaszyn website ( http://uk.zbaszyn.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=7 ), http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Zbaszyn.html and the wikipedia article on Zbaszyn.

So i think that this 2 points could be changed without having access to the sources. For the Gran Prize I'll try to find the source.

82.67.74.94 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we comment the dubious statements out, and then look at the sources to see where the real problem lies? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Prize for Art in Photography

Vishniac is said to have win this but I can't find a single information on the internet about this Prize that isn't directly linked to Vishniac (and most of the time to this article or a copy of it). Are you sure it really exists? Alamar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.251.110 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zbaszyn

I am translating this article for the French Wikipedia so i'm reading and checking a lot of details. I'm not 100% sure but other informations I found on internet about Zbaszyn show that if it's near the Germany/Poland border, in 1938 it was a Polish city and not a German one and the internment camp Roman sneaked into wasn't at all for a deportation in Poland but for Polish Jews living in Germany and deported because of a new Polish law. (see Zbaszyn). Besides, in 1938 I think there was no jewish deportation camps in Poland since Germany only invaded Poland in september 1939. So "he sneaked into Zbaszyn, an internment camp in Germany near the border, where Jews awaited deportment to Poland." should be changed to "he sneaked into Zbaszyn, an internment camp in Poland near the German border, where Jews had been deported from Germany.". Alamar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.251.110 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I only took the time to look for the source now and I found it on the internet there http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20087647,00.html . As you can see it never said that Zbaszyn was a deportation camp. Actually it says nearly nothing on the camp. So I'm now sure that my version is the good one. Alamar 212.99.5.122 (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. Make the change. (By the way, I'm really Rmrfstar; I just changed my username.) -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

December 20 edits

DanielK212, concerning the edits you made to ==Publications== and ==Exhibitions==, I have a few comments and questions which I list below:

1. Do you have a source for the 31 photographs in Polish Jews, or was this just a typo of mine? Also, I think the focus on spirituality in this publication is notable.
2. Doesn't Roman Vishniac (ICP) list the ICP exhibition at the Jewish Museum separately from the touring ICP exhibition? Also, where is it listed that the title of the latter is the same as the former?
3. I believe the title of Children of a Vanished World does not include "Roman Vishniac", even though the name is on the cover. Were the photographs exhibited at Spertus Museum from Children of a Vanished World or showcased with it?
4. Should not we cite the publication date of the version of Polish Jews that we used, at least for the citation?
5. Is the '83 version of The Vanished World the most popular of publications? I thought he was more well-known sooner.

Respond by the same numbering or indented within it? Thanks for the good edits. Call if you have too many questions. --Rmrfstar 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

re: dec 20 edits

1. the book jacket itself indicates 31 photos
2. looking carefully at the images, I can see evidence of "spirtuality" in just about half. In retrospect, that focus is very important.
3. yes, they are listed separatly, but the dates, titles and locations indicate they are the same exhibit traveling, from NYC to Albany etc.
4. "Children of the Vanished World" does not include photos of the original RV and reviews indicate that the exhibit in question showed only the unpublished ones.
5. my contact with him was from 1978 to 1981 and he was not yet recognized by the public

Third person reference

OK; I think we need less "he"s now... the article's becoming too informal-- look at Henri Cartier-Bresson. -- Rmrfstar 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

August 18, 2006

Is there a way to unprotect this so that the very numerous punctuation and grammar errors can be corrected? It's sad to see a featured article in such disarray, especially one written about such an important and interesting individual. --Charlene.fic 02:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the article still in such disarray? Have you any suggestions as to how we may improve it? -- Rmrfstar 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

small change

"He was, however, an extremely diverse photographer, an accomplished biologist and a knowledgeable student and teacher of art history."

2nd sentance I'm changing to "He was not only an extremely diverse photographer, but also an accomplished biologist and a knowledgeable student and teacher of art history." because I don't think however is appropriate since you're not directly contradicting anything.Omishark 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! -- Rmrfstar 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm ?

"He is known also for his extreme humanism and respect and awe for life, sentiments that can be seen in all aspects of his work."

A person with such a heavy agenda as a zionist hardly fits the character of a "extreme humanist" (What is a humanist?) and "awe for life" (Shock & Awe maybe, har har, I digress).

I can't say I see the contradiction. -- Rmrfstar 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably because you're not looking through the eyes of an anti-semite. Try squinting real hard and then look at this from say "historian" David Irving's point of view. If you support the right of a Jewish state to exist, you can't be a humanist. See it now?

The fact is that many well known humanists have supported the existence of the Jewish state. The name Albert Einstein for one comes to mind. Einstein served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York. And he was invited to serve as the second president of Israel (which he declined). No doubt some wouldn't count Einstein as a humanist because, well, you know, he's one of them, you know, those people.Askolnick 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I know why you indulge in victimism: it works. However it is not that strange doubting that a Zionist (i.e. a Jewish nationalist), an historian focused on his ancestors, an author of portraits of pious or famous Jews etc. could be defined as "extreme humanist" (extreme?). You know, humanism tends to be a broader concept that being a convinced Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.210.11 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the photo that people have chosen to use of him makes him look like some sort of raggly skinned rapist demon worshipper, cant you find one nicer?

- Lemonus

Unfortunatly, that's the best available at the moment. I'm currently talking to Greg Wilsbacher who should be able to provide us with some free images from the collection at http://www.sc.edu/library/digital/collections/vishniac.html. He said he send me them by yesterday, but that he's also very busy... -- Rmrfstar 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to allow use of a beautiful portrait I made of Roman and Edith Vishniac, that really captures their marvelous relationship. I took it in 1977 and it was published in an article on them in Hadassah magazine around 1981 or 1982. I need to find the negative and scan it. However, it's on 120 film, which I cannot scan and therefore will have to take it to a lab. Askolnick 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the scan back from the lab and have replaced the previous photo with my portrait of Roman and Edith Vishniac. Askolnick 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether there should (or shouldn't) be a Jewish state, but how that state would be brought into being and maintained. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tone

I read this article with interest, congratulations on getting it to FA status. I found, though, that the tone was much more casual than is usual for our most lauded biographies. There was a folky tone that didn't add anything to his biographical information, it seemed to be there only to make him seem more accessible. Not a bad goal, but not encyclopedic IMO. I'd like to see the article with a few fewer adjectives and adverbs, and a slightly more formal tone. Anchoress 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's a folky tone, that's probably from my writing style. Feel free to change or criticise certain sections if you feel they are too casual, as you have already done. -- Rmrfstar 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed?

Glad this article got fixed, apparently someone decided to trash it. Thanks to the fixer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich153fish (talk • contribs)

Whenever an article goes on the main page, it gets lots of vandalism, and reverting that vandalism quite commonplace, though still deserving of thanks. -- Rmrfstar 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian-American

This is one of those in betweeners. How should we mention nationality in the LEAD sentence? Russian-born American? He came to the US at the age of 43 and lived here till the age of 93? Thoughts/help? Thanks! --Tom 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is: vague at first, then more specific later... -- Rmrfstar 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.

• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is V's photo journalism authentic ?

The NY Times Magazine of 4/4/10 carries a fascinating article that raises questions of reliability and authenticity of V's photojournalism. Like other famous photographers of the Leica era, it seems that V. has used methods like photo montage and deliberate staging to gain effects. This should be written up, preferably with reference to other photographers of the same era. Cognoscente18 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. As one of the main authors of this article, I've heard rumblings before about issues of inauthenticity, but the NYTimes article is the first "reliable source" which deals with the issue. I assure you I'll get right on incorporating the relevant material into Wikipedia. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In light of the recent new take on Vishniac in the NYT, I am uncomfortable about the claim in our article that in Poland Jews were not allowed to take pictures or even carry cameras. This is an outlandish claim. Any look at the business directories of prewar Jewish communities will show photography studios proudly listed. Furthermore, Vishniac himself apparently never used a hidden camera, but falsely claimed that he had to, giving rise to the myth I suppose. I know that the NYT article does not address this issue explicitly, but could we remove this text? It simply violates common sense.

Could this claim be a part of Vishniac's bias, explained in the NYT article, to present the Jewish communities of Poland as much more alien and other than the actually were? I mean, a society in which even owning a camera or taking pictures is punished by law would seem utterly alien to the average American.

Just to be clear, there was in Poland at that time a paranoia about anyone photographing train stations, bridges, and other objects of supposed military significance. This is probably the main reason why Vishniac could not simply photograph anything he liked. But hey, in recent years people have been arrested and even sentenced in the US for photographing similar objects of major significance, so that is not all that unusual.

For examples of excellent photographs of Polish Jews before the war, see [And I still see their faces http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.aspx?c=jmKYJeNVJrF&b=478527]Sourcelat0r (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the statement in question. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Maya Benton's research into Visniac's photos at ICP (reported in The New York Times) has substantially revised our knowledge of Vishniac's work, and circumstances under which took his photos in 1930s. I'll try to add this info to article. Some of WP article is not well written, eg "After Roman's death, more photographs were discovered, and the current exhibit in Berlin showcases such newly discovered photographs." Current exhibition? Vishniac's Berlin exhibition took place in 2005-6. Mick gold (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

digestive problems

The following is not a joke. There was a photographer famous for his biological photographs who had severe digestive problems. He had to eat something about once an hour, or he would suffer from extreme pain. His wife would make a pile of small sandwiches for him each morning. Was this Vishniac? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I met Roman Vishniac in 1956 at the Marine Biological Laboratory in 1956

I certainly did not notice or know of him having the referenced digestive problem. I was between freshman and sophomore years in high school and spending the summer with my uncle, Dr. Morris Rockstein, a teacher and researcher during the summer at the Marine Biological Laboratory there in Woods Hole, acting as his lab assistant and general factotum. I was introduced to Roman Vishniac in his role as a photographer who was making strides in making biological microphotographs. Doc Rock (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

FAR needed

This article has taken on some uncited text, and has numerous MOS errors. Is anyone willing or able to tune the article up to FA standards to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --doctor k (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Why is this description of the described photograph andy different from the others above It?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Roman Vishniac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120612054230/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20120503 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20120503
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041120013228/http://www.artsandlectures.ucsb.edu:80/archive/1999-2000/pr/vishniac.htm to http://www.artsandlectures.ucsb.edu/archive/1999-2000/pr/vishniac.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070302000902/http://reference.allrefer.com:80/encyclopedia/V/Vishniac.html to http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/V/Vishniac.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220233529/http://www.goethe.de:80/INS/us/los/acv/ztg/2007/en2715296v.htm to http://www.goethe.de/INS/us/los/acv/ztg/2007/en2715296v.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roman Vishniac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225141715/http://www.hias.org/WhoWeAre/120stories/59vishniac.pdf to http://www.hias.org/WhoWeAre/120stories/59vishniac.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051125202948/http://nmajh.org:80/exhibitions/mendoza/statement.htm to http://www.nmajh.org/exhibitions/mendoza/statement.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Vishniac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126150635/http://museum.icp.org/vishniac/who/ to http://museum.icp.org/vishniac/who/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)