Talk:Kowary

Facts and fiction

The statement "The earliest historic reference about Kowary dates back to 1148" is backed up by K. Kwaśniewskis Podania Dolnośląskie. How does a book about legends of the region support a historic fact? And the Commie source from a time when the historiography was abused as a propaganda instrument is questionable too. How about some newer sources? Karasek (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you referring to as "commie source"?radek (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are town websites reliable sources?

The history of the town Kowary is disputed. One side claims the history of the town starts in 1148, the other says the history begins 200 years later. One view is presented by the website of the town, the other one by four new, reliable sources and two sources from the late 19th century, which explain where the myth(?) comes from. Since opposing views on such a simple matter are usually rather sparse in historiography I would like to know if such town websites are considered reliable sources or self-published sources. PS: right now the article is quite a mess because of this. Karasek (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all not "one side" but the town itself-which of course is extremely notable. As per wikipedia rules both viewpoints need to be presented and attributed. German histography generally ignores existance of settlements before adoption of Germanic administrative law, which probably explains the difference. Last but least sources from German Empire are not reliable about history of Poland, since the view point of German historians from that time was usually hostile to Poles --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question as to whether town websites are reliable sources has been discussed AT LEAST THREE TIMES already at WP:RN, as you are well aware since you participated in those discussions (likewise, the question as to whether Nazi sources are reliable has been discussed to death there too, another set of discussions you were part of). Please stop WP:FORUM SHOPPING. The websites of towns are considered reliable, though care should be taken to note where the information comes from.radek (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears to me that the sources are disputing (or at least saying that's a 'story' which may or may not be true) that a guy named "Laurentius Angelus" was the one who discovered the ores in near Kowary in 1148, not the existence of a settlement there prior to 1355 (when the town was granted "German law"). I don't know Google Translate is not that much help with the torn out of context quotes in German provided by Karasek.radek (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the RFC tag. The "policy" parameter is only for RFCs that concern directly changing the contents of a WP:Policy or WP:Guideline, not for questions about how to apply policies to a specific article. (All RFCs for regular articles are ultimately about how to apply policies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into a similar issue trying to determine the origins of the name "Rhode Island". The historic record has some holes, but after a little research, it seemed clear to me that the evidence was pointing toward one particular explanation. Nevertheless, in terms of volume of literature, there was an even split between those advocating this explanation and those advocating a second, less researched explanation. Even the official State website claimed this second explanation, and like many other sources claiming this version of history, it cited as its source some textbook, which in turn cited some document, which in turn cited some document.... I tried to follow the string of citations, but eventually I reached a dead-end. I decided to present both versions of history, but explain the basis (or lack of basis) for both explanations, and refrain from any language that sounded judgmental (I tried, I realize it wasn't perfect). Here is the result.

If you're curious, I documented my research on the talk page. Don't know if any of this helps you, but I thought it might. I realize I had the luxury of working by myself. Working with people always complicates matters. Good luck.

PS. Later on, after more digging, I found there *was* a better basis for this second explanation, a basis that was forgotten by nearly everyone in the past 100 years. I ended up rewriting the section like this. --Rsl12 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(RFC Contributor) I do not know this subject or the sources. However, the possibility exists that both (or all) claims are right, in the sense that they have a historical basis). One is that the place derives from a mining concession, but probably not using the name. The otehr may be the first refernece to the place by name. Rather than citing what the town history website claims and what others claim, some one needs to go back to the original sources (whatever they are) and quote what they actually say. The town history is at best a secondary (and possibly tertiary) source. The rival histories will also be secondary sources. The ultimate WP:RS will be the document or publihsed edition of the document on which the statements are based. However this is the English WP, and I would not welcome long quotations in Polish, German or Latin. The alternative name "Schmedewerk" sounds like "smith-work", and is probably a description of the business of the place, rather than strictly a placename; perhaps the literal English would be "smithy" (which is an English vernacular term used for a bloomery. The question is not really a matter of WP policy, but of how good the website is. The real question is what are its sources and are they reliable. I assume that the grant of German law had the effect of formalising what had hitherto been an informal settlement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is incorrect (partially). Primary sources do not trump secondary sources and in fact secondary sources is exactly what Wikipedia should be using here. So in fact the ¨ultimate RS¨ is not a primary source but a reliable secondary source.

You´re probably right about what exactly happened with the name etc. though.radek (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting policy aside, let's consider common sense. Where did the history on the town's website come from? Did the town create a special commission to research the topic? If not, then more than likely, they found a book at the local library and copied what was in it. Is it possible to find out the actual source used for the website? Perhaps contact the webmaster? That's what I was able to do for the Aquidneck Island article.

However, the fact that this version of history was presented on the town's website makes this version of history notable, I think. It should be discussed, no matter what the source. Even if you end up presenting the other version of history as well.--RSLxii 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1900?

"Theodor Eisenmänger writes..." - can we please NOT use sources from 1900? Something from at least the last century please.radek (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In dealing with history, the question is not how recently he wrote, but how good his research was. Some 19th century parish histories are (in my experience as a historian) well-researched. Some late 20th century ones can be ill-researched and shoddy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right generally, but in these types of instances it is quite likely that pre 1945 German sources have an obvious bias and should be avoided. And usually the old stuff that is good is used again by later historians so if the information´s reliable it shouldn´t be that hard to find more recent sources.radek (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]