Talk:Zofia Poznańska

Zosha

Zosha is a mispelled rendering of Zosia, which is a diminutive of Polish name Zofia. I think we should use the subject's proper full name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources use Sophia, Sophie, or Zosha.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=pS9w5A2Cp48C&pg=PA313&dq=Poznanska+1942</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=zXkpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&dq=Poznanska+1942</ref><ref>https://data.bnf.fr/en/15023926/sophia_poznanska/</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=U43lDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA265&dq=%22Sophia+Poznanska%22</ref><ref name="cement">{{cite journal |last1=Raizen |first1=Esther |title=CEMENTING STRATEGIES IN YEHUDIT KAFRI’S ZOSHA: FROM THE JEZREEL VALLEY TO THE RED ORCHESTRA |journal=Hebrew Studies |date=2018 |volume=59 |pages=335-358 |publisher=National Association of Professors of Hebrew (NAPH) |location=University of Texas, Austin|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26557801}}</ref><ref name="har">{{cite news |last1=Livneh |first1=Neri |title=A Woman Called Zosha |accessdate=31 August 2020 |agency=Haaretz |publisher=Amos Schocken, M. DuMont Schauberg |date=23 April 2003|url=https://www.haaretz.com/1.4782744}}</ref>

Not Zofia. She was in Poland as a youth in a multilingual society. She was then in Israel, Paris and Brussels, Russia, and died in Brussels. Using modern Polish conventions for someone who mostly did not use Polish is a cultural appropriation.VR Boxing (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

She was born in Poland and had a Polish surname, it is quite obvious she would use Polish (or Yddish). To use English spelling of her name she never did is the real "cultural appropriation". Polish translation of the book by Kafri uses Zosia in title, but as I said, it is a diminutive of Zofia, which is used in the Polish translation [1]. Many sources for Zofia, including English: [2], [3], and of course Polish, from one of the main Polish-Jewish websites [4] to a government-run culture portal [5] to others [6], [7], [8], [9] but also German (see German Wikipedia article, which uses Zofia, not Sophie, even though German rendering of Zofia is also Sophie, just like in English). Ping User:Nihil novi for his 3c. PS. Also ping User:Scope creep who commented on this on my talkpage recently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It is correct to use the Polish name. There is a long history on Wikipedia on renaming bio articles, in this manner, to match the name of the person, correctly in the foreign language, English. It has been a long day. I think it needs to be reverted. scope_creep^Talk 01:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My $0.03 worth:

Zofia Poznańska was born and grew up in Poland, leaving it at age 19. Her given name was the Polish Zofia. Her surname, Poznańska, had been adapted, as was so often the case with Polish Jews, from the name of a city, the Polish city of Poznań.

If her given name is to be "translated" into another language, then may we expect her surname likewise to be "translated", from the original Polish "Poznańska" to, say, "Poznan"? Or shall we at least alter it, as regularly happens when a Polish woman migrates to an Anglophone country, from its feminine form to the masculine "Poznański" or to the masculine anglicized "Poznanski" (without the diacritic over the second n)? Or should we, perhaps, present her with a surname borrowed from a different city? Who shall choose? Has anyone consulted Zofia Poznańska about this most personal matter?

Nihil novi (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi good point... - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sophia grew up in a German and Yiddish speaking city of the Russian empire. She left soon after the Soviet-Polish war. "Zosha" was her GRU codename. Only Polish sources use "Zofia", everyone else uses Sophia or Sophie. Sophie: many pages of books, Zofia: "Zofia+Poznanska"+1942 just Polish.VR Boxing (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the extensive Hebrew-language Wikipedia article on Zofia Poznańska [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%94, "She grew up in a wealthy and assimilated Jewish home." I.e., she was linguistically and culturally fully Polish, in addition to her Jewish heritage.

Our German-language article [10] calls her "Zofia Poznańska".

Nihil novi (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia moved around. The extensive Hebrew page you brought up calls her Sofia (סופיה), not Zofia (זופיה), and also says sources refer to her also as Poznanski. Assimilated (מתבולל) refers to her religious upbringing which was secular, not language. You are making wrong assumptions on language use in a city that spoke Yiddish, Polish and German in 1906 on the border between the German and Russian empires. The official stone commemorating her, 0:40 in this video, uses סופיה פוזננסקי (Sofia Pozanski).VR Boxing (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is hard to know what assimilated means without more information. Assimilated into what? Polish culture? Jewish? Russian? Btw, what would be Zofia/Sophie in Yddish? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@VR Boxing ... [11]... I kept clicking and clicking pretty much all afternoon, but nothing happens... Could you un-click whatever you clicked before VR Boxing? Thank you so much. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@VR Boxing - I never mind, I clicked very quickly and then had to put many letters in, but it worked. Thanks anyway - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @VR Boxing: The consensus is clearly moving towards Zofia Poznańska. If you keep moving the page, you will get blocked. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Worldcat lists her as Zoshah Poznanskah, so that's another redirect. And the article Yehudit_Kafri had a red link at Zosha Poznanska so I've created that redirect too. PamD 11:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for redirects, they are good, though that first one makes me cringe. What can create such a monstrosity, User:Nihil novi? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Cringe, indeed! These are misbegotten attempts to suggest in English – certainly not in French, German, or Russian – how their authors thought Zofia Poznańska's Polish nickname Zosia and surname were pronounced. The name-manglers would have done better to forget about the nickname and just use her authentic name, Zofia, which even Anglophones should be able to pronounce correctly (Zof-ya). The second, palatalized n in her surname, with the diacritic, is pronounced like the ñ in the Spanish word "mañana". Nihil novi (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe someone fully conversant with the International Phonetic Alphabet could provide the pronunciation of Zofia Poznańska's name, in the article's lead? Nihil novi (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Image

Can we use this photo? [12] - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This one is even nicer [13] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Either or both apparently can be used, but i'm unable to attach either of them to the article. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Nihil novi (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't locate the source for that image. It is off the front cover of the biography. Without the source url, it would be deleted within weeks. The Russian image rationale doesn't capture the full URL unfortunately and I cant locate it on the [14] site. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it may be on here as well: [15] if somebody who knows the Russian language. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As I viewed it, a Russian ---> English Google Translate came on, and seemed to work fairly well. I did not see Zofia Poznańska mentioned under any of the photos. Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Amazon link

I have seen page iii of Zafri's translation through the "Look inside" facility on Amazon.co.uk, so I included that URL as part of my reference. It would have been a perfectly valid reference to a book source without an online link, but it seemed useful to link to the place where it is possible to see the partial text online. First the reference was removed entirely with the edit summary "Removed Amazon ref". I saw no reason for this, so replaced the reference. My edit, with three other constructive edits I had made, was rolled back with the edit summary "You use Worldcat, not Amazon which is Spammy and promotional per WP:NOTADVERTISING". If anyone can find access to the text of the book other than through Amazon, please add that URL. In the meantime, please do not remove this reference (and, in particular, @Scope creep: please do not roll back a whole group of constructive edits because you disagree with just one of them: you could have taken the trouble to remove the particular element you disagree with, the url link, without throwing away the rest). I was prepared to find that the software would reject my link to Amazon, as happens with various poor sources: as the software allowed it, I see no reason for one editor's preferences to disallow it. PamD 18:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @PamD: Its junk. The software shows it up as red link with a tooltip coming up stating Generally unreliable source. When your part of AFC/NPP, the rule is that you pull these spammy sources, so it will need to come out. Wikipedia software in general is absolutely junk. I wouldn't rely on it for anything. You don't link to Amazon, to prove that something is written on the inside cover. You link to the book. I suspect the original reference that I put in, has the same information. Anytime you link to a shop, particularly when the information is available elsewhere, reduces the quality of Wikipedia. Your subverting the whole idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and breaking the Terms of Use. I plan to get the book at some when I see it on sale. So it will need to go. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'm not particularly convinced ... and there was no justification at all for you to remove all my other work. I have removed the link which so upsets you. Please do not remove the rest of my work (or that of any other constructive editor when you disagree over one small detail, a link, in among a lot of other work). PamD 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And the software was not showing me any error messages in red or any other colour, but was happily allowing me to link to the Amazon site. PamD 19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I'm sorry I removed your other work. It was really decent, I liked it and I admire it and enjoyed the fact that folk were working on it. You need to be part of the NPP/AFC group before you can see it. The policy now, is to remove these kinds of links, if they turn up red or yellow. It shows up as red or yellow depending on how bad it. People always say it doesn't matter and you same pattern of conversation on talk pages, all the time. For some reason Amazon isn't on an edit filter, e.g. Daily Mail, I think because most people say, well "I buy stuff from it, it can't be that bad". Same with Techcrunch, Forbes and numerous other low-quality sites. Its bad enough that the WMF changed the software, so it would be easy for an editor to identify what ones references were low-quality, or from a predatory journal source, at a glance. Even if it didn't show up in the software, I would never link to a shop. Always use academic sources if possible. I feel as though I'm trying to give you lesson, but you've written hundreds of articles already. Disagreement and lack of consensus is the reason its not on an edit filter and more so lack of resources. Even though the Wikipedia software is universally derided in the software community, because its ancient junk, the WMF is under the same constraints that we are. They would have hundreds of sites added to the edit filter, assuming their was a need do it and consensus to achieve it. I don't see the benefit of linking to a shop. scope_creep^Talk 19:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The benefit of linking to a "shop", in this case, was that the shop provides access to an online text which as far as I know nowhere else does. Your attitude to this, and what feels like your "ownership" of this article, means that the reader is deprived of a chance to link through to that text. How does that benefit them or improve the encyclopedia? "Always use academic sources if possible": yes, of course, but I explained at the time why I was linking to the Amazon site. Find the book available online somewhere else and I'll link to it happily. Another time please take much more care only to change the one small thing you object to, rather than lazily abusing Rollback to destroy a bunch of edits by an experienced editor just because it's easier to do it that way. PamD 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue that I am sure was discussed before. I like linking to a direct page online if possible, even if it is a shop, but I know we prefer Google Books > shops if possible. I am unsure if we have a policy that explicitly prevents linking to shops like Amazon for page views (please link to it if we have, TIA). That said, I also have seen people converting references (for example to Harvard style) with total disregard for the destruction of Google Books page links (and occasional quotations...). Anyway, this is something to discuss on a policy or style page. As for the matter here, I just want to thank everyone who got interested in this very niche topics, AGF and you are all doing a great job. Polish-Jewish topics desperately need more input from neutral and experienced editors after the last few years of its wiki reputation going down the drain. Let's all be friends, eh? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Did You Know hook?

Thanks to everyone's efforts, this has now been expanded to a size acceptable for DYK. I can take care of the nom and QPQ, but hook suggestions are welcome :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How about:

"Zofia Poznańska, cipher clerk to the Red Orchestra spy ring, was captured in Belgium by the Germans in 1941 and hanged herself in prison in 1942 so the Germans would not get the cipher?"

Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I like it. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Very good. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Soviet espionage network

Hi @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: It is complex. This lady was a communist and worked for Leopold Trepper who was Soviet agent. He worked for Soviet intelligence. But the actual Red Orchestra as named by the Abwehr wasn't fully communist and wasn't a Soviet network. It was made up of all sorts of people with all sort of motivations, people from the left, the right, the young, the old, those from academia, the film industry, dentists, doctors, road workers, civil servants, playwrights, writers, producers, all sorts of people. I think the Trepper group and the ones that followed were wholly professional Soviets agents and ran a Soviet espionage network. They worked in the low countries and in France/UK/Scandinavia/Switzerland. But on the side in Germany it was folk who were anti-fascists, lots of Jewish, Protestant and some Catholic folk who didn't consider themselves communist, but perhaps admired the communist planned system and saw the Soviet Union as bulwark against Nazism, and as a resultant, a way to get back at the Nazis. That idea that was promulgated by the Gestapo as them being Soviet Communist espionage network, was taken forward, unquestioned, for much of the cold war right into the 1980's. New research started to come through, that detailed it not wholly communist or Soviet by a long way. Even those folk who were in that espionage network, for example in the Red Three and in some instances of the Trepper groups were not Soviet. A lot of the intelligence went to UK and America. So I think it is not strictly true to say it is Soviet and it wouldn't be accurate to put in in. It needs clarification somehow. Ive taken it out all the other bio articles, after I found out about. I never came up with anything that accurately described it. Its a paragraph here to formulate. I never managed to get it down to a sentence. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe Soviet-affiliated then? How do the sources describe the Red Orchestra? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not bad. scope_creep^Talk 01:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Zofia Poznańska, cipher clerk to the Red Orchestra espionage group, was captured in Belgium by the Abwehr in 1941 and hanged herself in prison in 1942 so the Germans would not get the cipher? Source:

Created by Scope creep (talk), Charmk (talk), PamD (talk), Piotrus (talk), VR Boxing (talk), GizzyCatBella (talk), Nihil novi (talk), and Robby.is.on (talk). Nominated by Scope creep (talk) at 08:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

• New & long enough, interesting, neutral & well-written. Earwig finds nothing. Ref linked implies but does not actually say "so the Germans would not get the cipher" - I suppose this is ok. Is a QPQ needed? Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've not done a review. I wrote a good chunk of the article. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• The DYK rules say there is an exception for QPQs is if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits. Scope creep has 3 previous DYK nominations, so seems is exempt from this I believe. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, GTG, but please say in the nom if a QPQ is not required. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Maiden name of Poznańska's mother

The maiden name of Poznańska's mother as given in this article, "Hana Bash", is almost certainly a misspelling and should be verified in a reliable source.

The given name would likely have been spelled "Hanna"; the surname, perhaps "Basch", "Basz", or something similar.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It states in the source Parents: Mosze Poznański and Hana (Basz) Poznańska. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I have accordingly, in the article, corrected Poznańska's mother's maiden surname, "Bash" ---> "Basz".

The given-name variant "Hana", written with one n, does occur, so it may be correct here.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)