Talk:Antoni Dunin - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 08:53, 18 August 2007 (→Removal of material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:53, 18 August 2007 by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) (→Removal of material)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antoni Dunin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography: Military Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Military history: European / Polish / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	World War II task force

Original research?

Since the article was created by a descendant, and includes her own self-published family tree as a reference, I think significantly more neutral references are needed here. --208.181.90.67 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes these articles are now going to be cleaned up. --Matt57 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you are misapplying Misplaced Pages policy. That standard is not that every sentence needs a citation. I think it would be better for you to put these articles back to their original state, and then AfD all of them to let the community decide if they should be kept, or not. That would be the best way to proceed, I think. If you try to do this singlehandedly, there will be lots of disputes and edit warring, and that's not good. Jehochman 03:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the referencing is totally deficient and that this stuff might need to go away, or be merged into another article. The best bet is to get community consensus so things can be done right. You also might want to contact the relevant Wikiprojects to get their input. Jehochman 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I might do that, i.e. ask around in the Wikiprojects. --Matt57 03:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable 3rd party non-trivial sources

These, I need to see for Antoni Dunin. If you know of any, please list them here. If we cant find any, the article will get deleted. --Matt57 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if proper sources can't be found, the article will be nominated for deletion. Jehochman 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Template:Rfcbio

Removal of material

I've restored the material that keeps being removed. Either the subject is notable and the sources adequate or not. If not, the article should be deleted. If yes, I see no harm in that material remaining. SlimVirgin 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, while I find the Dunin story interesting, according to WP:BIO, the subject isn't notable and the sources are inadequate. Thus, the article should be deleted.Proabivouac 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gutting an article is essentially an out of process deletion. I've said before that articles like this could be nominated for deletion.- Jehochman 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing happens all the time.

I feel bad about this, honestly, because it's a moving story, and one must sympathize with the Elonka's labor of love in putting all this material together. But policy couldn't be clearer, and I also have to sympathize with Matt57, who having been framed by socks (again!) reported to ANI and blocked, is now being threatened with an RfC.Proabivouac 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of the article and Matt are separate — Matt really shouldn't be editing these articles given his conflict with Elonka. As for notability, it's best either to put the article up for AfD or to let the material stand, but keeping the article without the material doesn't make much sense to me. SlimVirgin 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proab - the issue is not of deletion right now. The first step is to take out invalid sources (COI e.g.) and OR. Once the article gets in a stable state and everyone is agreement with that state, then the next step is deletion, if applicable. The subject may be notable because of the award it won (). That 'labor of love' belongs in her personal website by the way, or her own wiki. We're not here to do our labours of love, we're here to make an encyclopedia according to the rules (notability, OR). Thats all that matters.

Slim, I have no conflict with Elonka. I'm talking to her right now on her talk and asking questions about the sources she had put in a long time ago and we're still having the discussion.

Again, we should not do the AfD right now. It has failed in the past and will obviously fail again if nothing is changed in the article. The steps in cleaning up this article are first checking what the sources are saying. Then take out any unreliable or COI-problematic sources. Then take out the OR, which is not supported by the sources and do everything by consensus and making sure everyone agrees. Isnt that what we do for any other article? Why are people then treating this article unlike any other? Fine Elonka made them, that doesnt mean we have to bend Misplaced Pages rules. These articles are part of the encyclopedia. As far as I know right now, we have 2 confirmed sources for this article and 1 more if Elonka gives that to me or tells me what it said exactly so we can reference the statements. --Matt57 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see: "The following types of military figures are always notable: Recipients of a country's highest military decoration."

I'm not certain that I agree, but there it is in the Military History project's guideline. Okay. It seems to contradict WP:BIO, though, since receiving a country's highest military decoration doesn't guarantee that one will meet the source criteria laid forth there. The source for the award is just his name in a long list of others.Proabivouac 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes its just a list of awards. To me, thats not notable. There's probably no one else in that list that has an article here. But this debate really comes in the end i.e. after checking what the sources are saying, taking out OR not supported by sources and reducing (or increasing, which is unlikely) the article to a size where everything is sourced. After that we can decide if the sources left in the article are appropriate or not. I'm waiting for Elonka to get back to me and if she doesnt, I'll source the relevant text and alert everyone of the text which is not supported by the sources and thus which must go. Since there's a great deal of resistance of my doing so (obvious from the article history) and I've had about 15 people jump on me about this, I'll contact them each personally and ask them what they think of the removal. I can tell you right now that the article will end up in about the same shape as my first edit where I removed the OR with a few references left. --Matt57 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think in addition to the community feeling that the award is notable, there's also been discussion about nobility being encyclopedic here: Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Conclusions. Shell 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats the link of the debate on that page you're refering to? --Matt57 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that it's this:Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility Once again, it appears to contradict WP:BIO, and ultimately WP:OR ("Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." -- not "include somewhere," but rely on.) and WP:RS - we have an article the existence of which is justified on the basis of the outcomes of project discussions, however there are no non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Since the article must exist, it's reasoned, there should be something here; therefore we've no choice to go with what we have, including Elonka's original research. To say that Elonka "happens to be an editor," as Shell did, significantly understates the matter: she happens to be the editor who created this article and added that link; therefore it is a self-published source.Proabivouac 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works by consensus; while the biography notability guidelines apply, this doesn't make the more specific consensus developed in the project discussions any less important. The assertion of his nobility and the military award are not sourced to Elonka's site. Her site is used for biographical background only - the site is also based on third-party references which I am working on locating and including directly since Elonka's site seems to be a major sticking point here. Given the short period of time I've had to work, you could consider that I've already come up with additional third-party sources and allow me some time to wade into the morass that is researching post-war Poland. Or, you could proactive and assist in the research yourself. However, if this is really a "not notable" discussion, it should be going on in the community eye somewhere like Afd. Shell 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much concerned about notability right now. Antoni Dunin might be notable. The bigger issue as I said is unsourced OR. What other references did you find? I'm about to doing a re-write of this article and will use any references available. --Matt57 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shell, you can say Misplaced Pages works by consensus and you're right. I can say consensus cannot override core policy, and I'd be right. All this begs the question of what happens when, for whatever reason, consensus is - and has for some time been - to ignore core policy.Proabivouac 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo weighs in

On Talk:Elsie Ivancich Dunin, Jimbo Wales wrote, "Every fact in the article needs to be cited to a reliable source." Not some facts. Every fact.Proabivouac 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pro. I'll add in Jimbo's edit which Ned Scott pointed out on ANI, which also removed large amounts of unreliably sourced or OR text -> , which is exactly what I have done too, but got threatened and hammered on by others for nothing. --Matt57 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourced version of the article

Please forget who created these articles. It doesnt matter. Thats in the past. We have the material now and we must make sure its appropriate. WP:COI is not an issue. WP:RS is. Here's a version of the article which uses reliable sources only:

---------------------------------------

Antoni Dunin (1907-1939) was a Polish nobleman (szlachta), a Hrabia (Count), and an army officer who received the prestigious Virtuti Militari award.

^ 1. Wesolowski, Z (February 5, 1998). "Polish Order of the Virtuti Militari Recipients (1792-1992)". Federation of East European Family History Societies. Retrieved 2007-10-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

---------------------------------------

Thats all there is to it. The picture cannot be added because there is no reliable source claiming that Antoni Dunin lived in this house. Is Elonka Dunin's personal website a reliable source for her grandfather Antoni Dunin? Thats the only issue. Misplaced Pages has to use reliable sources. If Elonka.com is a reliable source for Antoni Dunin, imagine this scenario and tell me if its acceptable:

One person George Kimbel received a high ranking military reward. There's only one reliable 3rd party source that mentioned Kimbel's reward. Kimbel's grandson Peter had a personal website on which he had written on Kimbel. How acceptable is it to use Peter's website as a source for a Misplaced Pages article on Kimbel?

Please be impartial; forget for a moment that the family member of this article is your friend and you know them. If you are going to accept Elonka.com as a reliable source for Antoni Dunin, realize that:

I can make the article on George Kimbel as long as I want, depending on what material about his grandfather Peter adds to his website at Peter.com. I dont think that is acceptable, so where do we stop?

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Notability (people):

In general, the text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.
Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources.

WP:RS says explictly:

For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Jimbo Wales himself has said on the Dunin related articles that 'family trees' (meaning personal websites) cannot be used as reliable sources.

So are there any objections to my analysis? Once again, the main issue is: Can the subject's granddaughter's personal website be used as a reliable source for the article, especially when there is only one other reliable source that mentions Antoni Dunin? You either have to accept Elonka.com as a source, or reject it. This is what we have to decide first. Please give your reasonings. If there are any other reliable (3rd party, non-trivial) sources for Antoni Dunin, please add them here, but as far as I know, thats the only source I can see. --Matt57 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you could be perfectly correct, but I predict that suspicions will linger if you follow through on this plan without broader community support. I suggest you contact the relevant WikiProjects for help editing these articles. - Jehochman 03:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we try to get a fresh word from Jimbo. I remember when CyberAnth was blocked for taking the OR hatchet to bios, Jimbo stepped to defend him. Given his comment to the RfA, perhaps Danny would also be interested.Proabivouac 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll get Jimbo as a last resort. Wikiprojects are often inactive (this one seemed too) but anyway, I've made a thread at Wikiproject Bio although its pretty pointless to ask for input for something so obvious. Personal websites of family members do not qualify as reliable sources for an articles's subject- this is what the conclusion will be in the end, Jehochman and others - count on that and remember my words. --Matt57 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wesolowski, Z (February 5, 1998). "Polish Order of the Virtuti Militari Recipients (1792-1992)". Federation of East European Family History Societies. Retrieved 2007-10-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Categories: