This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages 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.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language
Hi @Cohn-jesse, I had a few questions about the sourcing. Firstly, well done! Obviously a lot of great stuff here. My main reservation is that large portions of the article delve into original research, which is verboten on Wikipedia. Since the encyclopedia is written semi-anonymously and without qualifications/expertise, the strength of our claims rest on the reliability of secondary sources, e.g., academic peer review or an academic university press. We generally don't directly cite and interpret works by the subject, archival holdings, genealogical records, congressional proceedings but instead wait for a scholar or journalist to publish as a secondary source via an editor. I suppose the catch here is, if I correctly presume that you're the author who published with Lilian Türk (in which case I've cited you elsewhere), then if you were to publish this entire draft elsewhere, we'd be able to cite you directly as the secondary source. And if the piece isn't published in, for example, a journal, we could still cite the professional blog of a self-published expert (with limitations). For what it's worth, I understand some of the difficulty in finding secondary source on this subject, having searched English-language sources a few years ago (while illiterate in Russian and Yiddish).
A few questions about the rest of the sourcing:
Is valerikpunk/poslezavtra.be a reliable source? Doesn't look like the site has any semblance of editorial vetting.
Same for the Boris Yelensky piece in Libcom—is there a version with better editorial control?
Is the full (exhaustive) bibliography necessary for a general audience? Wikipedia aims to be a generalist encyclopedia, so we usually aim for "Selected bibliographies" of the most noteworthy publications by an author.
Hi @Czar -- thanks for this; I can see I've still got a lot to learn about how to "do" Wikipedia properly! I'm in the throes of final grading for the semester, but will turn back to this over the holiday break (and answer your helpful queries above).
Cohn-jesse (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
