Talk:Bronisław Malinowski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IPA transliteration[edit]

IPA reads /ˈbrɒnɨˌslɑːf/ for Bronisław, when the correct polish pronunciation is /ˈbrɒnɨˌswɑːf/ (see IPA for Polish). Edited.

Nationality[edit]

@Chubbles: Regarding whether his nationality should be in the lead, I think it is genrally a good practice to do this. Something like "Polish anthropologist who spend much of his life in UK and USA" would be correct and uncontroversial. A review of literature:

There is more, but I don't think it's controversial at all to describe him as Polish. Many sources mention his British connection too (but note that if they have to chose, most will focus on his Polish origins first, and mention British only second). Describing him as a Polish-British would probably be fine too. Do you have a preference? My point is that the lead should be informative and address his nationality (and it should also explain he worked most of his life in UK and later USA...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue probably is that many of those sources are conflating nationality and ethnicity; he is, I believe rather clearly, Polish by ethnicity, but to use that in the first sentence of the lead mistakenly/confusingly asserts that he is affiliated as a national or citizen of Poland (which he might have been, but the requisite sourcing would be needed to substantiate it), since it is in the place we would normally put a nationality. He was born when Poland was not an independent nation, in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and appears to have lived little of his life in Poland after its reestablishment. I know it's very useful to have a national designation as an anchor in the first sentence of most articles, but because he lived such a cosmopolitan life in politically turbulent times and places, I don't know that the best way to address it is by trying to pick a nation or set of hyphenated nations to denote it in the first sentence. The lead could do that work in the prose; perhaps that's a better way to work it in. Chubbles (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles I think "Polish-born British anthropologist" per Britannica, OE and many others would be the most common descriptor. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he wasn't born in Poland - he was born in the Austro-Hungarian empire. So we'll have to correct Britannica on that. Chubbles (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That clarification could perhaps be in a footnote, if you insist. Occupied or partitioned Poland was still Poland, and Polish people born under occupation are described as being born in Poland. Which is why not a single source above uses the term born in Austro-Hungary or Austro-Hungarian. PS. I'll also note that this is a common way of describing such people on Wikipedia. Polish people were born from 1795 to 1914, or 1939 to 1945, and tens of thousands of biographies follow that suit. If you think this is a problem, you may want to start a discussion or RfC at WT:POLAND. PPS. Another possible solution would be to call him "Polish Austro-Hungarian" per Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians‎, although I'd like to see some sources that actually use this or similar description. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In making this case, you are proving my point. Naming his nationality in the first sentence requires a complex historical and geopolitical argument, and instead, what's happening is a shortcut to his ethnicity, which is what we're not supposed to do per WP:ETHNICITY. So the best solution, I think, is not to use the first sentence as the means through which to try and make that point. I don't think WT:POLAND is the right venue for that, but we can start a WP:3O here if you're not satisfied with my reasoning. Chubbles (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow all the other sources cited above don't see this as complex, and you still failed to cite a single source to the contrary. Numerous similar cases of Polish people who were born while Poland didn't exist on the map and/or spend much of their life abroad don't have this problem: Frédéric Chopin, Marie Curie, Zygmunt Krasiński, Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Słowacki... and I see this was discussed above at #Certainly not Austrian, where another editor criticized your removal of 'Polish'. But sure, we can ask for WP:3O, go ahead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few more random attestations of Bronisław Malinowski's Polishness:
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language: College Edition, Cleveland and New York, The World Publishing Company, 1962, p. 888: "Polish anthropologist in America".
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition, New York, Random House, 1967, p. 868: "Polish anthropologist in the U.S."
American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, p. 1442: "Polish-born English anthropologist".
Encyclopedia Americana, Danbury, Connecticut, 1986, vol. 18, p. 176-77: "Polish anthropologist, who emphasized the instrumental nature of culture. [...] Born in Kraków, Austrian Poland, on April 7, 1884, Malinowski came from an academic family and studied mathematics and physical science at the Jagiellonian University in his native city (Ph. D., 1908)."
Joseph Conrad, another Polish expatriate, is described in the lead of his Wikipedia article as a "Polish–British writer".
If Involuntary citizenship in an occupying foreign empire were to be the invariably decisive criterion of nationality, then the Polish writer Bolesław Prus, along with his contemporaries in Russian Partitioned Poland, would have to appear in Wikipedia as Russian rather than as Polish.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So he was Polish, what’s the problem, really. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I lean towards the "Polish-British" phrasing; he was born in Poland and lived 26 years there, but his career of 30+ years was mainly in UK (plus few years in the US). What do you think about it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, ut of curiosity, while Wikipedia is unreliable and can't be a source for itself and so on, I checked other major wikis. He is nearly universally described as Polish: "polnischer Sozialanthropologe" (de), "polski antropolog" (pl), "un anthropologue, ethnologue et sociologue polonais" (fr), "antropólogo polaco" (pt). Russian one has "британский антрополог польского происхождения" which translates to "British anthropologist of Polish origin" and Spanish one has no ethnicity/nationality claim in the lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't just "born in Poland", he completed his first higher education (per some sources, including a doctorate) in Poland; and he is described in many English-language sources as a "Polish anthropologist".
Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I now prefer Polish-British to 'born in Poland'. Anyway, here is something from the man himself, from B. Malinowski, Życie seksualne dzikich w północno-zachodniej Melanezji, Warszawa 1957, s. XIII (author's foreward to the Polish edition, first written in 1937): "Pracować mi przyszło w obcym środowisku i nauce polskiej służyć tylko pośrednio. Czyż jednak przestałem jej służyć rzucając swą twórczość naukową na teren międzynarodowy i pracując w warunkach pozwalających mi osiągnąć pomyślniejsze rezultaty? Nie sądzę. Służyłem polskiej nauce zawsze, nie mniej niż inni, tylko inaczej. I takich usług na obczyźnie wymagała ona. Polakiem zaś nigdy czuć się nie przestałem i zawsze, jeśli tego zaszła potrzeba, potrafiłem to podkreślić" [I had to work in a foreign environment and serve Polish science only indirectly. But have I stopped serving her by throwing my scientific work to the international area and working in conditions that allow me to achieve more successful results? I do not think so. I have always served Polish science, no less than others, but differently. And she required such services in a foreign country. I never stopped feeling Polish, and I was able to emphasize it whenever I needed it]. Source: PSB pages 335-336 (cited in the text), or this article. This makes it clear that he would describe himself as Polish - he did so in this text. I think it is fair to note the British part, as this is where he spend half of his life, but trying to deny he was Polish, in light of all these sources, seems increasingly ridiculous. He was Polish, it's not complicated - he said so himself, as do many reliable sources - and no sources to the contrary have been presented. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is all beside the point. I am not contesting "is he Polish or not" - I am contesting what do we mean when we say he is Polish, something that none of these sources are answering in the same way we need to do. When we put this in the first line of the article (when it is X in the form "Z is an X Y", where Z is the article subject and Y is the reason for notability), we are making a statement that he is, uncontroversially, a citizen or national of the geographical sovereignty named. So many of the sources you're digging up here aren't framed in that same way; they're basically making a statement about his ethnicity, which we generally do not do, per WP:ETHNICITY. We need the lede to accurately and appropriately explain the context of his nationality, and I actually think the current lede does a really good job of that (a nice Hegelian synthesis between the two of us, perhaps). I also don't mean any of this to lessen praise of the good work you're doing otherwise on this article, and I thank you for the voluminous sources and content you've added over the past few days. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles Thank you. I understand the concerns re WP:ETHNICITY, but reading "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident" I have the following thoughts. A, "in most cases" does allow for exceptions. B, it talks about not only countries but regions or territories. Poland was such a region or territory in that era. Polish people didn't cease to exist because of the partitions of Poland and its history continued. C, per examples above, it is common practice to label, in lead, Polish people born or alive during that period as Polish (see my example above about Chopin and others, many are GA class and nobody raised this concern; I also speak with the experience of working on hundreds of biographies of Polish people of that era). D, I also see a note there "There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus." I'd interpret this as similar case - there is no preference, rule-wise, to describing a person as Austro-Hungarian rather Polish, Ukrainian, and so on. Usually it's pretty clear how to describe the person based on sources and common logic. Some people who lived in Austro-Hungary where Austro-Hungarians, others were Poles or Ukrainians. It is very rare that we find an individual whose nationality is unclear and controversial - such cases happen (see L._L._Zamenhof where this was discussed extensively and the recent RfC ruled 'no nationality') but I think they are exceptions to the rule. I understand that "in most modern-day cases", we prefer nationality to ethnicity, but the policy also leaves plenty of wiggle room for the atypical cases, and I think Eastern Europeans of the 19th century are one of such cases. Lastly, E, please note that per sources cited, the label Polish in such cases (BM being only one of many similar cases) is not controversial, and instead, it is common. In the end, WP:ETHNICITY is supposed to solve troubles, not cause them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise of Polish-born British or just Polish-British? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, "Polish-born" doesn't mean much. It could refer to someone who left historic Poland as an infant. Malinowski left when he was 26, with a Polish doctorate in hand – 10 years older than our "Polish-British" Joseph Conrad.
And thousands of other 19th-century Polish expatriates, including those named above – who left Polish soil because of unfavorable political or social conditions – did not cease to regard themselves, and have not ceased to be regarded, as Polish on account of their physical departure from a Poland in 123-year eclipse as a sovereign country.
"Polish-British" might more accurately describe Malinowski; but, as Piotrus' quotation from Malinowski shows, he still considered himself (very much like Conrad, who described himself in strikingly similar terms) a Pole who happened to have spent much of his career on foreign soil.
If Malinowski became a naturalized British or American citizen (both?), he might be described, analogously to Marie Curie, as a "Polish and naturalized-British [U.S.?]" anthropologist.
But, to my mind, he was a "Polish anthropologist best known for his fieldwork in the Pacific and African regions and for his academic work in Britain and the United States".
Nihil novi (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see why it is critically important to have that national signifier (or signifiers) in the first sentence, when the next sentence now succinctly summarizes his ethno-national background quite nicely. (It's important, but, I think, not more important than being robustly correct in context.) It's right there, in the second sentence, and it doesn't suggest anything misleading or confusing. It may be that common practice on Polish articles (or other ethnicities) does not follow WP:ETHNICITY very well, but I can't really speak to the particulars on that score. (The Joseph Conrad article should be changed; it's at least as unclear as this one is.) Since Malinowski lived such a multinational life, though, I think it's on the muddier end of that spectrum (as opposed to someone who lived in what we now recognize as the Polish state for his or her entire life). Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did get a British citizenship in 1931, which I think reinforces the 'British'. As to why it is good in the first sentence - it's useful, it's common (both on Wikipedia and outside), and IMHO is common-sense correct. Even if we discount the the opinion of two editors from few years ago or not, right now we have three people supporting the inclusion of this in the lead versus a single dissenting opinion. Given that pretty much all RS call him Polish-something, and none have been presented that do otherwise, I am going to add Polish-British to the lead as I think we have a rough consensus here, that emerged after WP:BRD. If there are any further concerns, I suggest they are best resolved by tweaking the nationality/ethnicity footnote, making the article more informative. PS. One more thought about citizenship/nationality: Since Austro-Hungary ceased to exist in 1918, and he gained British citizenship in 1931, presumably from 1918 to 1931 he was a Polish citizen/national anyway? PS. Yes, he did - here is a ref confirming he got Polish citizenship after WWII (so did his Australian wife...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After World War I? He died in 1942, before the end of World War II.
Nihil novi (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mis-wrote :) I meant WWI of course. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rough consensus? Not really. To my mind, the current draft is a substantially worse solution - it shunts Malinowski into a dual ethnic/national hybrid, and then adds a massive explanatory footnote that scans as axe-grinding. We just spent days hammering out the contextual explanation in the rest of the lede so that something like this wasn't necessary, and I certainly don't think it aids the casual observer. Look, I know you're committed to this cause far more than I am, and I don't have the bandwidth to spend weeks fighting over it, but the way this is now framed rather distinctly causes NPOV problems in addition to the ETHNICITY issues I already raised. I hope it changes. Chubbles (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chubbles. He was born in the Austrian-Hungarian empire. He spent all of his professional life based in the United Kingdom and later the United States. Besides Poland not existing when he was born, Poland is completely irrelevant to his career, which was in Britain. He's British same as any other young immigrant to the UK.Ravisihing Laura (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but outside of an account with 10 edits or so that just entered the "fray", all other editors, and all cited sources, support calling him Polish-British or Polish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources even call him Polish born, and far less sources call him Polish. John Scott calls him a "loyal to the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire", and says his birth place was the Austro-Hungarian empire.[1]Ravisihing Laura (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. He also writes in the very next sentence that "he became something of a Polish-nationalist". In the infobox and text we can state he had the "Austro-Hungarian citizenship", in addition to Polish or British. Also, Scott notes that Malinowski himself wrote that he came from a family of Polish nobility, so now we have two statement sin which he describes himself as Polish, and zero for those in which he describes himself as something else. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Polish nationalist in World War II, after his formative years, and not in Poland but in the United States. Being born to a family with Polish roots does not make you Polish. He immigrated to the UK as a young man and is properly described as a Briton as are all young immigrants.Ravisihing Laura (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Young Polish immigrants in the UK are called Poles in the United Kingdom (or, from the lead there, "British Poles, alternatively known as Polish British people or Polish Britons"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ravisihing, your "improved flow" ("Widely regarded as an eminent fieldworker, his texts [...] were foundational to early anthropology...") is actually very bad flow – it turns "his texts" into "an eminent fieldworker". Surely you could not have meant that?
Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scott, John. Fifty Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists. Routledge. p. 77.

To do[edit]

  • list of students in the infobox needs referencing in text
  • influenced by section in infobox needs referencing in text
  • psychological functionalism topic is not referenced
  • read few more biographies and see what they say :)

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria vs Grand Duchy of Kraków[edit]

This is a minor issue and I don't have strong feelings here, they both are terms related to the administrative division of the Austrian partition within the Austria-Hungary, and both are more or less correct. I suggest using them both if reliable sources can be found in support of them, but they are really technicalities. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow was the center of the Grand Duchy of Kraków, not part of the kingdom. If you don't want the specific Austro-Hungarian subdivision, we can leave Austrian-Hungarian Empire.Ravisihing Laura (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but please cite your sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on incompetence. Look at a map, that Krakow was part of the Duchy of Krakow is beyond obvious. What are your sources for the kingdom? Here are some sources for the Grand Duchy: [1], [2].Ravisihing Laura (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ravisihing Laura this reference [3] you posted above, that links to the Israeli alternative of "The Intimate Problems of Modern Parents ...” says .....Bronisław Malinowki...descendent from Polish szlachta. Thank you for that Israeli link that further confirms his ethnicity, much appreciated. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Germany nobility, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, that does not make her German. The source says "descendent from Polish szlachta", not Polish, descendent from Polish is not Polish.Ravisihing Laura (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition to all other references, already present that verified him being Polish, yet another source establishing the fact that Malinowski was born into a Polish noble class Szlachta family is very helpful. Once again, thank you so much. Any other Israeli sources you could search for us regarding Malinowski? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply WP:TENDENTIOUS. He was Polish, born in part of Poland that was part of the Austrian partition, wrote in Polish, spoke Polish, called himself Polish etc. He got British citizenship later and taught in US. Not like Queen Elizabeth II at all. Volunteer Marek 15:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've said about all I think I need to say about the matter, but I'll just note that there seems to be widespread conflation of Polish nationality and Polish heritage here, and that makes the discussion thoroughly confusing. I accept that these things are not entirely uncoupled, but it is important that we distinguish between the two in cases where they are not the same, which is very much the case here. At this point, I think I will leave it to posterity to decide the exact wording of this article. Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bronisław Malinowski/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments[edit]

This is a clear, readable, and informative article on a major figure. It is well-structured and fully-cited. As such, I'll have few comments to make and even those will basically just be suggestions.

  • On the citation style, I note that inline refs to books are inconsistently formatted. Some such as [64] have the page numbers inside the citation; others such as [61] use the "rp" method, with the page numbers in the main text. An alternative would be to list books used for multiple refs in "Sources" and to use a template such as {{sfn}} to keep the page numbers within the refs.
    • I tried to be consistent with the rp method. For [64], it's an academic article, and it lists the article's page range within the journal, which is what we do with cite journal template, instead of using rp (which I use for books). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ghastly but within the rules.
  • Not sure that describing Jomo Kenyatta as a "prominent social scientist" quite meets the case. There's a stray comma at the end of the list of people, by the way.
  • The acronym "LSE" is introduced but used only a few times. Perhaps it'd be better to spell it out as not everyone will be familiar with it.
    • I've decided to explain it once again the first time the full name is used in the text (outside the lead), and converted all other uses to LSE for consistency. I think it's a good compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that all the 'Selected publications' start with the same author, it might be nice to use |author-mask=————— or something of the sort to format the list.
  • "Malinowski is often considered one of anthropology's most skilled ethnographers, especially because of his highly methodical and well-theorised approach to the study of social systems. He is often referred to as"... perhaps cut an "often".

Summary[edit]

There's really very little wrong with this article, and I look forward to seeing it listed at GA very soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Bronisław Malinowski
Bronisław Malinowski

Improved to Good Article status by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Hooks seem to slightly underplay this major figure. As he was British, the article needs to use British English, which it doesn't seem to. Please check over. I'm not reviewing this. "Interbellum" will not be familiar to many - "inter-war years" might be better. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: No - ALT0 and ALT1 both don't contain anything particularly surprising and also try to cram in too much. Our goal isn't to show how important he was to anthropology; it's to pique readers' interest enough to get them to check it out. I've proposed an ALT2 below.
  • Other problems: No - I would suggest ALT2: ...that the discovery of anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski's diary after his death sparked "a moral crisis of the discipline"?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Overall, everything looks good (with much covered during the GAN) except for the interestingness issue. As noted above by Theleekycauldron, the MOS issue is not a blocker. (I also see other room for MOS improvement, such as the phrase he co-founded the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America, of which he became its first president, but that's for the FAC.) If ALT2 is good with you, approved for that. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, Thank you for your review. I am fine with your ALT2, although I think ALT1 which mentions "sex" is hooky enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Sdkb: ALT2 needs an independent reviewer, so I'll get on that; who said "moral crisis of the discipline"? The article doesn't make that clear. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The source for that quote should be https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781118896877.wbiehs279 . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: could the article provide inline attribution? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
coolcool, good to go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronisław_Malinowski&oldid=1212773332"