Talk:Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907)

Reference clarification request

Found this article at DYK . First question. The reference to a source which is not scholarly, at least not by default:

• (in Polish) Włodzimierz Kalicki, Rok 1905: Przebudzeni bombą, Gazeta Wyborcza, 2005-12-09

Could be establish the credentials of the article's writer? Thanks, --Irpen 04:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to translate pl:Włodzimierz Kalicki into Włodzimierz Kalicki in the foreseeable future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Translating an article is less urgent. Just a brief explanation of his credentials would be helpful. It would not have been necessary if the article was in a professioanl journal or a book published by a scholarly publisher. But the source being a political newspaper prompted me to ask. --Irpen 06:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Political newspaper? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, you know that writes about, politics, current news, their analysis, etc. Our expectation from newspapers, even good ones, is to give us quality news. But for historic info, they may or may not be the good source. If the author is a reputable scholar, that would be another story. Hence, I repeat my question. Is he? For if this was published by a University Press, I would not have bothered you. --Irpen 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before. The author seems like a reliable journalist (winner of several prizes and such).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, no degrees in history, no peer-review publications, nothing of that sort. Is that right? --Irpen 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a reliable journalist and fulfills our policies (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE). May I refer you to Talk:Przyszowice massacre for previous discussion on the subject, I do not intend to repeat it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Piotrus, and that page was also discussed at this tread and commented by several editors. Using of newspaper articles written by authors with no scholarly credentials whatsoever as a source for events from the remote past which are well studied by academics is dubious in the least. I marked the source as questionable. Let's work together and find better sources for this info. --Irpen 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kalicki is a notable and respectable journalist, more info on him here http://www.wab.com.pl/index.php?id=2&l=ang&aid=107 Tymek (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is written by "notable and respectable journalist" is indeed valid when written on the matters related to journalism, that is news, political analysis, etc. There is no indication that he is a respectable historian. If he wrote an article on the subject of chemistry or nuclear physics it would not be a respectable source. Would it? But for history, some think that scholarly credentials don't matter. This is wrong. If a person without credentials publishes in peer-reviewed journal, that is of course a different story. But this here has no basis to be considered an acceptable source. --Irpen 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Which claims made by this journalist are most suspicious to you? --Doopdoop (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A claim about "over hundred civilian casualties" in the particular incident is not found in any scholarly sources on the subject. Otherwise, just reference it to such sources.

A claim that the particular incident was "the most dramatic one" is an opinion and not a fact. Again why an opinion of someone with no background in history warrants an inclusion, especially in such an unattributed from? Even if this was a claim by a notable historian, such opinions, rather than facts, should be attributed.

Generally, this is not an unresearched subject and there is nothing an investigative journalist can uncover, really, that is not covered in scholarly texts. Two English scholarly sources are online. I read the proper sections in both books. Those are detailed enough and much info is omitted from this article, btw. At the same time, one includes info that is found exclusively in an non-scholarly source. It just does not make sense.

Another question, Darwinek, were you asked off-line to join? --Irpen 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF Irpen. I watch Piotrus' edits from time to time. Kalicki is a respected Polish journalist, I see no reason to question his article, especially when he wrote it for Gazeta Wyborcza. - Darwinek (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have verified all facts with other refs. In any case, WP:RS sais nothing about us not being able to use reliable, respectable journalist as sources for history. To criticize them for not being PhDs in history is as useful as criticizing them for discussing modern politics without PhD in political science.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Silent reverts

It is most annoying when users revert war and ignore talk page whatsoever. Reverts with misleading or snide edit summaries[1] or reverts that pointedly ignore the issues raised at talk page[2] are especially unhelpful. --Irpen 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude is very unhelpful. The reverts were well explained; on the other hand, yours were hardly so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

B-class review

Confirming for WP:POLAND per milhist review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)