Talk:J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Military history: Historiography / Canadian / European / German / North America / World War II B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Notability

I'm not sure this publishing house is notable, given that the only sources are Smleser etc and Worldcat. Where are the multiple reliable sources independent of the subject? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Most publishing houses are a "mixed bag"; granted, some much more than others. This article only cites the opinion of two authors/historians in one work; that is not enough for notability. If an article is going to be on a subject, it should be based on more than one work, which is not without its own criticism. Any article it should rely on more than one source. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight tag

I undid this edit (diff), as it does not adequately summarise the body of the article. It also combined "historians" and "writers" which are different things. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification does not fit the facts. The lede's criticism is three times longer than the praise, which does not reflect the body, so certainly it does not adequately summarise the article, giving WP:UNDUE weight to one WP:POV. --Nug (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The summary in the lede is unbalanced. The part summarising the praise is a short sentence:

"The press has received praise from North American and German writers for professionally produced text and picture books."

which corresponds to the main text:

"In contrast, Chris Evans, history editor at Stackpole Books, writes in an introduction to one of the Fedorowicz books reissued by Stackpole: "J.J. Fedorowicz has a well earned reputation for publishing exceptionally high quality books on German World War II subjects".[7] Author Mark Healy in his work Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4–17 July 1943 refers to Fedorowicz's publications on the Battle of Kursk as "remarkable text and photo books", highlighting the two volume works by Restayn and Moller, which contain new photographs and present an "unforgettable image of the scale of the battle".[8] Favorably comparing Fedorowicz with Schiffer Publishing, author George Forty notes that the company has a "worldwide reputation for the excellences in its military literature"."

On the other hand, the part summarising the criticism is three times longer:

"J.J. Fedorowicz has been profiled by the American historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies in their 2006 work The Myth of the Eastern Front, where they describe Fedorowicz as a leading press of war-romancing literature and criticise it for providing a platform for authors who present an uncritical and ahistorical portrayal of the German war effort during the Soviet-German war of 1941–1945."

which corresponds to the main text, which is similar in length to the main text paise:

"Historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies in their work The Myth of the Eastern Front describe J.J. Fedorowicz as the leading publisher of war-romancing literature dedicated to the portrayal of the German war effort on the Eastern Front. According to Smelser and Davies, Fedorowicz provides a platform for the authors who they describe as "gurus" who specialise in the Wehrmacht and, in particular, the Waffen-SS. In their definition, gurus are authors popular among the readers who "romanticise" the Eastern Front; they present an uncritical and ahistorical portrayal of the military and paramilitary formations of Nazi Germany that is in stark contrast to the realities of the war of conquest and racial annihilation.[6] The book describes Fedorowicz's web site as "the heart of the romancing ethos", among other similar publishers such as Schiffer Publishing and Merriam Press."

Clearly the lede gives three time more text (and therefore weight) to the criticism than it does to the praise. It gives a lot more detail of the criticism compared with the praise, detail which really should go into the main text. The reverted text[1] gives a more balanced summary:

"The press has received both praise and criticism from North American and German writers, ranging from praise of exceptionally high quality books on German World War II subjects to criticism for providing a platform for authors who present an uncritical and ahistorical portrayal of the German war effort during the Soviet-German war of 1941–1945."

--Nug (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the reception section with more detail. In addition, another editor has found the tag in the lead to be misplaced: "sounds balanced enough". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your expansion is no improvement, undue weight is given to the opinion of a single publication. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because that's the source that provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject, as has been established at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the AfD did not establish that the source provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject, it established the publisher was notable. The coverage in the source is shallow and incidental, a handful of mentions of J J Fedorowicz as the publisher of this or that book written by some German veteran, and half a page about how Otto Carius thanks J J Fedorowicz for publishing his book. That isn't WP:SIGCOV by any standard. In any case too much weight is still given to this one publication. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The view that Smelser & Davies provide coverage that is "shallow and incidental", advanced during the AfD, did not find support. The article is currently reflective of what the sources have said about the subject, and I thus believe that the article is balanced and does not give undue weight to one source, since it covered the topic more extensively then others. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nug: Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has not come back to the discussion despite the ping here and on their Talk page: diff. I'm removing the tag, as I view it as an attempt to re-argue the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]