Talk:Przyszowice massacre

Sources

Respectfully, I couldn't see any sources in support of such blatant original research.Vlad fedorov 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no justification for your claims of OR. I'm changing the tag to "unreferenced". Appleseed (Talk) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources provided. //Halibutt 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is mostly referenced to some web-site as well as articles in the non-scholarly newspapers. I would like to see it either re-sourced to the scholarly sources or the scholarly credentials of the authors of whatever the current sources are to be confirmed.

Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the unversity presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source, web-site or political tygodnyk (newspaper), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials. Thank you. --Irpen 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As had been explained to you at Talk:Polish legislative election, 1957, per WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS, the given sources are appopriate - reliable journalists in reliable mainstream publications. Unless you can show that there are others who dispute their views, the article is considered reliable and NPOV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was shown exactly. Once you re-sourced that other article to reliable sources, I withdrew my objections. I request the same done here. --Irpen 01:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You can dispute our policies and withdrew your objections whenever you want. Just don't expect others to follow your wishes when we have policies to follow. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Policies do not make an unscholarly work published in an unscholarly place an RS just because they happen to help Piotrus to advance his POV. Find reliable sources and stop using dubious ones. --Irpen 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me repeat to you our rules third time in the past two weeks (I am loosing count...). Q: What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable? A: Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets. Out of 28 ref, only 1 - the low number of fatalities - is referenced to a possibly unreliable source, the town homepage, which I am not sure is official or unofficial. If you insist, we can consider removing the low-end number... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just check what it says at the top of the WP:ATT/FAQ page you refer to. --Irpen 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the best elaboration on what is reliable and what is not that we have (unfortunatly WP:RS is very general). Unless you can cite any policy which states that mainstream newspapers are not reliable, your claims that they aren't are nothing but your own personal standards which cannot lead to considering articles unreliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, this what you call "best elaboration" is neither a policy nor a guideline. Good luck to you with making it either. Until then, please do not refer to dubious writings to get a boost to your point. I don't have to cite a policy to show something is unreliable. It works the other way around. You have to cite a policy that would claim that a writing by a person with non-established academic credentials published in a source with no established academic standing is a reliable source. Until then, the article is non-compliant. --Irpen 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers are used as sources in many articles. Please don't keep repeating that something is unreliable just because it doesn't suit your POV. Appleseed (Talk) 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not repeat that something is reliable because it suites your POV. Speculations voiced in the political press cannot be seriously called a reliable source unless authored by an otherwise established figure. Either the author or the source has to have an academic standing. Neither applies to this case. --Irpen 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One day, you will cite a policy to support your opinion. Until then, plase stop repeating how Wikipedia should be organized according to WP:IRPEN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivility ignored. Now, Wikipedia articles should be organized in accordance with Wikipededia policies, guidelines, and, since those cannot address every possible issue, a common sense. Now, you cite the policy that allows sourcing historic articles to unscholarly sources written by unscholarly authors; and if you can't, desist. --Irpen 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reread this section. Nothing there justifies the sources used in the article. Please be more specific in case I missed something. --Irpen 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Non-scholarly sources are permitted on Wikipedia unless you can show they are not considered reliable (if they are self-published, controversial, criticized, etc.). Since you fail to present such evidence, the sources stay, and are considered reliable. And in any case most facts are now verified with IPN publication, which is scholarly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, Piotrus, you seem confused. Non-scholarly sources are permitted if they can be shown reliable, like a non-scholarly article in newsmagazine, or even a blog, but authored by a scholar or at least referred to or reviewed favorably by the scholar. A non-scholarly material authored by an unknown person and published by a non-scholarly publication cannot be accepted by default in the article about history. Some of the statements are now backed by a scholarly source. Good start. However, most is still sourced to unacceptable tygodnyk (newspaper) articles. Please address this and also work towards better neutrality.

A couple of suggestions on the latter. The first sentence needs rephrased. It should just say what the subject of the article is, not make an immediate judgment. The latter may be made in the text with a customary, "according to..." acknowledgment. Further, the material about the atrocities committed by the Soviet troops have to be given in the proper context of what these people went through and have seen in their homeland. Hiding it is WP:TE. Try to make the article less publicistic and more scholarly. Currently it looks too "journalistic" so to speak, which is no surprise as its main source is the political press. --Irpen 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummm... could you cite a single tygodnyk that is used as a source in this article? Or perhaps political press? Or is there something I'm missing? Anyway, there's also one reference you omit in your arguments - a monograph of the events cited in "general" section of the refs. Also, the mention that the Red Army killed people in the lead is a statement of fact, not a judgement. If we had any source claiming that the Red Army was not responsible, we would have to take more care, but there's no such source so far.

Also, feel free to add the parts on what these people went through. I'm not sure how is that relevant to this article, but still. However, by the same standards we would have to add such information to, say, the article on Polish-Bolshevik War and explain what the Poles had to suffer during the partitions and so on. I'm not sure it's good to open such Pandora's box. Especially that in most cases it would border OR. //Halibutt 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles written in reliable newspapers are acceptable. The newspapers used as sources are reliable. People who publish in them are reliable journalists. I see no problem with the first sentence - unless the Russian side (or anybody reliable...) has disputed IPN finding that it was a 'war crime/crime against humanity' (like Russian gov denying Katyn was a genocide), this is undisputed claim by a reliable expert organization. If you want to justify Soviet soldiers taking revenge; the article already mentions it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The interesting hypothesis that political press writing articles about history signed by someone not known as a historian is acceptable when it suites your POV is worth to be considered, but not at this page. Try to make it a universal rule. Katyn has nothing to do with that in the first place and, besides, I haven't seen the international recognition of Genocide in that case, while horrible it was. IPN's finding that it was a crime against humanity is worthy to be mentioned as an IPN finding, not as a phrase in the lead that starts the article. The article should start with the definition that this incident refers to the events that occurred then and there not the judgmental qualification of whether it constitute the war crime which belong to the body and in an attributed form. Talking about Soviet troops behavior without mentioning a context is an outright violation of NPOV. Since you resort to arguing semantics in response to my good faith objections for three days in row I am tagging the article as per unreliability of sources and NPOV violations. Let the non-involved editors take a look at the dispute. --Irpen 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to end the policy of double standards on this subject. When some people like Piotrus ask for English sources (rather than Russian) for various events of WWII, in a way, I understand. However, that means that events in Poland, especially such controversial ones, need to get an English-speaking coverage, preferably from "academic sources" (said some guy called Piotrus :>) Newspapers can be used as sources, but if the whole article is not based upon them, it does not look like an academic work it shoud be. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us on talk. If you can provide any additional sources for this article, please do. Academic works are probably the best source, but in their absence, there is nothing wrong with citing mainstream newspapers. And Irpen's snide accusations about "tygodnyks" are completely off the mark. Appleseed (Talk) 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English states they are acceptable. The burdon is on you to show those particular sources (publishers, authors) are unreliable or findings are disputed by other sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, this event has no coverage is academic sources? I fear that adds two other problems, namely OR and POV-title. Indeed, if the term is never used in any written source, you're basically inventing the title (which does not make the event inexistent, of course) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto re name, and see the section below for that.

As such, the article, as of now, has the following problems: source reliability, POV (explained above), disputed title and original research. There are four (!) article-wide tags for each of that but as a courtesy, I will only apply those that were applied originally and removed discourteously by known as well as never seen before accounts and IPs (I assume the latter are unrelated to the former.) I would like to remind that speedy undiscussed removal of tags explained well at talk and applied in good faith amounts to vandalism. I expect the IP and mysterious accounts to continue but let's hope it won't prevent a discussion among the old guard. --Irpen 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, your strategy of "discussion through attrition" is frustrating, to say the least. You simply repeat your arguments ad nauseam, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The sources are reliable. Everything is referenced, so there is no POV or OR. That only leaves the title; I'd be willing to hear your suggestions, but please don't say "Przyszowice incident". Appleseed (Talk) 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Registered account, taken personal interest in the topic. Those things were very common when they occupied Poland again. Don't you think category "places of soviet atrocities" would be usefull to guide readers throughout testimony of the terror of Soviet occupation in Poland ? --MarekZo 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what Category:World War II Communist crimes in Poland is for, isn't it? Btw it will be renamed soon, see discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, "Discussion through attrition" is not my strategy but the strategy I hate when I see it and I can name an editor or two whose strategy this is. Every point I made is well-grounded. Article is referenced to sources that have no standing and no policy or common sense says otherwise and your repeated denial "ad naseum" is not making this more convincing. Writing articles on academically non-researched topics is OR. Using dubious sources is violation of WP:RS. Improper intro which instead of defining the subject starts from the judgment is POV. So is lack of context. Titling an article with terms unknown in English is OR at minimum and doing so with strong terms is also POV. Piotrus likes to uncivilly end his set of statements with arrogant "EOT". I don't do that and I am open to suggestions on title and how to curtail the article to limit it to what reliable sources say. However, the current form is unacceptable. No less unacceptable is the removal of well-explained tag through revert warring. When the anon showed up, it was convenient to use him, I guess, but I had the right to expect better, although little hope, I must admit. I can only hope that this revert warring was not coordinated through an off-wiki communication. Now, for crying out loud, removal well-explained tags through edit wars and refusal to discuss in good faith amounts to vandalism. Substituting the good-faith discussion with meanigless repetition that "sources are reliable" in contravention to the policy and common sense makes it worse. Please do not do it and start addressing the article's problems. Also, have a word with an anon that edit wars are unhelpful. Finally, I don't understand what you mean mentioning "snide accusations". I used the word that is very similar to the Ukrainian one and the Ukrainian "tyzhnevyk" is absolutely unoffensive. it simply means weekly and I thought the meaning of the respective Polish word is the same. --Irpen 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRPEN is not a policy. Suggest necessary changes to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT and others to support your arguments above or stop trying to argue that the article fails Wikipedia policies when it clearly doesn't. And they are dailies, not weeklies... not that it changes anything. They are reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been there. This is what your friend calls ad naseum. The sources do not comply with WP:RS and you failed to cite the proper clause that says otherwise. OR, POV and Title problems are on top of that. Say something new or say nothing. Repeated denials are waste of space. --Irpen 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd quoted them above ad nauseum. Your denials of reality are not amusing any more. I see no need to continue this discussion with you. Feel free to dissent from majority and claim this article is OR or whatever - but don't be suprised if majority will follow real Wikipedia policies and their comprise consensus views, not your POV, will be reflected in mainspace.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, wasn't it you to rewrite large articles basing on... Zerkalo Tyzhnia? //Halibutt 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As it has been explained to Piotrus, ad naseum the Zerkalo Nedeli articles I used were written by otherwise established scholars, a professor of history from Kiev University, a Doctor of Science of the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, etc. I repeatedly asked to provide any credentials of the authors of the particular articles in Polish newspapers and Piotrus refused to give any. As of now, both the source and the author are unscholarly which makes the particular refs dubious.

And actually, it is Zerkalo Nedeli or Dzerkalo Tyzhnya or Mirror Weekly. Read its article about its being the most respectable Ukrainian weekly. Its history sections are always written by established scholars, not journalists and political analysts who write for current events, politics, business and economy and other current sections. The latter would be usable for current events articles, like Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. That's where I would use those. --Irpen 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Additionally, I request some way to confirm that the current title is the established name of this event in the English-language scholarship. If the other name is established, the other name should be used. If the event has no established name, it has to use a neutral descriptive name rather than the term strongest possible, the naming convention favored by some editors. --Irpen 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting policy proposal. But you should raise at village pump, not here. The event has no English-language schoarship. As such, the name as used in Polish scholarship is applicable (if you know of other names for that event, maybe in Russian works, please share them with us). Polish sources use the words massacre, tragedy and crime (against humanity). Massacre is less ambigious, thus preferable. Although I am sure you'd prefer 'Przyszowice liberation'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you either discuss seriously, address my concerns or do nothing. If my concerns are simply sabotaged by empty talk, I will tag the article. Your 'Przyszowice liberation' straw man is disgusting and outright offensive both to me and to the people who died at the time. --Irpen 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only one who is using straw men to ignore any arguments he dislikes here is you. Please reply to my notes about naming instead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support Piotrus on that one. Let's hold a WP:RM and move it to Liberation of Przyszowice. //Halibutt 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not react to this blasphemous provocation by both of you. --Irpen 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, trying to get to seriously reply to discussion about other names is blasphemous indeed...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, frankly, it was you to state that the term liberation is NPOV and should be used in all cases, even as extreme as this one. Sure, the proposal above was not serious, but it was irony rather than provocation. Now on to your original question (which was already replied to I believe) - I doubt the event is mentioned in any English-language publications at all. //Halibutt 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Let me add that I have some concerns about this article (my attention was drawn to it from T:DYK). All the sources as presented now are apparently from Polish newspapers. I cannot read Polish nor can most editors on this project. Additionally, I have reviewed several databases of English-language academic journals and I can find no reference to this event, or even the village. I am left wondering if it is at all appropriate for this article to be on the English Wikipedia.

Another concern is whether this event, in itself, needs its own article. Atrocities of this sort were plentiful on all sides and in East Prussia especially. I am personally acquainted with several East Prussian refugees who witnessed these kinds of events. With respect to the dead, the murder of some 70 civilians (and subsequent cover-up) is not unusual and we have articles on similar events that have been documented in peer-reviewed journals. It might make sense to merge this information into Institute of National Remembrance or Red Army atrocities, but as I said I remain unconvinced that this article, in itself, should exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article satisfies WP:N as far as I can tell, but you are ore than welcome to test it by fire. I would just note that the fact that Wikipedia is biased against non-Western events does not make things from non-West lest notable - even if they have not been sufficiently described in Western literature. Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse or Ulyanovskaya Mine disaster may be not as famous as Virginia Tech massacre, but that doesn't mean our coverage of them should be smaller (even, if thanks to bias, it is).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

However, these other events which you describe have been described in Western literature. This event has not. Any encyclopedia will show some bias towards its native tongue; I have no doubt that the Polish Wikipedia has disproportionate coverage of Polish topics. I have no way of knowing, at this moment, whether this article satisfies WP:N or not; I'm far more worried about its verifiability and the reliability of its sources. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I share these concerns fully Mackensen. An article, especially one on such a controversial event, cannot be referenced without reliable sources. Having only newspapers referencing such an event is dubious as best. Who can tell how those figures were obtained. Who can tells that these journalists did not invent some of the details to add "punch" to their article? (a technique that is oh-so-known). And so on, so forth. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All important notes are referenced with Institute of National Remembrance, only superficial details are referenced with newspaper articles (which are anyway considered reliable and used on Wikipedia in many, many articles). I don't understand your concerns: there is no policy that sais non-English sources are not reliable, nor one that sais newspapers are not reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotus:

1. you failed to produce a policy that says that a non-scholarly article in a political newspaper written by someone with no credentials as a scholar is an RS. You only quote was to the Wikipedia page which is, as of now, only "proposed" and for a good reason.
2. What Ghirla wrote on top his page is quite on the mark in connection with this and other articles we see lately produced at 2-3 per week rate followed by push to DYK.
3. Please NPOV this article and purge it from non-scholarly refs.
4. Propose a better title.
5. Change a lead that starts from the judgment.
6. Make sure the article explains that its claims are all according to "Polish sources".

Your arguing here was not only unconvincing to me, but obviously to others as well, as you can see above. That you used help from some dubious anon who revert warred on your behalf does add your claims any more credibility. --Irpen 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That once every while you will be able to gain a temporary support for your POV pushing doesn't make your violation of policies any better. Per WP:RS#Scholarly_and_non-scholarly_sources sources as used in this article are quite acceptable. You have failed to indicate any bias in them other; the only thing they violate is your personal POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to waste time in repeating to you something that is in plain view which you refuse to recognize despite other editors see it clearly. "The untagged article version you prefer will not be achieved via edit warring" or off-/on-wiki calls for your friends to help you in running revert wars. In the post above there are some recommendations to you. Please take them as a set of starting points. Good luck. --Irpen 06:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:RS#Scholarly_and_non-scholarly and many others, which you ignore if they don't fit you
2. I will not comment on this attack page.
3. It is NPOV and non-scholarly refs are acceptable if not contradicting scholarly ones.
4. Title is acceptable, no counterproposals have been suggested.
5. Huh? What judgement? I see only facts. Oh... don't tell me... a fact that present Soviet Union as less than perfect is not a fact, right?
6. We only write about sources if there are contradictory. This is not the case.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you and I have heard each other and are not able to come to an agreement. I say white, you say black and continuation of this is useless. One of us is wrong. In such case, we have to see what other editors say on the matter. So far, other editors displayed similar concerns to the ones I outlined. --Irpen 04:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Irpen on this issue; non-scholarly newspaper articles aren't reliable sources. As was stated above by another editor, this is a controversial event, and cannot be deemed reliably sourced if the only sources provided are Polish-POV. I'm fine with the title as is though. Parsecboy 05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Polish sources just as perfectly appropriate as similar Russian sources (although English sources are preferred) according to WP:SOURCE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It only says: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.". Note that this is only about direct quotation. It does not matter if there are any English sources claiming the same. There are no any reasons for concern here. Looks like a minor disagreement that does not worth your time. Biophys 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE, "In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.". There is nothing here about "scholar" or "non-scholar" sources. Journalists usually have no PhD degree. ANY newspaper with editorial oversight qualify. Of course one can challenge reliability of a certain newspaper or publication (in the respective article). But that should be done using other reliable sources. Our personal opinions cost nothing.Biophys 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC) The "scholarly" appears only for self-published materials: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly)". These are not self-published materials.Biophys 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse analysis - you summarized my lenghty explanations in few points, thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point

I would like to note that for several days key facts have been verified with scholarly publication by Institute of National Remembrance publication ([1]). If there are specific facts that are still considered unreliable, please point them out - but currently the article is verified both with scholarly IPN work, and mainsteam Polish newspapers. As for NPOV, please point out specific possibly biased statements, and we can discuss them here, claims of NPOV problems without any examples are not valid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked quicklu analyzed whether the "key facts" are indeed verified or not. The article has a total of 30 inline refs. Since certain statements are referenced to two or more sources at once, the article has 24 referenced statements as one statement is supported by three references (two references in excess of 1) and four statements are supported by two references (one reference in excess of 1):

30(reftotal) - 1 (instance)*2(excess ref) - 4(instances)*1(excess red) = 24

The supposed "academic" publication is used for 7 inline refs of which in 3 instances it stands along with others as an "excess ref" and in 4 remaining instances it is used on its own. As such, the remainin 24-7=17 inline citations are remain to be referred to the sources whose reliability in historic topics cannot be established. That this newspaper has some editorial stuff is good to know and would have been OK if this was a current events and politics article (see above) but if this is a history we are talking about, and the source is so non-academic I request verification of the author's credentials. Piotrus refuse to provide any.

Now, Piotrus, please do not waste any more time with saying, "you are wrong" or refer to your own interpretation of policy. If two people disagree on the policy interpretation, this is where we call for wider audience. The wider audience spoke and will, hopefully, add more to this. Now, please stop to edit war removin removing the tags supported by a good number of editors. The version you prefer will not be achieved through an edit war. Take some advise from other editors and implement them. Good luck, --Irpen 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My perspective, is that when writing history, newspapers in general, but especially those written by those without academic credentials are very unreliable. Newspapers generally aren't scholarly works; they're usually biased, and written for specific purposes, i.e., to shape public opinion one way or the other, or just to sell copies, so they're sensational or play to national feelings. My point is, newspaper articles, especially those without academic credentials, should be used as a last resort. Parsecboy 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

Again, you are missing the points: major facts are covered with scholarly IPN publication. And if no scholarly publication is available, newspapers are used (for example, you could use Irpen's arguments and tag the Virginia massacre article as unreliable and POVed for the next few years until a scholary publication would mention it...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, quit skirting the issue. What specific facts are you disputing? IPN references the fact that Red Army soldiers, likely assuming this was a German village, killed "over 60" civilians in Przyszowice between 26-28 January 1945, primarily villagers but also including 4 Auschwitz survivors and 2 Polish soldiers. All other details are of less importance: property damaga and assaults are not mentioned in IPN reports but are logical - still, if you prefer, we can note that those details are covered only in newspapers (note that one of those 'unreliable journalists' is a deputy speaker of the Senate of Poland...). Information about a fight in the area is hardly controversial, and reports from memorial ceremony are rightly covered with newspapers.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems, I am missing something too. There are many topics that are covered only by newspaper publications. Can we use such publications? Nothing in WP:SOURCE say that we can not. It does not say that "historic" and "current" events should be treated differently. What is this discussion about? Biophys 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the comparison with VA goes, it is plain nonsense. VA is a recent event. Przyszowice (if it happened like you describe) would have been covered by sources other than newspaper and the publications of the institutions organized and funded specifically for "investigating" and publicizing various massacres. VA massacre is a current event and covering such is exactly a newspapers business. Coverage of current events by respected newspapers is considered reliable specifically because this coverage is what respected newspapers are expected to to best. But newspapers are not a normal forum for historic writings. History is covered with books and historian's articles in professional journals. Of course, a historian who established his name in the normal way can choose to write elsewhere. In such case, his writing is notable and can be referred to. You failed to establish this being the case. --Irpen 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Editorially-controlled, fact-checked, mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. Information may certainly be sourced to them. If you disagree with what's in the newspaper, or believe they've made an error, the solution is to write to the newspaper in question, explaining why you believe they are in error. If they publish a subsequent correction, you may certainly cite that. You may also find another source (for example, a peer-reviewed scholarly paper) which may be of greater reliability than the newspaper, and disagrees with some of its findings. In that case, you may certainly bring up that source material. What you may not do, is use your own interpretations. If you believe further study into the matter is required, encourage people to do that. But this is not the place to correct any perceived errors made by sources. If you have strong evidence of an error in a source, ask them to correct. If they won't, ask someone else to investigate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sources provided by Piotr are as good as most other sources in WP (see my arguments above). There is absolutely nothing special in this article and sources. What is the reason for such long discussion? If every article was discussed like that, no one would be able to work in WP. This is especially frustrating since such productive editor as Piotr could create a couple of new articles instead of this useless discussion. Biophys 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New categories?

Another related question. There is a Category:Japanese war crimes. This is not Category:War crimes in Japan. One could suggest a couple of similar broad categories like Nazi war crimes (there is only article about this subject) and Soviet war crimes or even Communist war crimes where this aricle belongs.Biophys 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, there is already Category:Nazi war crimes; it just happened that many articles are not properly categorized. Biophys 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly they seem like useful categories, although probably better discussed at Talk:War crime than here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Nazi, not German if the Nazism was German?Xx236 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think because NAZI is more specific than plain old German. Parsecboy 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Just like we say Soviet or Muscovy, or Polish-Lithuanian, or Prussian...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please explain me what do you mean, I'm sorry I don't understand both of you. I don't call contemporary Russia - Soviet Union or Muscovy. The III Reich was a German state, not a Nazi state. Contemporary Poland isn't Polish-Lithuanian. Xx236 08:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it refers to a more specific period of time. The Soviet Union was a distinct political entity that existed from 1917-1991. Nazi Germany was a similar such entity, just like the Weimar Republic that preceded it and West/East Germanies that followed. The point is, Nazi war crimes are totally unrelated to those that may have been committed by the German Empire during WWI or the Franco-Prussian War; therefore the distinction must be made. Parsecboy 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Without presenting a single new artgument. Piotrus and Halibutt resumed tag-warring. On the side note, Piotrus tried to modify WP:RS even to fit this article (without success). This is plain silly. Nothing was done to resolve the dispute.

On a separate note, Halibutt, please avoid using the roll-back button. This is very unhelpful and earns you no points. In fact, there is no reason in the world to do it in the cases like this.

Thanks, --Irpen 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without presenting a single new arguments? Please, no more jokes, we are waiting for your reply to my post from 21:39, 20 April 2007 above, among others. Also, at discussion at RS page majority of neutral editors agree with me that the sources are reliable and neutral; your claims that they are not are still just that - your claims, unsupported by policy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your latest claim is outright false. --Irpen 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Intersting. I still don't see your reply to my post from 21:39, 20 April 2007 above, and at RS both neutral editors who commented so far - Blueboar ("A regular article published in a major newspaper (in any language) is a reliable source") and Askari Mark ("foreign mainstream press is about as reliable as English-language press"; "newspapers do perform some “fact-checking” on the esteem with which such a writer is held; the quality of their contributors reflects on the paper’s reputation. While I would rate the “reliability” of such an author lower than that of an expert scholar, I wouldn’t dismiss his or her work out of hand") seem to agree, as far as I can tell, that the newspaper references are reliable (unless it can be shown that they are contradicted by more scholarly sources or the journals have a political bias).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of posts by you above dated exactly at 21:39, 20 April 2007. A response to which one you find particularly missing? --Irpen 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the following comments both here and on the WP:RS talk page. I recommend that we continue any further discussion here from this point, because it is getting too specific to be appropriate to that page.

I have some knowledge of the lustration issue, and it was a poor decision to also give prosecutorial powers to a government organization with investigative responsibility; it begs abuse as a political tool by whatever party controls it. I agree with Irpen that it cannot be considered neutral from that point on; however, that in of itself does not necessarily make the IPN an unreliable source, according to the standards of WP:RS. WP:NPOV addresses the kind of article Wikipedia’s editors are supposed to produce – one with a neutral POV; WP:NPOV guides how we use sources, whether they themselves are neutral or not. WP:ATT calls for having sources for facts and assertions, particularly contentious ones; it does not ask us to determine whether their content is “objective truth,” though.

The main concern WP:RS has in this particular case is whether the enticement for political abuse of the IPN through potential falsification of its published material renders it no longer reliable. In my opinion, based on Wikipedia’s guidelines of what qualifies a source – even a non-neutral source – as “reliable”, I do not think we can judge IPN to be an unreliable source unless and until there is a revelation of such activity. Let me explain why I believe this (besides from what WP:RS says). The cunning political approach to abusing the powers of the IPN is not to produce falsified information on an opponent; the odds are that it will be found out and “blow up” in the face of whoever gets caught. The ways in which it is most likely to be abused is by who gets reported on and with what timing, along with who doesn’t get reported on; the government can control the agenda of its publication, yet maintain “plausible deniability”. Granted, there are indeed stupid politicians who do stupid things, so the potential for fraud is only low, not zero.

My recommendation is to treat any material published by IPN before 15 March 2007 as fully “reliable,” and any published thereafter as “conditionally reliable.” By the latter, I mean that any material that does not clearly import political damage to an opponent of the sitting government should be treated as generally reliable; however, in any case where the reputation of someone who is a critic, competitor or opponent of the sitting government’s leaders should be treated as “suspect” in its reliability. If there is call to use it at all in such a case, either the text or the citation should be annotated to point out that critics claim the IPN may not be a trustworthy source in this instance.

I hope this helps the two of you resolve your issue. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark, thank you for your feedback. Let me address several points, both raised by you and Piotrus. IPN's getting the lustration functions lately is not a drammatic event for the IPN itself. Even prior to that it was created as a governmental institution with the prosecuting authority and was funded as such. Yes, it is a valid source, but only with the caveat that everything referred to IPN only should be clearly preceeded with "According to the IPN.." with the link being mandatory, as it would take the reader to the IPN article and allow the reader to make up one's mind how much the particular source is skewed. So, IPN published info is "usable" and "attributable" but not fully reliable. Piotrus' claim that it is reliable simply because PL gov considers it reliable does not deserve even a rebuttal. Polish government is not an authority in history. Academic community is...

Further, Piotrus claims that his opinion that articles on history published in Polish political press are reliable has been met by approval at WP:RS talk. This claim is false. He cherry-picks some quotes from the WP:RS talk page discussion. Looking at the talk page of WP:RS, we find other comments that Piotrus preferred not to quote. Askari Mark wrote: "I tend to agree more with Irpen’s comment: “Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the university presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source, web-site or political tygodnik (newspaper), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials.”

Further down this very page we find another entry by Askari Mark: "Another key question is whether it is desired to use the article in question as a citation for non-controversial aspects of the topic; an accomplished journalist with good investigative skills could be expected to handle these well, but if what is being cited is controversial, the journalist might be out of their league, and even if they aren’t “out of their league”, they often will run into the “problem of space” inherent in their media, which precludes a fair and balanced treatment of the differing viewpoints." Obviously the subject is controversial.

Much of the article is not even referenced to IPN but to the newspapers which is not authority in the historic science, particularly if the article is not authored by a historian.

This above was about reliability.

As for the neutrality, where do I start? Why not from the start of the article where we get the following lead: "The PM was a war crime..." Totally inappropriate. The lead should define the subject of the article, the event, the place, the time, not make an immediate judgment. Something like "The [subject of the article] refers to the events that took place...." And somewhere in the middle. "The investigation by IPN found the incident to qualify under the definiton of the war crime", or something like this.

Piotrus and Halibutt, please take these recommendations into consideration and stop this meaningless edit war. --Irpen 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First, lustration is irrelevant to that article in particular and to IPN research in general. Second, IPN is just as government-affilated as publicly funded universities or various government research institutions worldwide (for example, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). While this should be raised at the IPN's talk, I see no reason why IPN, a research institute with several full-time professors and dozens of other academics is not to be considered reliable. As for the newspapers, this is still being debated, and we are waiting for input from more editors. I will attempt to address the single POV issue you raised - war crime reference - in my forthcoming edit.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First, while I knew of the IPN, I did not know it was founded with prosecutorial powers; I first heard of it in relation to the lustration issue was raised. In principle, a government entity is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Of course, this guidance was created with entities more like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in mind than organizations like the IPN. The impossibility of covering all the “gray areas” has been the reason that WP:RS has been only a guideline rather than a policy.

Please keep in mind that “reliability” is more a matter of degree than of “is” or “is not.” A news article written by an experienced reporter can be reliable – journalism is, after all, a credential – but much depends on whether “interpretation” is involved. For instance, an article reporting on an IPN finding can be reliable. An article reporting on reactions to such a finding can be reliable (but is likely less so unless the reporter has a good deal of experience with the issue, which is more likely to be the case in a specialized news publication than a general one). However, when it comes to judgment-based articles like editorials or “op-eds” – or the journalist clearly inserts his judgment as to “guilt” or “innocence” – the article is most likely not reliable. That said, any newspaper article is likely to be less reliable about what an IPN report states than the IPN itself, so where possible, I would recommend citing the IPN directly and relying on news media only on descriptions of controversies surrounding it.

I think using the formula, “‘According to the IPN ...’ with the link being mandatory” is an excellent one whenever there is a specific concern about its neutrality on the point being cited. For instance, using IPN to cite a statement like “German military and security forces in Warsaw committed atrocities during their occupation of the city” is of no special concern. On the other hand, if it were to publish a statement like “Opposition Minister Jaroslaw Grabowski [made-up name] served as an informant for the MBP from 1952-54”, it should be cited (“According to the IPN ...”) only for the quote (or a summary of its claim), and necessarily supplemented by criticisms of its claim in published in the press and/or rebuttals.

My perception is that what you both are really arguing over is what standard to use for “reliability”. In that regard, you are both “right” in your arguments, but in different ways. It seems that one of you is arguing for a definition of “reliable source” as it currently exists in Wikipedia, while the other is arguing for the higher, more scholarly standard that many editors wish would come to exist for Wikipedia. In any case, the former holds current sway, and having read the article through twice (as it currently stands), I don’t see any issues cited to IPN that seem vulnerable to suspicion of unreliability. The IPN’s declaration about the PM being a “crime against humanity” is handled well by having it at the end of the introduction (and I agree that the lead should not start off with the IPN’s assertion of a war crime). If it were to accuse a specific prominent person with political connections of being complicit in the PM, then I would say my second example above (re: informant accusation) would apply. Also, as I pointed out before, it is perfectly acceptable to summarize concerns about the reliability of the IPN in the article or a footnote – although I don’t see a specific point of concern. (I haven’t looked through the revert history yet, though, so I might be missing something.)

Respectfully, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Initially the reliability concerns concerned the newspapers (and I think that issue is still not solved). When it is controversial, IPN can certainly be mentioned (per WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements). Please note however that it is an exception to the rule: certainly most of IPN findings are no more controversial than those of USHM. Thank you for your help with improving the article; now if we can only reach an agreement on removing the unreliability tag we can consider this 'case settled'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the events refed to the modern non-academic newspaper only, I marked only those that refer to the remote past. I did not mark anything that references the modern events. --Irpen 05:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think marking them as Polish newspapers/media is much better than tagging them as dubious; let the readers be warned this information come from Polish newspapers and decide for himself if this makes them dubious; certainly there is no wiki policy that declares newspaper articles (on current or historical events) dubious by definition.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, adding the tags again and again without disputing anything at the talk page is not a good idea. And as to Irpen's suggestion - nope. I will use rollback since that's precisely what it's for. It's much quicker when reverting vandals. Why should I waste any more of my time on them when there's an easier way? //Halibutt 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus is correct. As WP:ATTFAQ points out, "Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets" are considered to be reliable sources. The Polish Government certainly constitutes a "notable media outlet" and is "mainstream"; whether a particular one of its publications is "reliable" must be decided on a case-by-case basis. If the tagging is over whether newspapers, in principal, are reliable or unreliable, then WP:ATTFAQ comes down on the side of saying they are reliable – unless and until a specific and endemic problem is identified with a particular publication (like the National Enquirer). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can point you to mainstream newspapers published in millions every day or week that discuss stuff like telekinesis, "vanished civilizations", Area 51 and other yellowish stuff. A know newspaper is not necessarily a totally reliable source.

Furthermore, press is much more open to various political influences. For instance, to take some quite recent political events, if you read "Le Monde" and "Le Figaro" about Sarkozy and Royal, you will come back with two totally different portraits summed up, though both papers are considered WP:RS. Why? Well, because one is considered a "left-wing" newspaper and the other a bit of a "right-wing" one. Who is right? Well, it depends, but usually no one, as NPOV is somewhere in between.

OTOH, academic publications are usually less influenced by political context, and are, generally speaking, reviewed by peers, which maintains to some degree a neutral point of view. If an event has little or no coverage outside of academic sources, it does not meet the sourcing criteria. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Wyborcza ever writing seriously about "yellowish stuff", in any case we are not talking about UFOs here but normal history (Red Army struggle against Nazis and civilian suffering during WWII is certainly not a myth). Your France-related example is not appopriate, as in that case we have two POVs related to different political stances (which should be reflected in that article noting differing views). In this article there are no differing views, all sources agree with each other (when they differ, i.e. in casualties, we give ranges and reference each number, when one source gives more detail than the other, this is noted). Unless you have a source saying there was no massacre in Przyszowice, the numbers or circumstances are radically different or it was not carried out by Red Army, there is no disputing the facts as reported here. I certainly agree academic sources are better than newspapers, but sometimes we have no choice (would you suggest deleting Virginia Tech Massacre, for example?), but in any case most facts here are referenced with IPN, an academic source, so this is going OT (by all means, feel free to critique newspapers at WP:RS, we need more input there).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Grafikm is correct that academic sources are more reliable than the general press, but WP:RS is the standard by which we judge what is “sufficiently reliable” for Wikipedia’s purposes. WP:NPOV requires that we take a neutral viewpoint, which means including, say, both sides’ views on the French presidential candidates and their positions. As for academics, it is naïve to believe they are immune to politics, especially the farther their specialty lies from the “hard” sciences, and even scientific consensus can be wrong (cf. the story of Alfred Wegener). Of late, I’d even say my local newspaper’s weather forecast has been about as reliable as the National Weather Service’s. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

another massacre, also Upper Silesia:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbrodnia_w_Miechowicach

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)