Talk:Wola Piotrowa

Known residents list

Let me admit being a bad Wikipedian: I'm fairly tolerant of non-encyclopedic information contained in articles about small geographic places. Information about such places is useful to the public and there are frequently very few sources for it which can satisfy all of Wikipedia's rules. The editor who first created this and a number of other articles about small cities in this region some years ago included a bunch of stuff, including these lists of names, which do not satisfy the fairly strict requirements of Wikipedia for inclusion and which may violate Wikipedia's extremely strong rules about copyright. (If there's not a reliable source for the list then it violates either the verifiability or no original research policy; if there is a reliable source for the list, then it was likely just copied verbatim from that source, which probably violates the fair use policy for one of a couple of possible reasons.) An editor removed the name list from this (and I wouldn't be surprised other) articles and a different editor put it back in. I'm not going to remove it, but I do want to let the editor who put it back in know that if a real challenge to its inclusion arises or if it is removed by the other editor again, that it probably will not be retained. I'm saying all this simply to say that the editor who restored that information should not take my non-removal of it to be a affirmation that it ought to remain. Oh, and also to the restoring editor: You cannot make editorial comments anywhere on an article page. They're prohibited by either or both WP:NOR or WP:NOTESSAY. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor who put that list in got indef banned for copy right violations and hoax-y edits [1], [2]. This is a sock of that editor.VolunteerMarek 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can start an SPI if you like, but personally I don't think they're the same person. Silar had been around for a long time and Corinna Caudill started editing before Silar ever started getting into serious trouble. Caudill's editing reflects fairly typical errors of the type committed by an editor just jumping into editing without spending much time learning the rules and tends to focus on Ukrainian/Lemko issues while Silar's interests were far more Wiki-sophisticated and broader. On the other hand, as I pointed out above, I may not do anything to fix the issues I mentioned but neither will I defend them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This [3] is most definitely Silar, and it's very unlikely that the two users' interests would overlap in this very specific way.VolunteerMarek 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with including the names? I will review the rules this week, but please enlighten me as to why it's such a big deal to have to remove them when it's useful to people interested in that village? This village history is very hard to come by in English and a lot of work from a lot of people went into even making that possible. Sure, perhaps I don't know all of the rules of Wikipedia, but my associates (The Lemko Project) and I are attempting to provide a public service by providing this information in English. We are also trying to add sources so that people can read more literature that relates to the specific history of that village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinna Caudill (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize that editorial comments couldn't be made on the page. My colleague (who is fluent in Polish) informed me that one of the sources which was translated into English differed from the Polish version of that book, so I attempted to include both citations so that Polish-language readers could understand how to obtain the original version. However, they can probably figure it out for themselves. It is important that people get good information because the information is very scarce on these villages, which is, by the way, why it's important to include richness in details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinna Caudill (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the names are verified by Krasovsky's book and on Philip Semanchuk's website, so they are verifiable and they don't violate any copyright. We personally met with Mr. Krasovsky in Lviv in September and verified the name list for the village. He is the leading ethnographer on Lemko studies. This type of information is valuable in this particular case. The linkage of the names is something that is verifiable through the Ukrainian language sources and I did cite Krasovsky. If it's going to be removed, I'd ask that an authorized person from Wikimedia.org contact me to let me know that, and we'll just publish it on our website, but I'd ask that you do the due diligence on that. I can be reached at lemkohistory@gmail.com. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinna Caudill (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, even if somehow the inclusion of all these names could be justified, then they shouldn't go in the lead part of the article (see WP:LEDE). The lead is suppose to summarize the contents of the article, which obviously a list of names does not do.

However, these kinds of lists are NOT appropriate here. This is because this is an encyclopedia. Nothing wrong with this info it's just not the appropriate venue for it. If the list is up on some external site then we could include a link in an "External Links" section for people who are interested. We don't include this kind of information in encyclopedia articles for the same reason, for example, that we don't include the names of all the streets in a village or a town. Sure, it's of interest to some people. But it's not the kind of info that encyclopedias contain.VolunteerMarek 23:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to Philip Semanchuk's website? Perhaps we could include a link to it in lieu of the names list?VolunteerMarek 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the dispute over this (that ain't me btw, I think you're assuming I and TransporterMan are the same person - we're not) [4] I think that could best be handled by use of a footnote.VolunteerMarek 23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that you're not the same person as "TransporterMan" Anyway, I felt that your comments were helpful. RE: the link for the names - actually, that's a good idea. I'll create a page with a link to it on our TLP blog and link to it later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. I understand your point about the encyclopedia thing. I'm glad that you understand mine, and why it is important in the case of these villages. It is very hard for Americans to connect the genealogy, history, etc. due to language barriers, lack of information published in English, etc. Our project tries to bridge the gap with that, and we're currently incorporating as a nonprofit with that mission in mind. RE: the comment about my Polish language. You're right - I don't speak Polish though I am able to read it a little bit now. Thankfully, my colleagues speak and read it perfectly - which makes it possible for us to "cross milieu" in our research, but thanks for the offer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinna Caudill (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to drive any point of view by linking to the Repatriation article, but was only trying to give a pointer to the article that discusses it in more detail and to conform the section title usage here with the title of that article. Indeed, I like the new title of the Repatriation article better (though I think that we ought to lose the "Forcible," but that's no big deal one way or the other). I don't think that the list of names is encyclopedic, and Marek is right that it should not be in the lede, but as I've said above I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. That list was, by the way, sourced when it was first introduced into the article in this edit but the source got dropped and a couple of additional names added somewhere along the way. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For those familiar with the history (fyi - you can read any number of scholars to find this documented information, e.g. Magosci, Snyder, Armstrong, Subtelny, Best, etc.) it was clearly "forcible." Thanks for your opinion - I think Marek and I have worked out a good solution already, and that's already been discussed. Corinna Caudill (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Marek - I made the recommended correction and honestly, I'd like to thank you. This is a great idea. Our team is building a website with village histories and surnames, and we will link it to the Wikipedia pages for each village. That hadn't occurred to us before, so this has been a very helpful exercise.  :) Corinna Caudill (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing here, if you have some kind of "official" status as a project then it would be better to link to that rather than a blog. I'm not going to do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else came along and removed a link on the basis that it's a "blog" - though here is where Wikipedia policy is more muddy.VolunteerMarek 23:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Corinna, can you comment here [5]? It seems like most people agree that the term "Expulsion" is better than "Repatriation" but also think that "Forcible" is redundant.VolunteerMarek 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: The blog - yep, I had the same thought but I don't really know of an official online source where the names are published in their entirety. (If you know of one, please suggest that, and that would be great.) It's possible that Lemko.org has them somewhere, but that's also a private site ...so let me look around. What I will do when we get our website up and running (we're looking at June of this year) is link to our site, which will contain citations (online and in print) for the surnames -I absolutely do have sources for all of that, but felt that citing Krasovsky was enough rigor for the page itself. I suppose I'll need to review the specific Wikipedia rules regarding all of these things more in depth when I have more time. My issue with the expulsion thing was that nowhere should it say "repatriation" because that's absolutely incorrect - "forcible" must be emphasized because there is literature that is circulating that is making false claims to the contrary. I think that the term should be "forcible deportation" would be a better term, actually, and I'll make the change right now. The thing is, there aren't a lot of well known phrases to make the layperson understand what you're talking about, and "ethnic cleansing" is a bit too hackneyed and doesn't quite resonate. 68.186.207.156 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with listing the blog as an external link. An external link is just that - external. It doesn't function to try to substantiate anything in the text, which you took out. The material on the blog page does include material about Wola Piotrowa, so I think it's relevant. Corinna Caudill (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wola Piotrowa. 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/20070222101448/http://www.wolapiotrowa.chsi.pl/ to http://www.wolapiotrowa.chsi.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)