Talk:Carmelite Church, Przemyśl

Untitled

How does wikipedia work? I think when you accuse the Carmelites of removing the dome from the church because it "disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" you must prove this with certainly not that I must prove it is not. I don't want to erase your work I only removed information because it is not sure (based only on 1 source?!?). what is a RFC? 23Michal (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. That is, primarily things written by university professors or published by universities, institutes, journals, etc. See this page here: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipeida writers are like reporters - we describe the information that is there. We do not decide what is right and wrong - doing so is original research. (an excpetion I suppose is obsolete information). We simply report what the sources say. And my edits on that article were reporting what the source said. If another source says something else, and it is reliable, then definitely add it and the article will include two opinions. I would not remove it.Faustian (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is this information in only 1 source? 23Michal (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the church is not of such international historical importance that not many other sources write about it. Returning to your questions, if there is no agreement on an edit you can file an RFC (see WP:RFC) about the question. But trust me, removing a statement backed up by an expert as well-respected as Timothy Snyder because you personally don't believe Snyder knows what he is talking about isn't going to get support.Faustian (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the Carmelites said that the dome disrupted Przmysl's "Polish" skyline is a very serious attack. It needs to be sourced very well. I will try to get opinion of other wikipedia writers on this situation. Is there was board for this type of discussion on wikipedia? 23Michal (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, sourced very well. It is sourced to a book by a specialist on Ukrainian-Polish issues, Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at one of the top-ranked universities in the world, Yale. It is sourced from a book written by Snyder and published by Yale. If you want other editors' opinion on this go to RFC - WP:RFC.Faustian (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source is "sourced very well"? I see you have a sense for humor. Btw I have noticed most pages on wikipedia have a talk page for discussion but the Carmelite Church does not have it, why is that? 23Michal (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source is sufficient, particularly as in this case it is a very good source. Not every piece of information in wikipedia requires more than one source for it. Feel free to move this entire conversation into the article's talk page, that'sprobably a good idea.Faustian (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not every piece of information requires more than one source for it, yes. But here is not normal piece of information. 23Michal (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In two days i tried hard to find sources for the claim "Carmelites of removing the dome from the church because it "disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" which is inserted into the article but i found nothing. 23Michal (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Timothy Snyder. (2003). The reconstruction of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 . New Haven: Yale University Press. pg. 212.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue just repeat that? Where are more sources? Or what was the source for Snyder. 23Michal (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think more sources than Snyder are necessary? And if you do, so what? Do an RFC and see ifothers agree with you.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because I was unable to find any other source for that claim, that is why. 23Michal (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's too bad if you personally feel that one soruce written by Timothy Snyder and published by Yale Uiversity press isn't good enough for you. Why don't you see how other people feel by posting an RC about it?Faustian (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check wikipedia rules. 23Michal (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a quote from the book, the term "Polish skyline" seems dubious, although i don't reject possibility that it was used. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything that that presents Poles as unfavorable "dubious", ccording to you? Page 212, first paragraph here: [1] "Faustian (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link leads only to cover of the book. Please provide full quote. Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman Catholic Carmeline monks then proceeded to destroy the church's dome on the grounds that its "eastern" shape destroyed Przmysl's "Polish" skyline. Here again religion is subordinated to modern nationalism..."Faustian (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Polish" skyline? That is the exact quote? It is sourced ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the exact quote. Word-for-word. The book doesn't include footnotes to every statement. Are you going to try to remove this from the article too, in your quest to remove any information that Poles might consider unflattering?Faustian (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carmelite Church, Przemyśl. 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:

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: 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) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]