Talk:Antoni Dunin

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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you are misapplying Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I have reflagged this article as Original research, because the article cites the personal web site of a direct descendant, when other references should be used. If you can cite your own personal web page, then you can say pretty much whatever you want. Mindraker 14:14, 20 October 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^Talk 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 [1] doesn't make much sense to me. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ([2]). 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 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: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Conclusions. Shell ^babelfish 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm going to guess that it's this:Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility Once again, it appears to contradict WP:BIO, and ultimately WP:OR ("Wikipedia 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,[3] 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)

Wikipedia 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 ^babelfish 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shell, you can say Wikipedia 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. One can say that policy trumps consensus, but what if the consensus is to ignore that, too? Matt57 gets blocked, just as User:CyberAnth got blocked.Proabivouac 08:55, 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."[4] 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 -> [5], which is exactly what I have done too, but got threatened and hammered on by others for nothing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Notability (people):

1. In general, the text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.
2. 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Popping in due to a request made at the Village Pump. Matt57 is absolutely correct here. Personal websites are not considered reliable sources, except for articles and statements about the person who owns the website ... in this case Elonka herself. If this were an article about Elonka, she could use it, but it is not considered a reliable source for an article about her grandfather. This is no slight on Elonka. While it is highly probable that her website is 100% accurate in what it says, the issue here is verification. We have no way of verifying that her website is accurate. I could see making an exception to the picture being used if a third party source confirmed that he lived in the house being depicted (if, for example, that source contained a poor picture of the house and the reasoning for using Elonka's photo is that it was better than the one in the source)... but that does not seem to be the case here. Blueboar 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for the impartial analysis. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since my request to give me time for offline research has been ignored, here's a few of the online resources I've found so far.

• Cite to verify the photo [6]
• More information on military service [7]
• Information on one of the crests and birth/death date [8]
• Cite for nobility [9]

Blueboar, it might be worth noting, since this discussion has snowballed to many areas due to forum shopping that Elonka's personal site is referenced. I am digging up those references and translating from Polish so they can be used directly since there is such opposition to using her site. Shell ^babelfish 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, [10] doesnt say that Antoni Dunin lived in this house. It talks about Rodryg Dunin only. Remember, original research and synthesis is not allowed, so you cant deduce using commonsense or Elonka's website that Antoni lived in this house too. All the other 3 references you have are trivial mentions (and dont qualify for notability). I dont object to their use at this time, however its the unsourced statements and OR linked to Elonka's website which is the concern right now. What do you think? For example, is there a reliable source to back up the following statement?

He grew up at the Granówko estate near Poznań, the youngest of ten children.

No, there isnt as far as I can see. The subject's granddaughter's personal website doesnt qualify as a reliable source as BlueBoar pointed out. Is there any disagreement now about this? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So common sense should just get thrown out the window? Its not enough that it was his family's estate, I need to go find something from pre-WWII Poland that states for you that he specifically lived there? You can keep stating that everything is OR until the cows come home. The fact is that Elonka's site is referenced, we can gather those references and re-reference the article and *gasp* do our own research. There is nothing so egregious here that requires gutting the article when there are editors interested in resolving the problems. And I wasn't trying to prove notability; that's not even a question - I'm trying to point out that there ARE other references that can be found for the information in the article. Shell ^babelfish 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do until we find the (so-called) references? Do we let that kind of OR sit in the article? That house is not a house in which Dunin lived, until a reliable source says so. Like the statement I pulled out of the article, we cannot say that he lived at that Graowko estate, until a reliable website says so. Are you suggesting that we let this and other unsourced statements stay in?

If we find reliable sources for any statement, we can put them back in but for now they should be taken out. Anything that is not supported by reliable sources obviously, has to taken out from the article. I couldnt find any 3rd party references for Antoni Dunin on Elonka's site. Where are they? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Looking for a source for this statement

To demonstrate the amount of unsourced OR in this article which has been reverted time and again, I am asking for a reliable source that makes this assertion:

He grew up at the Granówko estate near Poznań, the youngest of ten children.

In a few days, I will remove this and other unsourced OR in the article. If anyone has any questions, let me know here right now. Please dont revert later without an explanation, without providing a source or without telling me why the subject's grandaughter's personal website is a reliable source (do see BlueBoar's comments above). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this sounds really bizarre. Most people who have their articles on wikipedia grew up somewhere, yet only a slight minority of them has a biography on them. Which makes proving where they grew up really hard. It's pretty much a trivial fact and I don't really understand why should it be sourced. By comparison, on your user page you claim that you support gender equality. Do you have any verifiable, academic sources to back that statement up? I doubt it. //Halibutt 09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"By comparison, on your user page you claim that you support gender equality. Do you have any verifiable, academic sources to back that statement up?"

That's a silly analogy…but illustrative enough: Matt57's beliefs about gender equality certainly cannot appear in mainspace, for exactly the reasons we're discussing: no coverage by reliable secondary sources which would verify its notability or accuracy.Proabivouac 08:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman weighs in

My opinion is that this article just "barely" meets Notability guidelines. Nobility and recipients of notable awards would probably meet notability guidelines in my opinion. So the real question here revolves around the use of sources from Elonka Dunin, descendant of the topic of the article. While "Personal websites" are generally not allowed, I don't see a problem with a website created by a descendant and used sources. While it would be original research, I think that if someone else added it as research which Elonka Dunin created but who was not affiliated with Elonka Dunin, It should be alright. I've seen many instances of articles using sources published by descendants of the person being discussed. As long as someone who didn't publish the material uses it as a reference, It should suffice in my opinion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo himself has explicitly rejected the reliability of this source,[11] calling material sourced thereto "original research."[12].

Re: "I think that if someone else added it as research which Elonka Dunin created but who was not affiliated with Elonka Dunin, It should be alright."

See WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper); it would be silly to say that it suddenly becomes acceptable when someone other than the self-publisher adds it Wikipedia (which wasn't the case here anyhow, see: [13]) The more relevant point is that it's original research no matter who adds it.Proabivouac 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment and has anyone noticed that the Elise Dunin article stubbed by Jimbo has grown once again??? 68.9.201.183 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

This section currently reads:

Dunin is one of the characters in the Italian novel "Il Guardiano dei Signio" (The Guardian of Dreams) by Paolo Maurensig (ISBN 8-80-454976-9).

This material was added by User:AndyFinkenstadt,[14] a known associate (at least) of the articles' creator who even went so far as to to create Paolo Maurensig in order to shore up this reference. The notability of Maurensi aside, is there any reliable source which states that Maurensig refers to Antoni Dunin, or can establish that this is a notable fact about Antoni Dunin? Or, can someone at least quote the relevant passage(s)?Proabivouac 09:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You should not criticize people just because you think they are associated with User:Elonka. When you fail to present actual evidence of wrongdoing, you are making incivil, naked accusations of bad faith. Feel free to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you disagree with the other editor, but don't call them a stooge. That's not fair. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Without wanting to criticise the work that has already gone into this article, I feel that it could be improved a bit. Some suggestions I have are:

• the article does not seem to describe how the subject came to receive the award that makes him notable. I believe that this award is Poland's highest military award. If anyone knows the circumstances, could this please be added?
• the introduction is very short, perhaps it could be expanded;
• an infobox with service details, etc, might serve to illustrate the article a bit more (an exampe template can be found at Template:Infobox Military Person
• is there a photo of the subject that can be added?

Just a few ideas. Hope this helps. Once these have been added you might consider having the article re-assessed. This can be done by going to WP:MHA. Also peer review can help with providing some ideas for future development. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional source

• Grota, Zdzislawa; Polaka, Boguslawa, ed. (1982). 15 Pulk Ulanow Poznanskich w Obronie Ojczyzny 1919–1945 (trans: 15th regiment of Ulanow from Poznan, in defense of the fatherland, 1919–1945). Poznan.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • Page 54: Death date & location for Antoni Dunin (1939, Kampinos) and his brother Stanislaw (1920)
  • Page 59: List of Virtuti Militari recipients, including Antoni Dunin

--Elonka 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antoni Dunin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203928/http://feefhs.org/PL/vm/vm-d.html to http://feefhs.org/PL/vm/vm-d.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uni-bel.elblag.com.pl/boguslawscy/drzewaX/of_214.html#1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.family-crests.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=210

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)