Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Source: [1] a Museum exhibition by the Institute of National Remembrance.
• Article: Kwidzyn (But also other various Poland related articles)
• Content: As a result of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, the district of Marienwerder was divided. The parts west of the Vistula were incorporated into the Polish Second Republic, which had just regained its independence. The parts east of the Vistula, to which the town of Marienwerder belonged, was to take part in the East Prussian plebiscite, which was organized under the control of the League of Nations. The Inter-Allied Commission with nearly 2,000 troops often favored the Germans, and its services towards Poles were often delayed and limited, while the administration remained under German control. The town was home to the Polish Warmian Plebiscite Committee and the Committee for Polish Affairs, which, however, had to operate partly secretly. On May 16, 1920, the largest Polish plebiscite demonstration in Powiśle took place in the town, and Poles had to organize defenses against attacks by German militias. These conditions combined with German electoral fraud... Afterwards, anti-Polish terror intensified.

The IPN has been extensively criticized by many scholars and people because they think it has been politicized by Poland's ruling party PiS. The controversial amendment by PiS passed in 2018, the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, outlined some controversial terms for the Institute's activities going forward. Saying something along the lines of "Protecting the reputation of Poland" 4 times in the amendment (full text in English here). Just go to the Institute of National Remembrance#Criticism, or read this Columbia University article about them here. The academic freedom of the institution is limited, and it can be used as a tool to rally nationalism by PiS, without having much factual accuracy, neutrality. They've said some controversial stuff about the Holocaust and Poland, and anti-Semitism in Poland (We've just had a high profile Arbcom case regarding Jews in Poland during WW2). Here's an excerpt from the Columbia article "the Polish government passed the aforementioned 2018 Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which amended Article 55 to outlaw any individual who “publicly and contrary to the facts attributes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes.” [10] Such acts ostensibly constituted an attack on the “good name of the Polish nation” and would be prosecuted by means of civil law—prohibiting the prosecution of Polish citizens who burnt alive nine hundred Jews during the Jedwabne pogrom 1941 or massacred five hundred of their Jewish neighbours in Radzilów. [11] The 2018 amendment transforms the 1998 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance from a statute that aspires to protect the truth to one that censors it, defeating its original purpose of preserving accurate accounts of history." Crainsaw (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Taking IPN issues aside, museum exhibit poster is certainly not an ideal source. There are books/papers about this subject, so using these is recommended (I assume you may find both German and Polish). I'm no expert in history of Poland, so can't say if Krzysztof Andrzej Kierski (author of the exhibit text) has any weight in their historiography, but at least he is a historian by education working at the IPN. Pavlor (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would have some concerns with using IPN in regard to Polish/Jewish relations, due to the issue being politicised by PiS. But this isn't about that issue, this is Polish/German relations. Are there any particular parts of the content you have issue with, or is it just the source? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It claims stuff like German fraud in the elections when no evidence has been found, it also claimed German militias terrorized poles, when the Italian garrison battalion had disarmed Both the Sicherheitswehr and the Einwohnerwehr, and the police were under British control. It said the Poles didn't vote in the election because it was a "Farce" and they feared reprisals (In most places, almost everyone who could vote did vote, so no massive polish boycott, Reprisals and intimidation might've been true, but the Militias and Police were disarmed and under control well before the propaganda campaigns even started). The exhibition also claimed that the Germans transported ~20k people across the corridor to vote in the elections without being residents, but failed to address that the voting regulations said that anybody born in those areas before 1905 could vote. And on top of that, the results showed that the non-residents voters didn't even affect the outcome Out of 125,091 registered voters 104,941 votes recognised as valid were recorded. Of these 96,923 were for East Prussia and 8,018 for Poland. According to statistics controlled by the Commission 23,718 outvoters from other parts of Germany took part, proving that the result of the Plebiscite was not materially affected by extension of the right of voting to all persons born but not resident in the area." (This is for the Marienwerder voting region) There's a massive book commissioned by the British Government about their foreign policy documents between 1919-1939. It said the Poles claim election fraud but lack any evidence, which haven't seen to this day (Documents on British foreign Policy 1919-1939, first series, Volume 10) Crainsaw (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And just to add a bit more, there were concerns over massive disorder after the results on both sides, but the British were surprised to see not problems in the aftermath, with no anti polish reprisals or terrorism. Crainsaw (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We are close to original research here. I assume "Documents on British foreign Policy 1919-1939" is an edition of British Government documents, so primary source. As I wrote, best course of action is to find recent book(s)/paper(s) about this topic and use these. Pavlor (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've read a few books about the Plebiscite, with none of them mentioning anything the exhibition is claiming, like fraud, terror, and more. The text about non-residents no affecting the outcome is directly quoted from the book Crainsaw (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

What are these “few books about the Plebiscite” that you read? If there are other sources then we can use them, but just claiming “I read something once” is as, Pavlor points out, original research. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For what you guys are claiming is OR, the quote "the non-residents voters didn't even affect the outcome Out of 125,091 registered voters 104,941 votes recognised as valid were recorded. Of these 96,923 were for East Prussia and 8,018 for Poland. According to statistics controlled by the Commission 23,718 outvoters from other parts of Germany took part, proving that the result of the Plebiscite was not materially affected by extension of the right of voting to all persons born but not resident in the area." pp.806-808, the same is true for the Allenstein area, pp. 821-826. For books, I'd suggest Ostpreussen: Geschichte und Mythos, and Orphans of Versaille: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939. I hadn't used to sources till now because I was still searching for more, and collecting more sources. Crainsaw (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

de:Volksabstimmungen in Ost- und Westpreußen lists some German sources that may be useful. In particular these two:

Walther Hubatsch: Die Volksabstimmung in Ost- und Westpreußen 1920. Ein demokratisches Bekenntnis zu Deutschland. Staats- und Wirtschaftspolitische Gesellschaft, Hamburg 1980, ISBN 3-88527-036-6.

Bernhart Jähnig (Hrsg.): Die Volksabstimmung 1920 – Voraussetzungen, Verlauf und Folgen. N.G. Elwert Verlag, Marburg 2002.

Unfortunately I could find neither online. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I found another source, Masuren: Ostpreussens Vergessener Süden, also written by Andreas Kossert, who also wrote Ostpreussen: Geschichte und Mythos. Crainsaw (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Another source is the article "Polish-speaking Germans?" language and national identity among the Masurians, Nationalities Papers, Volume 27, Issue 3. It said "when Poland,

despite the failure to date of its efforts to win over the Masurians, laid claim to

Masuria (along with the rest of East Prussia) at the Paris Peace Conference. Roman Dmowski, representing the Polish National Committee, presented the accompanying Ethnographic map by Jakob Spett as evidence that most Masurians spoke Polish and expressed confidence that they would also come to feel Polish after a brief period of Polish rule.35 Dmowski clearly hoped that Masuria would be awarded outright to Poland on ethnolinguistic ground s, the views of the Masurians themselves carrying no more weight than those of Sudeten Germans and South Tyroleans. But France was the only major power at Paris prepared to accommodate this claim; British and U.S. representatives insisted that a plebiscite be conducted before they decided Masuria’s fate, and this became Article 94 of the Treaty of Versailles"... "In February 1920, an Inter-Allied Commission (IAC), consisting of British, French, and Italian officials and troops, took over administration of the Allenstein Plebiscite District (i.e. Masuria and southern Warmia) from German authorities in order to conduct a plebiscite"... "Masurians were to choose between Poland and East Prussia (rather than Germany, in order to preserve the option of an independent or autonomous East Prussia still favored by the French). Everyone above [the] age [of] 20 who had been born in the plebiscite area, regardless of where they now lived or how long they had been away, had the right to vote. Allowing such outvoters to participate in the plebiscite was originally a Polish idea; most such people were known to have been Polish-speaking when they left Masuria. As noted, however, they had undergone an even more rapid process of germanization than other Masurians."... "Midway through the plebiscite campaign (April 1920), with virtually everything going wrong, Poland cited several cases of campaign violence to denounce the plebiscite as a fraud and declare its suspension of campaign activities. IAC officials were not sympathetic, however. Colonel Ernest Rennie, its British chairman, responded that Poland’s problem was simply that its propaganda had apparently had little result among the Mazurs so far. They apparently refuse to be won over by Polish agents, which is no doubt a disappointment to their wooers. No more than a half-dozen Polish meetings had been broken up since the IAC’s arrival and in the view of his French colleague, Couget, the fact that only about twenty Polish heads had been broken so far did not imply over-keen political partisanship. In Rennie’s view, violent clashes had been the exception during the campaign; terrorism was not a very valid excuse in view of the comparative tranquillity that remains in the district."... "The IAC reported that tranquillity prevailed over all the District on election day and pronounced the plebiscite free and fair." pp. 438-442 Crainsaw (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Pavlor here: regardless of the reliability or not of the Institute of National Remembrance (about which I know essentially nothing) interpretation material for an exhibition is probably not the best source. For such a well-discussed topic as the aftermath of the First World War, there must surely be scholarly books or articles discussing this topic. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Caeciliusinhorto-public, while the topic of the aftermath of WW1 *in general*, or in UK, France and Germany, may be well discussed, this here much narrower topic is probably under researched. If you know of any useful sources that you could suggest that’d be great. The thing here is that absolutely no sources have been presented which would contradict the claims made in this particular source, and some of the info is pretty straightforward (the occurrence of a large demonstration in May for example). I believe the source is reliable - material developed by historians and scholars in cooperation with a research institute [2] - but sure since it’s just an exhibition we could definitely use something more extensive. But again, usually in cases like this, the person objecting to the material brings OTHER sources to the table, which contradict or dispute the text. Nothing like that has been done here. Volunteer Marek 04:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit, the only comprehensive source I’m aware of is “Plebiscites since the World War : with a collection of official documents” by Sarah Wambaugh which is cited by a lot of other works on the subject, but… it’s very old. FWIW that source essentially says same thing as the source under discussion (in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the exhibition text was based on Wambaugh). Volunteer Marek 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

p.78: Il peut y avoir eu des actes de pression, d’intimidation, voire de violence avant le mois de juillet, mais pas une blessure grave, pas une seule mort d’homme, ni dans la population civile, ni dans les troupes alliées et les forces de police. Which means: There may have been acts of pressure, intimidation and even violence before July, but not a single serious injury, not a single death, either among the civilian population or among the allied troops and police forces. "Terrorism, the calculated use of violence" - Britannica, which would've certainly led to a few deaths, or serious injuries, right? Crainsaw (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Remember, this is from the French delegation, who were very openly pro-polish. Crainsaw (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pressure intimidation and threats of violence sure sounds like acts that could be construed as terrorism. The section you added at the start of the thread doesn't mention deaths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the German militias would've only used threats and intimidation, and no violence at all. Given the general atmosphere and the feeling of humiliation due to the loss of Colonies and Alecase Lorraine, they would've most definitely used violence, at least once if needed. Crainsaw (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's likely this article, and 1920 East Prussian plebiscite could do with a rewrite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm just asking whether we can depreciate the source? Crainsaw (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. IPN is a reliable outlet, with some critism in the area of Polish-Jewish relations, but nothing definitive. Now, the cited publication (brochure) is arguably not an academic level work, but it is published for public education by scholarly institute. Its primary author seems to be one Krzysztof Andrzej Kierski who seems to be a historian (PhD in history, and more, see [3]). Reliable unless REDFLAG issues are raised, and you are not making a case for those, to say the least ("it also claimed German militias terrorized poles"...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't open the PDF you linked, my browser (Firefox) keeps saying "Secure Connection Failed". Anyone else having the same issue? And Piotr, you're an academic, you of all people should know how dangerous politicization of academic institutions can be, you can read the controversial amendment here. 2a) protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation; Section 6c Protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation; Article 55a. 1. Whoever claims, publicly and contrary to the facts, that the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich. Columbia Undergraduate Law Review: In February 2021, Barbara Engelking, founder of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, and Jan Grabowski, professor of history at the University of Ottawa, were accused of violating the amended Article 55 in their historical study on the fate of Jews in occupied Poland, Dalej jest noc. In a four-sentence passage, the authors summarized the testimony of Estera Drogicka, a Holocaust survivor, who stated that Edward Malinowski, the wartime mayor of Malinowo, led the Nazis to a group of over a dozen Jews in hiding, who were subsequently murdered. [12] The plaintiff, Filomena Leszczyńska, niece of Edward Malinowski, claimed that Engelking and Grabowski “slandered the memory” of her uncle and violated her “right to one’s national pride and identity,” grounding her claims on the basis that such allegations tarnished the “good name” of the Polish nation pursuant to Article 55 of the Act and Article 133 of the Polish Criminal Code. [13] Crainsaw (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I get a security warning, too, when I try to open the link. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The link is dead. You're likely being redirected to a page that doesn't have a security certificate, which causes a warning in most browsers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoever claims, publicly and contrary to the facts, that the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich. How does this affect a plebiscite between Poland and Weimar Germany? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainians who killed Jews in concentration camps, were a) Nazis and b) declared their allegiance or operated under the supervision of the Third Reich. So their crimes weren't Ukrainian (As a nation) per se, and come under the Crimes committed by the Third Reich. The same logic applies with Poland. So if anyone even claims that one single Pole, collaborated with the Nazis, it's a crime. It doesn't have anything to do with the Plebiscite, but rather what message the IPN is trying to convey. Crainsaw (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes and I said at the beginning of this thread that the IPN shouldn't be used for Jewish/Polish matters due to politicisation by PiS, but again how does that effect a plebiscite between Poland and Weimer Germany over a territory populated mainly by Poles and Germans? You are making arguments that have nothing to do with your original question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the 2018 law is only relevant insofar as it shows a politicization of history and impediments to academic freedom. More important in my opinion is this "Following the election of the Law and Justice party, the government formulated in 2016 a new IPN law. The 2016 law stipulated that the IPN should oppose publications of false information that dishonors or harms the Polish nation. It also called for popularizing history as part of 'an element of patriotic education'. The new law also removed the influence of academia and the judiciary on the IPN." (quote from the article) Add to that the director is a political appointee and you have a politically biased institution. I guess you could probably compare it to a partisan think-tank. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

True but the IPN is much older than the current problems, and the same issue could be used to dismiss most Polish sources. Leaving contemporary German sources with their own issues. Unfortunately Poland is not the only place where right-wing groups are trying to rewrite history, and East Prussia is one of those areas affected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's why I favor deprecating the IPN from 2016 onward and use a case by case approach before that. And it is certainly true that this is a topic area where you have to be careful with German publications. Often they are published by expellee societies and they can make neo-nazis look moderate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That is true in many cases, but the two books I've cited by Andreas Kossert [de], are Pantheon Books and Siedler Verlag [de]. Both re part of Penguin Random House, and are well established Academic Publishers, especially Siedler. And the Journal article “Polish-Speaking Germans?” Language and National Identity Among the Masurians by Richard Blanke is published Cambridge University Press. Crainsaw (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those seem fine. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If we have different sources saying different things the article should reflect that, attribution is useful in this situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Most sources I've read don't mention anything about terrorism or fraud, The only secondary (Is an exhibition a secondary or primary source?) ones that do is a Museum Exhibition prepared by a questionable institution to say the least. The other is an article printed in a reputable journal, which debunks these claims about fraud and terrorism. Both of the primary documents, the British and French, more or less say there were concerns at first over fraud and terrorism, but when the election day came "Tranquillity prevailed", and no major disruptions happened. Crainsaw (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's

WP:UNDUE unless more sources are provided. Crainsaw (talk

) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Your french source states that terrorism was involved (terrorism doesn't have to equate to fatalities), and there are other polish sources in the main article that haven't been discussed. But this is becoming a conversation about what is or isn't due in the article, rather than a discussion about whether a source is reliable or not. If you have journal articles added them to the article as a dissenting oppinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The French source says there *may* have been some acts of violence and intimidation, but not a single serious injury, not a single death, either among the civilian population or among the allied troops and police forces. That has to be an incredible coincidence that terrorism didn't equate to anything serious. Crainsaw (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

single serious injury you're now misquoting your own sources. We comeWe're done here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Kossert mentions minor fraud (that did not affect the outcome). He also details societal pressure and intimidation tactics and some violence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Kossert mentioned intimidation, on which pages did he mention minor fraud and violence? Maybe I missed something. Crainsaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

From Masuren: Ostpreussens vergessener Süden:

"Polnische Versammlungen wurden regelmäßig gestört, und nicht selten kam es dabei zum Ausbruch des organisierten Volkszorns und zu Schlägereien."p.249

"Unbestritten sind heute Wahlfälschungen in geringem Umfang, die allerdings das Gesamtergebnis nur wenig beeinflusst hätten."p.258

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Politicization is unfortunate, but it is also common among many institutions. Usually that does not make them unreliable, and I don't think this is the case here. The Amendment law you cite was an idiotic political stunt that generated a lot of criticism, was watered down and has almost never been used, or used at all - at least our article does not seem to contain any instances of use. It seems like a dead law, forgotten by all except an occasional person bringing it up as an example of, well, idiocy of the PiS government - fortunately, clearly an ineffective idiocy. As for Grabowski and Engelking, IIRC, there is confusion - they were sued under a different law that has been sometimes mistakenly attributed to the Amendment (from what I see, this case is not mentioned in the Amendment article, nor at Jan_Grabowski#Litigation). From [4]: "A controversial 2018 law in Poland makes it an offence to link the Polish nation to Nazi crimes. It was not invoked however in the present case." So err, it seems your main "example" is incorrect, too (hint: "Columbia Undergraduate Law Review" is an undergraduate paper, not a scholarly publication, and clearly, given this error, it is much less reliable than a brochure endorsed by IPN that was written by someone whith a PhD degree, as is the case here) In either case, whatever law they were accused of breaking, they were found mostly innocent and the defendants "declared it a “great victory”". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the INR can not be considered a reliable source. It should definitely be deprecated from 2016 onward (when the full politicization by PiS started). There were definitely issues before that, but I am not familiar enough with the institute to say whether they are enough for deprecation or even rating as generally unreliable pre-2016. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that regarding the INR, case-by-case approach should be applied. The institute has a rather long history, had a few different Presidents who were appointed by the Parliamentary majorities of different political orientations. Quite a many historians who are now very critical about INR, were once its employees and published very valuable books and articles under its brand (Dariusz Libionka, Adam Puławski, just to mention a few). It would be shame to ban their works. Also, we should distinguish an INR's scientific books and articles from its promotional activities (like this one [5]), which are of course less reliable. To sum up: mark as unreiable only those books or articles, which recieved negative peer-review.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, any proposal that the publications issued by the IPN (which should be counted in the tens of thousands) should be considered unreliable as a whole should be considered illogical and unreasonable. Moreover, the report is written dishonestly. First of all, the 2018 law cited by the submitter has never fully entered into force, besides, it has nothing to do with the IPN's status as a reliable research center. The 2018 case, moreover, has nothing to do with the topic raised in the report. The rest is a discussion of content, and as such is not relevant to this noticeboard. @

I'm surprised the Bogumił Linka incident wasn't mentioned in the British sources, especially because the Allenstein area was garrisoned by 4 British Battalions, regardless German militias terrorizing Masurians deserves a mention. Although his incident happened in January, and by July most militias were disarmed. Also, an exhibition is not the best source, above I've collected scholarly sources about the Plebiscite, who should replace the IPN exhibition per

WP:RSP, and the 2018 Amendment did fully go into effect, thus far only one article has been repealed. Crainsaw (talk

) 08:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The content at issue here closely mirrors what Benjamin Conrad wrote in Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 64 (2015) H. 2, p. 182:

Nicht alle von polnischer Seite vorgebrachten Argumente waren falsch: So war in Allenstein und Marienwerder die Tatsache, dass sich die alliierten Kommissionen angesichts der schwachen Militärkontingente auf die deutsche Verwaltung stützen mussten, mitverantwortlich dafür, dass die Wahlkampfbedingungen für die polnische Seite bisweilen ungerecht waren und eine Fürsprache für Polen sogar lebensgefährlich sein konnte.

(Translation: Not all the arguments put forward by the Polish side were wrong: in Allenstein and Marienwerder [= Kwidzyn], for example, the fact that the Allied commissions had to rely on the German administration in view of the weak military contingents was partly responsible for the fact that the campaign conditions were sometimes unfair to the Polish side and engaging in advocacy for Poland could even be life-threatening.)

So the IPN source is good. As for the wider issue, I would be against any blanket blacklisting of IPN. If in doubt, attribute. If that seems insufficient, discuss. Andreas JN466 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is for the Allenstein area, not the Marienwerder area, where Kwidzyn is located. Crainsaw (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It says specifically "Allenstein and Marienwerder" ...? Andreas JN466 12:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for or not reading correctly. Crainsaw (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Allmovie[6], TVinsider[7] and Moviefone[8]. I'm asking because I've sometimes come across these being used as a ref, however I've been removing them because I looked into them and they don't seem much different from Rotten Tomatoes as they may be acceptable for other departments, however also like Rotten Tomatoes they have the incorrect dates of births for some actors such as John Leguizamo, Tanya Roberts, Judith Hoag and Edie McClurg which makes their credibility questionable and not trustworthy for

I've noticed that Allmovie is listed among the perennial sources list, however there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I feel this research argues against its credibility as far as dates of birth are concerned. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

With 1 editor opting to classify La Patilla as generally reliable, 3 with the consideration of additional considerations, 5 as generally unreliable and only 2 as deprecated, I think there should really be a reconsideration before giving the outlet the worst option considered in the RfC, specially considering that the two votes for deprecating were the last ones, did not add additional arguments to the discussion, and at least twice editors voted "Bad RfC", saying it was malformed (once here at WP:RS/N, the other time at Talk:La Patilla, by different editors). Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla was just divisive, with one editor siding with "generally reliable" (myself), one for "additional considerations" and 2 for "generally unreliable" (one of them being the nominator). As mentioned in the RfC, La Patilla is used in 316 pages   in the project, and adding a filter that removes all of them without proper consideration, in a topic that already has limited sources, can do more harm than good.

The main problem is that while it was established that La Patilla has republished content from a blacklisted website, Breitbart, but it was not demonstrated which content was generally problematic. For the greatest sample provided for republications, it was demonstrated at

Lastly, I wanted to ask the closer @

I don't think this is the right place for a close review - the correct location is

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; it is almost the definition of a "limited group of editors". BilledMammal (talk

) 12:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:AN? --NoonIcarus (talk

) 12:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at

WP:AN, although I would suggest adding what your proposed outcome is to it before doing that. BilledMammal (talk

) 12:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Many thanks. I left a message there, we'll see the status of the closure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested sending it for wider review, given the talk page discussion rapidly turned into trying to overturn the concept of deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting the closure review is in progress: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reliability_of_La_Patilla_closure_review - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

On the Primos (TV series) page, a user added an EIDR entry to support a stated start date for the series. I asked this in a post on here last year, but didn't get a response then, so I'm trying once again, as EIDR was mentioned in yet another article I've been editing. I did a search and EIDR is currently used as a source in 22 articles.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Who can register objects with the EIDR registry?

In order to maintain uniqueness and accuracy of records in the Registry, registrations are limited to organizations that are approved registrants in the EIDR system. Entities involved in the movie and television industry either directly in the production of content or in its distribution and related services are eligible to apply for registrant status. The EIDR organization reviews and approves candidates that meet criteria for registrants. Registrants pay an annual membership fee that depends on the size of the company as well as the annual number of registrations. Registrants must also conform to the rules and standards set by EIDR with regard to the quality of submissions."[10] The information in the registry is provided by the companies. Each entry has a link to the Registrant's entry. In this case[11] the information was provided by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment[12]. So I would treat it as a

WP:PRIMARY source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. That's very helpful. Historyday01 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Are these sources 1 and 2 reliable for history related article like Assamese Brahmins ? Eduardo2024 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

First one not, it is a really short biography, so general history topics are out of its scope. The second one looks useable (contributors are scholars from some Indian universities), but I'm no expert in Indian history and caste related topics are too contentious for my taste. Pavlor (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's somewhat of a consensus that History, the channel, is unreliable given the Ancient Aliens stuff and the like. However, what about History.com? Are they reliable, are they unreliable, or somewhere in between? I remember in the past that some of their articles about aliens and the like seemed to be at least not skeptical, but other stuff on the site when it comes to US and world history seem to be fine to me. I should also note that their articles have bylines (either by named authors or by the "History.com" team, whose members are named), they give sources, and they claim to have fact-checking, complete with a contact link. I have no idea how accurate that claim of fact-checking is, hence this discussion. Here are two examples of such articles: [15] and [16].

Basically, is History.com, as opposed to History the channel, reliable at least as a tertiary source, or is it still not reliable just like the channel? I'm not sure if the source is cited on any article at the moment, but I'm asking here just for clarification purposes since

I think the last major discussion about it was this one. It was never closed but the general sentiment seems to be that it's unreliable or should at least be used with extreme caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case but I feel like the site must have changed since then since it's been a few years, like I don't recall the citations and fact-checking claims before. Or maybe I never paid attention to them in the past. I should also point out that most of the editors who said it's unreliable were largely focusing on the channel, rather than looking at the website on its own and independently. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

History.com is just the website for the channel and is mostly about what's showing. It's reliable for that and other information about channel. Are you confusing it with the History News Network? TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, History.com isn't only about the channel. They also talk about historical topics, see the links I gave above. What I'm asking if if that section of the site, the actual history stuff (as opposed to the show-related stuff), is reliable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Trail of Tears one has some generalized statements to watch out for - it doesn't mean it's wrong but watch out for hyperbole or generalized statements in any source. For example, the quote "Many of these whites" and the text that follows it is very general and open to interpretation. "Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee" are known as the civilized tribes is nice and specific. "Several states passed laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their territory" is a good example of something that is more of a summary then a generalization, it's easier to defend/understand, you could look up and see if several states did in fact pass laws. The dust bowl article has the same thing, I'd be careful with the generalizations, but some of the more specific facts seem like they could be fact checked if they were contested with other resources. Denaar (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would categorize it as “Meh… we can do better”… almost anything that could be reliably cited to history.com can be found in sources that are far more reliable. So we should cite those instead. And if history.com is the only site to support something, I would question it (on UNDUE grounds if not reliability). Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• My main issue (and the reason I think it's fine for unexceptional things despite better sources existing) is that finding academic sources is, for many editors, fairly difficult. History.com is accessible and easy to cite; and we do need that ease of use for articles to expand through casual editing. So even if it can hopefully be replaced by better sources later, I think it's fine to use for "basic historical outline" things. My concern is that if we just say "no, never use it" the sources that end up used instead will likely often be news websites or magazines or the like, which I don't actually think are better sources for history. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per the above, History.com, like most of the material published by the parent company, is
  Edutainment. They may try to be accurate, but on the flipside, the purpose is primarily to entertain and not to be an academic document. For me, where it fails the CRAAP test is on the "Authority" and "Purpose" criteria. The main purpose is to capture your eyeballs long enough to sell your attention to advertisers; or to be a quick source of information. It's probably accurate enough, but accuracy is not the only consideration. Insofar as it is accurate, everything would be better covered by more academic sources. Use those sources instead. --Jayron32
  12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would say that it is sometimes usable as a source, and is probably more accurate when it comes to history than most news media or most other random websites with sufficient reputation to pass the bare minimum of
  WP:EXCEPTIONAL stuff. But it's fine to use for unexceptional historical details. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Pop history" sources of any kind tend to be terrible, regardless of whether they are associated with a TV channel that openly publishes bullshit. There is basically no reason to use it when other much better sources can be found for any given topic it covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A paragraph about the

No. If a source doesn't appear on the list of perennial sources, it only means one thing: the source hasn't been discussed yet. It's possible that the source is so awful that it doesn't warrant a discussion, or possibly a stellar source which also doesn't warrant a discussion (see here). Lack of a source having explicitly found to be reliable doesn't mean it's unreliable.

That said, it is reasonable to discuss an article that relies on uncommon sources. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with @Cortador here. I'm not familiar with the listed sources, but I would say it's okay to use them unless there are glaring issues that need to be addressed immediately, if other more reliable sources conflict (if it's a conflict between sources with both being of similar or better reliability, I would recommend phrasing coverage as "sources conflict on X, with some saying Y while others argue Z"), or if Wikipedians discuss about it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a chicken and the egg situation... Remember that in theory in order to be used in the first place an editor had to assess its reliability and decide that it was in fact reliable. The issue with that is of course that everyone makes mistakes and some people are just incompetent. IMO this means that per AGF a source is to be considered reliable unless challenged, if challenged its reliability becomes undetermined until a consensus is reached. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but its also does not mean they are RS. What it means is that you use them, and see who objects and why. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In this specific case, the information reverted was controversial information about a living person.

BLP policies apply here; if a source's reliability is locally challenged and there's no evidence of a broader consensus, it's best to discuss the inclusion on the article's talk page. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits}

) 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since we're talking about whether or not a source is reliable(particular ones that've never been discussed before), I'd like to mention that I've come across editors using sites such as Moviefone or TVinsider for refs such as

WP:BLP. I did some digging and those sites don't seem much different from Rotten Tomatoes. They may be okay to use for some departments, however they also have the incorrect DOBs for some actors, which like RT, makes them questionable when it comes to biographical information. We don't know exactly where they get their info from and for all we know they could just be listing down what other sites have listed. Allmovie is another site people often use for bio details, but that's actually on the list of perennial sources and there doesn't seem to be a consensus, but like the aforementioned sites, I did some digging there and I feel that's not a trustworthy site for bio info as well. I mean it has Laverne Cox's birth year as 1984 even though her true birth year(1972) was revealed about 7 years ago.[18] Kcj5062 (talk

) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that sources are either reliable or unreliable until proven otherwise. We should assume that if an editor cites a source, they believe in good faith that it is reliable, and if an editor challenges a source as unreliable then they in good faith believe it to be unreliable. In the spirit of

WP:ONUS

, if an editor removes content on the grounds that they believe the source to be unreliable, the responsibility for demonstrating reliability should lie on those who want to include the content. Personally, whenever I edit I always make a mental assessment of how reliable the sources I am using are, and how I would demonstrate their reliability if someone challenged them.

In this particular case, the text that the sources are supporting is a negative claim about a living person; the threshold for inclusion is thus fairly high. The Dalai Lama is a extremely well-known figure who has been the subject of a pretty substantial amount of literature; if the Lady Gaga controversy is an important aspect of his public image it will be discussed by unequivocally reliable sources. Compare the February 2023 child-kissing/tongue-sucking incident, which was covered by sources including The Guardian and BBC in the UK, and CBS News and CNN in the US. If you think the content should be included and the sources are reliable, the best thing to do would be to make the case for inclusion on Talk:14th Dalai Lama. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

General Comment Also, what do we do about zines that are like Publisher lead singer of band, Editor-in-Chief his daughter, editor band member 2? Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a self-published source (

WP:SPS). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about one person show, but one person writes, and others act as editors. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It would still be self-published by Wikipedia standards. There is no independence of source and subject. It's equivalent to a company publishing information about itself. No matter how many people are involved the lack of independence makes it self-published by Wikipedia standards. Basically there are two reasons for a source to fall under

WP:SPS, the first is lack of editorial oversight, the second is lack of independence between source and subject. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 18:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• In one sense, but probably not in the sense you mean. A source is a
  WP:BURDEN you have to present at least some rationale for why a source is reliable if it hasn't previously been discussed and is challenged in good faith - however, once you present that rationale, someone who disagrees can't just say "well it isn't on RSP / RSN", that's not how those things work; they have to explain why they disagree in turn (and then one of you can bring it here if the dispute is going nowhere.) --Aquillion (talk
  ) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Examples include these articles [19] [20] as if trying to delegitimize North Macedonia or this article [21] about a supposed Albanian-Romanian alliance to attack the Aromanians (just another Balkan ethnicity, as if it was the Albanians or the Macedonians) who are supposedly undoubtedly Greeks. The website also uses "Constantinople" to refer to modern Istanbul [22]. It's pretty ridiculous. Also this article The Greek destroyer of Turkish drones is ready (not a quote). This article [23] accusses Turkish national hero Atatürk of genocide and calls him an "an Albanian Jew born in Thessaloniki", a straight-up racist attempt at delegitimization ("how can Turks commemorate an Albanian JEW!?").

This is a trash source that shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. How can I proceed from here? I can just rewrite everything if I didn't format this properly. I'm not experienced in this proccess. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this source currently being used in any articles? If not, there is no problem to solve here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's used a lot [24]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion about it appears to be this one from July 2021. The general sentiment seems to have been that is was unreliable. From appearance it appears to be a extremely biased source, at a minimum it certainly shouldnt be used for BLPs or exceptional claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is a RfC necessary for the partial or total deprecation of the source? I'll start one if so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It does not look like there is a dispute to settle here (so no need for an RfC). If there are inappropriate uses, you can remove them; if there is disagreement about that, you can bring discussion here; if the disagreement is intractable, an RfC can be used to resolve it. I just took a look at a few uses of GCT, they were mostly innocuous; the emphasis on Greek ethnicity at Sartana, Ukraine (relying heavily on GCT) is over-the-top, but what is mainly needed is other sources without the Greco-centric POV. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG both really apply here. If they are reporting on a local event, they might have completely sound reporting and useful as a reference, perhaps they give a more detailed account of something local than other sources of the same event. Looking through how it's used, for instance, on Navagio Beach "In September 2022 another landslide occurred, after a 5.4-magnitude earthquake took place between Kefalonia and Zakynthos" - I think this is a pretty normal news report and not someone trying to push a POV by including it. Under Sartana, Ukraine it's being used to source "the majority is ethnic Greek and speak the Greek language fluently" - on first glance, that sounds like a fair use. The article it's from is clearly "Pro Greek", but the way it's being used is for cultural details about the city that flesh out the article and make it more enjoyable to read. Denaar (talk

) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

About. From what I can see, this is a journal not only for undergraduate students, but by undergraduates (see their editorial board, googling for the names there suggests they were or still are students). On the other hand, it does claim that "all submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process". In the context of

It's certainly more than the normal students magazine, or even other student journals I've looked into. We use far less reputable sources as reliable sources. As long as it's nature is taken into account when using it, in comparison to more established acedamic sources, I don't see why it couldn't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There are quite a few of these (mostly in the Humanities I think) and they are generally acceptable if there is nothing better to use. The accounts and summaries of previous "proper" academic literature are often especially useful, if the originals are unobtainable for those of us without access to uni libraries. Presumably the faculty try to ensure standards are high (so one hopes it is "peer-plus" review, not just more undergrads), as it goes out under the name of the university. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm reviewing

combining the efforts of many volunteers under the co-ordination of Chris in entering sightings, photos, data, and other minutiae to the database certainly hints that this is UGC. Maybe it could be considered under

WP:EXPERTSPS, but I can't find it's usage by other reliable sources. Without that I dont think it can be thought of as generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 13:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the "Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies" at https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/category/commiepedia/ a reliable source? Its use at David Ivon Jones is being discussed in a good article review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly a self-published work, which would usually rely on

WP:EXPERTSPS to demonstrate reliability. EXPERTSPS requires being written by "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I can't find any evidence that Stevenson has any history of historical work being published by reliable independent publications; I can't find any evidence that he had any formal historical training; I can't find any evidence of his work being reviewed or cited by unambiguously reliable sources. Regardless of how useful this is as a source, I can't see that it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

) 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevenson certainly appears very knowledgeable about the subject, but this is all self-published and I can't find anything to allow use under

WP:SPS either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 13:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have published plenty of work in the more reputable British communist press, as would be expected of a British communist... Reasonably this is a needle we can thread... I think we can comfortably use

Graham Stevenson (historian) with attribution primarily for events which he was directly connected to and the history of British communist figures. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I use the

Graham Stevenson's

Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies more than any other wiki editor, so I'll come to its defence.

The

WP:EXPERTSPS. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk

) 13:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to having multiple articles published by a reputable University Press, his five decades of trade union activism, alongside his leadership roles within some of Britain's largest trade unions and the Marx Memorial Library, is more than enough to make him a subject matter expert in the field of British labour history. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The three papers in Theory & Struggle, published by LUP, certainly go some way towards demonstrating expertise in trades union history. I do not think that either a history of trade union activism or having been the treasurer of the Marx Memorial Library count towards demonstrating expertise as a historian or biographer though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• debretts.com  

There are 2600+ links to

I think it's clearly tertiary, it's a listing similar to other tertiary sources. It is certainly far more reliable than a lot of the genealogy sources in use on many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would treat it as tertiary, like a subject specific encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Tertiary, and generally, but not always utterly, reliable. They put my sister in one edition, wrongly, as she was merely the common-law wife (girlfriend) of the heir-presumptive to an Irish baronetcy, the lowest form of aristocratic life. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely tertiary. I would regard it as highly reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is

For what it's worth, I've noticed this from a TweetDeck search I keep active, where I noticed Fong complaining about the article: tweet. She seems to believe there is a campaign against her by this outlet, which I investigated a bit more to find this post. Whether or not that's the case or she simply doesn't want critical—but acceptably sourced—reporting about her to be included in the Wikipedia article, I'm not sure, hence why I'm starting this discussion.

There is also a source from Business of Business where they included her in a list (based on Greentech's reporting) titled "These fraudulent founders were once hailed as ‘the next Steve Jobs’ of their now-disgraced startups". That was being used to support the statement: She was ranked with Elizabeth Holmes as one of the fraudulent founders. LightSail Energy never went commercial and had run out of cash due to Fong's lavish lifestyle and a serious lack of work ethic. I removed that because it accuses her of a crime (fraud) without actually being supported by the article text, which does not allege fraud. It has since been re-added by Billpaul2001 with new wording: These accusations earned her a reputation from some members of the press as a fraudulent founder with a now-disgraced startup with a fall from grace similar to Elizabeth Holmes, Adam Neumann, Trevor Milton and Adam Rogas. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The latter (B of B) doesn't seem reliable in general, nor this article in particular. Greentech Media, if it's the same org that ran green energy and renewables summits[25] during the heyday of the company, may be a reliable source for the sector and company, but its articles could still be a mix of reporting and op-ed, and that doesn't make it appropriate for sourcing original research or a hatrack of anonymous complaints. – SJ + 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Greentech Media article is in a category called "Letter From Sand Hill Road". All available articles in that category are attributed to Eric Wesoff, "Editor-at-Large" at GTM. That together with the style the article is written in makes me think that it is an editorial article. As such I don't think it is appropriate as a source for allegations (whether legal or ethical) in a BLP article. The Business of Business list is certainly not usable for BLP accusations either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't find more common sources for these allegations either, and there isn't much information about Greentech Media as a source for legal or general news. I think removing it is fine for now. Fong's article's Talk page can serve as future reference. CurryCity (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is an undergraduate journal reliable? This one specifically: https://www.culawreview.org/ Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For what? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Websites of much less standard are used as reliable sources. I expect some care should be taken, especially if more established journals have articles taking a different stance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree with this. Certainly reliable for non-contentious things, and probably a bit beyond. I will caution that I would consider it probably a notch or two below law reviews and journals from actual law schools, which focus on papers by scholars and professors (and sometimes curated pieces by law students). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumed reliable, IMHO. Andre🚐 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not unreliable, but better sources should be preferred. The content in other law journals is written by actual lawyers, or at least actual law students. This source should not be seen as their equivalent. John M Baker (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• As others have said... undergraduate sources are not as good as ones published by professors, and certainly not ones that undergo full peer review; they tend to get pushback because unless someone points out that they're an undergraduate source they might be given more diffidence than they ought to have. That doesn't mean they're unusable, especially for uncontentious points, but I'd avoid relying on them for contentious statements and would try to find better sources when possible. Also, I'm a bit concerned about their selection criteria, which says that We reject articles that do not discuss legal related matters, are not written by undergraduates, or otherwise fail to meet our basic criteria. Unfortunately, due to the large number of articles we receive, we also have to reject many submissions every cycle that do fit into the guidelines we set. Submissions that cover topics that seem to have a social science rather than a legal bent, for example, have a more difficult time being accepted in our journal even if they are well written. Generally speaking, we look for quality, relevance, and substance, but believe that there are many paths to creating a successful submission. They exert editorial control, but there's a noticeable absence of fact-checking. It looks like they mostly publish opinion, and underlying question is how
  WP:DUE the primary opinion of a law student is. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 22:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Not even a law student. Pre-law at most. John M Baker (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of airlines articles such as some Venezuelans ones has use https://www.ch-aviation.com/

The news sources is unknown for me because it requires a pro subscription membership and I do not have access to them.

So I am not quite sure if they are reliable or not. There was one topic about it here, but it was 2008 so it seems to have changed. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a

trade publication and data provider.[26] I see no obvious issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk

) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Has been cited at least three times by cnn:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/africa/ethiopia-arik-airlines/index.html "industry analyst CH Aviation"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/11/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html "ch-aviation, which maintains aviation industry data"

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/africa/jet-west-nigeria/index.html "industry analysts’ CH Aviation"

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)