Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333

RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Link:

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a US government funded news source. They almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States. The articles regularly do not cite their sources, which makes their reporting unreliable. For example, this report (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/beatings-01222021193838.html) refers to "RFA’s source" and "Tibetan sources say." I think that RFA should be depreciated in line with a number of other state media sources.

Edit: Here is another example of an article that I would not consider entirely reliable: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/cosleeping-10312019160528.html. Again it contains no named sources and it ended up being picked up by other media https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/this-is-mass-rape-china-slammed-over-program-that-appoints-men-to-sleep-with-uighur-women/news-story/ed45cd065e39690354b6402d02904557. Just because it does not contain any named sources does not mean that it is fabricated, but I feel like, at least on a case by case basis, it might make sense to depreciate some articles from RFA that seem like they can't be authenticated. I don't know if there is any precedent for this.

Dhawk790 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say yes, deprecate, or at least generally unreliable. Not only a source of political propaganda, even their non-political claims are unreliable. For instance, this piece claims that boxer Abudureheman Abulikemu stopped competing in 2003, but in fact he continued competing in 2005, 2008, and 2009. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! I didn’t know you were literate in Uyghur, you should definitely add that to the brag boxes on your user page. Do you mind if I ping you in the future? We get a surprising number of Uyghur sources but have almost no editors literate in that language for verification. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Horse Eye's Back, the ping didn't work but fortunately I checked back on this discussion. Unfortunately I am not literate in Uyghur (I wish I were!). I used Google Translate, cross-referenced with other online translation tools, to see what that source said. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, what interested you about that particular article in the first place? Did a third party point to it as containing an inaccuracy? I’m only fluent in one language so my personal judgement of RFA is based primarily on their publications in english. If theres a significant difference between the reliability of their different language services that would probably be important to note. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the Abudureheman Abulikemu article on my watchlist, so I saw when it was added as a reference. It's conceivable that there might be a difference in reliability between languages. My impression of the English version is that it's basically propaganda. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick question: I'm using google translate (like you) and I'm getting that the source reported that he had some spinal injury in 2003, rather than he ceased boxing altogether after that point. What are the other translation tools you've been using? I know translations of Uyghur by machines is rough, so I'm interested in learning more about the methods used. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also used Glosbe, Uighur Dictionary, and Uyghurche. As far as I can tell " مۇسابىقىگە قاتنىشىشتىن توختاپ" means something like "stopped participating in competitions", but I'd be happy to be corrected. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you’ve pulled a segment too small to be useful. I get "Well-known boxer Abdurrahman entered the tournament in 2003 with a back injury” from "تونۇلغان بوكس ماھىرى ئابدۇراخمان 2003-يىلى بەل ئومۇرتقىسى زەخىملىنىپ مۇسابىقىگە" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I think you pulled your segment from the wrong line, you pulled it from the following line “قاتنىشىشتىن توختاپ قالغاندىن كېيىن مەشقاۋۇللۇق قىلىپ كېلىۋاتقان ئىدى." which translates as "He had been coaching since he stopped attending.” or something like that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When I copy the full sentence instead of just that phrase, Google Translate gives me "Internationally renowned boxer Abdurrahman has been coaching since 2003 when he suffered a spinal cord injury and stopped competing." In any case, this was just one example that came to mind. My overall impression of RFA is that it's a propaganda outlet, and I would not rely on it for factual claims. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Unreliable : Political propaganda, funded by the US Gov. Even our own article links without opposition to Propaganda & Psychological warfare.CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * unreliable; per WP:GLOBAL, we should not privilege US state propaganda media over those of other countries, such as Russia and China. NightHeron (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We should treat government controlled news organisations like RFA on a case by case basis and not kneejerk rank them as unreliable. RT and Sputnik had a long history of dubious reporting when it came to issues that contradicted Russian interests, i.e. Syrian use of chemical weapons, MH-17 and the Skripal poisoning to name a few. I'm not familiar enough with RFA to make a judgement, but evidence needs to be given of its unreliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it known for actually fabricating news, or simply skewing it in a pro US bias? Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no history of fabricating news but I think the pro-US/pro-Democracy bias is significant enough to impact reliability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the bias does not result in fabrication or fake news, I don't see why we should classify it as unreliable (see WP:BIASED).--JBchrch (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The impact is minor, I wouldn't use them in wikivoice (especially for a BLP claim) but I don’t see a problem using them with attribution. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. My problem is that they report in such a way that makes it difficult to determine whether it is outright fabrication or just creative reporting. See the Wuhan Crematorium story, which as far as I know, has not been backed up by other reporting. They refer to social media posts without linking or even citing the platform. They also regularly use extremely vague sources such as "A source close to the funeral industry surnamed Ma." https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuhan-cremations-04062020143043.html Dhawk790 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters appears to have reported that cremations were happening en masse, with families not allowed to see bodies before they were burned. Bloomberg also reported (link to content republished by Time) along a similar vein to RFA. France24 seems to have done so as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about direct fabrication of stories whole-cloth, but RFA does have a tendency to publish sensationalist claims that are poorly sourced (for example, relying heavily on social media). One recent example is their article claiming that tens of thousands of people died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan, based on a conspiracy theory from social media: Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure. The story was prompted by social media speculation about the number of urns given out by crematoria in Wuhan after the 76-day lockdown ended (tens of thousands of people die in a city of 10 million in any given 76-day period). RFA began with that speculation, then did some interviews with various people identified as "Wuhan resident[s]" who provided evidence-free speculation, and then quoted a supposed "source" who said that there were people who died at home without seeking treatment (as happened all around the world). The article spitballs a few different numbers: 46800, 40000, 2000/day, etc., all based on extremely flimsy reasoning. The point of the article was to suggest that the "real" death toll was 10-20 times larger than reported. Subsequent studies, including seroprevalence studies published in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases, have estimated the total number of people infected in Wuhan, finding results that are completely incompatible with RFA's wild estimates (unless you assume that CoVID-19 has a staggering infection fatality rate of 10-20%). Basically, RFA amplified wild social media speculation that turned out to be false.
 * The example I've given is in line with RFA's historical mission. The Radio Free X outlets were historically set up in order to broadcast negative stories about the United States' Cold War foes (as opposed to Voice of America, which was supposed to project a positive image of the US). They typically publish stories in the local language first (the urn conspiracy theory story was first published in Mandarin and Cantonese, for example), with the goal of impacting public opinion in the countries they cover. They've undergone various reorganizations since, but the material they put out still follows a similar pattern as before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable but attribute, their significant pro-US/pro-Democracy bias means that they should generally be used with care with appropriate attribution. That being said they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. They also have much more editorial independence than those outlets in Russia and China which NightHeron mentions and are headquartered in a country with the rule of law (something neither Russia or China has), I think NightHeron’s argument is a false equivalency. Also unlike the deprecated outlets from those countries RFA doesn’t habitually publish disinformation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So the US has the "rule of law" and its principal adversaries do not? Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "rule of law"? Do you mean a country that consistently follows international law in its dealings with other countries? Do you mean a country that enjoys a peaceful transfer of power? Do you mean a country whose population faithfully observes state and local emergency public health laws? In the latter case, note that China, thanks to its citizens' strict adherence to the law, has kept COVID-19 deaths to about 3 per million population, while the US is currently at about 1500 deaths per million population. Many Americans might see their country as the shining example of rule of law and faithful dissemination of the truth, but WP:GLOBAL asks us to try to take a more international perspective. NightHeron (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By rule of law I mean rule of law, I apologize if you’ve never encountered this concept before. Strict adherence to the law =/= rule of law. Neither China or Russia has an independent court system or a legal system which applies equally to the citizenry and the government (in China the CCP is literally above the law). Also if you want to talk about a country that has both a population which faithfully observes state and local emergency public health laws as well as the rule of law might I point you to Taiwan, which also has a much lower death rate than China. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize; I know what "rule of law" means. But which country is better or worse is a matter of opinion. Many people, including many Americans, do not consider the US to be an exemplar of equal treatment of citizens under the law -- rich and poor, powerful and powerless, white and racial minority. Also, I wasn't suggesting that only adversaries of the US have been doing a good job controlling the pandemic. New Zealand's done great, as has the US state of Hawaii.
 * Getting back to RFA, although some Americans like to think of US propaganda as benign advocacy for democracy, that POV is not a global perspective. NightHeron (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its true that "Many people, including many Americans, do not consider the US to be an exemplar of equal treatment of citizens under the law” but rule of law is a low bar... Remember you’re comparing America to two of the worst countries in the world in this regard. For instance on the Press Freedom Index the United States is #45 with a score of 23.85 (low is good), Russia is #149 with a score of 48.92, China is #177 (four from the bottom) with a score of 78.48. America’s state media wouldn't look good if you weren’t comparing it to the worst of the worst. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, it's all a matter of opinion. Is it worse for the CCP to be largely above the law in China, or for the rich and powerful to be largely above the law in the US (or for prosecutors whose misconduct sends innocent Black men to death row to have impunity, per today's NY Times)? Many Western sources might say that the former is worse, but, again, that's not a global perspective.


 * Much of the Western press, including the NY Times, has been complaining that the Chinese government and media have been spinning the COVID-19 story in China into a narrative of success, rather than telling the truth. I scratch my head when I read this. Three per million dead from COVID aot 1500 per million. What's not to like? A friend from Iran told me that China has been a life-saver for the people back home, who would otherwise be cut off from assistance because of sanctions. Of course, China's humanitarian assistance is motivated by national self-interest, just as the US's is.


 * My only point is that we as Wikipedia editors should try to see things globally, free of a pro-US bias. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesnt appear to be your only point, you also seem to be making a point about the reliability of RFA. I don’t think anyone takes Chinese COVID numbers any more seriously than they took SARS numbers (or Chinese government statistics in general for that matter), we know the Chinese are lying... We don’t know what the real numbers are but we do know that China has been fibbing about the numbers since day 1. If China’s response had been successful we wouldn't have a pandemic. The Chinese government and media have been spinning the COVID-19 story in China into a narrative of success, thats backed up by reporting in a plethera of both western and non-western media. It is in fact the truth. If you say otherwise we’re going to need sources which support that fringe opinion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any indication that the numbers put out by the National Health Commission in China are any less accurate than the numbers put out by other countries. All countries suffered from similar issues early on (e.g., not enough testing capacity), and as a substantial fraction of cases are mild or asymptomatic, many people who get infected (in any country) never get tested, and therefore never show up in the official statistics. However, there have been several studies of seroprevalence within China (e.g., in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases). From these studies, it's impossible for true mortality to be that much higher than the official figures, unless you make extreme assumptions about the infection fatality rate (i.e., far greater than 1%). One of the ways that RFA's biases have affected its factual accuracy over the last year is that it has published truly wild claims about the number of CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. RFA ran this story, based largely on social media posts and speculation from random residents of Wuhan that RFA says it contacted, which threw around numbers like 42,000 and 46,800 deaths in Wuhan, which are an order of magnitude higher than the totals suggested by seroprevalence (you'd have to assume an infection fatality rate of over 10% to get death totals that high). Essentially, RFA amplified wild social media speculation that turned out to be way off. Given the history of RFA as a Cold War propaganda outlet, that's not surprising. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You’ve seen no indications that China has issues with the accuracy of government statistics, government transparency, and academic freedom? Well then, carry on. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I've seen no evidence of significant problems with the CoVID-19 statistics. On the contrary, seroprevalence studies are consistent with the death tolls reported by the National Health Commission, but importantly for this discussion, are completely inconsistent with the numbers the RFA hypothesized in the article I linked above (and not just by a bit - we're talking about RFA inflating the numbers by a factor of 10). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just think I should also note in this thread that the RFA article in question is accurate for what it is. It could be used as a source for a claim that many people were skeptical of the official death statistics, but it could not be used to cite claim about the actual death toll.  Furthermore, even if it did report a death toll that later turned out to be incorrect, that's not evidence that RFA is unreliable, rather it's WP:RS AGE in action.  Furthermore it's not unwarranted to look at PRC statistics skeptically, especially when there are political implications to them, because even senior PRC officials consider them unreliable, see Li Keqiang index for an example. GretLomborg (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be blunt: the RFA article we're discussing here was essentially disinformation. It's one thing to express skepticism about any government's statistics, but RFA went far beyond that. RFA engaged in completely unfounded speculation about the death toll, proposing figures that were, even based on what was known at the time, completely unreasonable. There was absolutely no indication, at the time, that anywhere near 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a Chinese state outlet were to write an article that amplified social media conspiracy theories about the death toll in the US, and which engaged in its own speculation that the death toll might be 10x higher than reported, what would you call that?
 * This is not an issue of WP:RS AGE, in which reasonable reporting has been superseded by newer information that renders it moot. This is a case in which the reporting was unreasonable from the start: it was based entirely on wild speculation from social media and from random residents of Wuhan that RFA supposedly interviewed. Studies have continued to come out (such as this study in The BMJ just a few days ago) showing that Wuhan's CoVID-19 death toll was roughly what was officially reported. But the fact that RFA published its story before these studies came out doesn't mean that RFA's reporting was reasonable at the time. If one speculates, with essentially no evidence, that the death toll is 10x higher than reported, one shouldn't be surprised when subsequent studies show one to be wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable. Even though RFA takes U.S. government funds, the consensus among RS seems to be that RFA is a reliable news agency. News organizations often cite specific numbers published by RFA, and even use RFA as the sole source for their reporting, as I note below.


 * Multiple RS have used RFA as their sources, including The Wall Street Journal (1, 2) and The New York Times, which has both cited it as the basis of their reporting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and directly republished stories written by RFA. As can be noted by clicking through the links, these sources cite RFA even when China is the subject of the events depicted in the articles themselves.
 * There are reliable sources that have explicitly upheld the reliability of RFA as it pertains to issues of controversy, including the Uyghur genocide. According to The Atlantic, "from the day China’s detention campaign began in earnest, RFA’s Uighur Service—the only Uighur-language news outlet in the world that is independent of Chinese government influence—has frequently been at the tip of the spear of coverage. From the RFA offices in Washington, D.C., its team of 12 journalists has broken hundreds of stories, sometimes bearing sole witness to China’s alarming and escalating crackdown on Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups in the country." The magazine regularly cites reporting from RFA as a source for news in China, even on topics of controversy (1, 2). In other times The Atlantic has reported that RFA provides "independent news to many rural Cambodians".


 * The Financial Times has also used RFA's reporting in order to write its own stories (1, 2, 3, 4).


 * The RS that report this are not limited to those RS that are based within the United States and the United Kingdom. Al-Jazeera has also repeatedly used RFA as a source for their reporting on topics of controversy within China (1, 2, 3, 4) and Burma (1). Spain-based El País has used RFA as a basis for its reporting on the events in Xinjiang. RFA has even been cited by Argentina-based Clarín on topics involving North Korea.


 * If there is any bias, it may be in the selection of which stories RFA covers, as has been alleged by prior readers, but selection bias does not impugn reliability in the stories that the agency chooses to report. It should also be noted that anonymous sources are regularly used by RS, and may be the only way to truthfully obtain information in certain circumstances. It seems to be generally reliable based upon the fact that other generally reliable news agencies regularly cite the group, even when the topic of the stories are the subject of public controversy. Neither OP nor other editors have alleged that Radio Free Asia has any sort of history of fabricating facts, so deprecation ought be out of consideration altogether. And, if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Economist has also praised the quality of RFA's reporting (See: 1 and 2). - Amigao (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This Salon (website) is a reliable media source reporting on RFA bias and how it creates an eco-chambers with US politicians. https://www.salon.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-go-from-the-margins-to-the-mainstream_partner/  Dhawk790 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI thats a reprint from FAIR not a Salon piece, it is however reliable enough. I don’t see anything about echo chambers in there though. I also don’t see them criticizing RFA’s reliability. Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon." according to WP:RSP. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A biased source does not mean an unreliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable; probably should use attribution. RFA provides a lot of unique sources of information and perspectives when it comes to oppressed communities such as the Tibetans. It was actually the first to report the 2008 Tibetan unrest (see, e.g., the WSJs article). It has also won awards such as the Radio Television Digital News Association's Edward R. Murrow Award for multiple times (see, e.g., last year's list of winners). Normchou'   💬 19:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable the above evidence suggests that the outlet has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. May need attribution in some cases. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable. I do not see any real indications it is not reliable. "is a US government funded news source". Well, good for them, that does not affect reliability. Of course if they were funded by Putin, it would be different story. "They almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States"? This is BS, none of these countiries is an enemy of US. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "geopolitical rivals"? Certainly, all of the countries they report on seem to fit this description, and (oftentimes more repressive) regimes that are aligned with the US seem to get a pass. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not unacceptable, if properly attributed I tried to find coverage of this event in other international media, and most of what I found was virulently anti-Chinese sources, so I'm naturally skeptical. Moreover, the date of his arrest for the flyers seems to be contradicted by several of these other sources. All of these sources are published by entities that either directly have, or are owned or overseen by governments that have, their own "beef" with Beijing, which would not be a problem if we attribute their views/claims appropriately, but why does the RFA source seem to have its information contradicted by The Hans India and The Tibet Post? It might be a translation telephone game, since I doubt Richard Finney (by whom the linked article was "written in English") has any direct access to primary sources. It would, of course, depend on the context in which it is being cited; the RFA website seems to consider "Tibet", "Uyghur" and "China" to be separate countries, which certainly does not align with NPOV or the official foreign policies of any country anywhere in the world. On a more general note, RFA certainly doesn't seem to be free of US government interference: doing a Google News search for "Radio Free Asia" -site:rfa.org right now brings up, on the first page, several articles published immediately after Biden's inauguration that either accuse the Biden administration of ousting Trump appointees or praise the Biden administration for giving these outlets back their previous editors. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the RFA website seems to consider "Tibet", "Uyghur" and "China" to be separate countries, which certainly does not align with NPOV: WP:NPOV is a requirement for articles. It is precisely because different sources have different POVs that Wikipedia requires NPOV to "[represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".  Normchou   💬 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a requirement for our articles, not our editors. If we use excessively biased sources, we need other reliable sources to balance/fact-check them. Excessively biased sources are not outright banned by our normal editing practices, but said editing practices require that we use such sources with care. Anyway, it's super-weird for me, a 16-year Wikipedia veteran to be talked down to about our policies and guidelines by so many new editors who seem to be themselves somewhat unclear on the points they are discussing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re NPOV is a requirement for our articles, not our editors: in your comments above, you were citing NPOV and applying it to a source—not even editors. Looking at WP:NPOV, one can see it is clearly describing the proper behavior of editors when articles. I have no comment regarding your "16-year Wikipedia veteran" thingy though.  Normchou   💬 15:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting that RFA considers "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" to be a separate countries. The main page of RFA has an enumerated list of "Topics" in the footer, which list "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" separately, but I don't think that would be enough to make the claim that RFA says they are indeed separate countries. Would you be willing to provide a link to where RFA affirms that it considers "Tibet", "Uyghur", and "China" to be separate countries? If so, it would be helpful in clarifying the discussion around this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from pinging the same user multiple times in succession. Anyway Tibet, a formerly independent Himalayan country which was invaded and incorporated into China by force in 1950; as for Xinjiang, it's weaker, but this article does imply that the region [hadn't] come under Chinese control [until after] two short-lived East Turkestan republics in the 1930s and 1940s (i.e. following the Warlord Era and during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, none of which seem to be mentioned, nor the Protectorate of the Western Regions). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting they’re unreliable because they didn’t mention ancient history (that would be like saying an article about Brexit that doesn’t mention the roman occupation of Britain renders its publication unreliable)? Also I believe you’re misinterpreting NPOV, even if RFA treated them as three separate countries (they don’t) it wouldn't be an NPOV issue. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any source that implies Turkic peoples and followers of Islam have lived in the northeast region of China longer than it has been part of China (rather than it having been part of China before either of those entities existed anywhere), and thus reinforces Anglo readers' biases that see "China" as a monocultural entity, that always has been thus, and only exists in "non-Chinese" territories because of 20th-century imperialist aggression on the part of the CCP, is unreliable, yes. And frankly, I can't figure out what you are trying to say with that bizarre Brexit analogy: did you mean to type something else? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You bring up three links to back up your claim that RFA "doesn't seem to be free of US government interference". I'm not sure that the articles you chose actually back up this claim.
 * Having looked, and even per your own brief analysis here (before the borderline No True Scotsman argument), RFA doesn't appear to being calling these separate modern countries at all. Note that it refers to Xinjiang as a region, and never as a country; similarly, they are not claiming that Tibet is still an independent country. Hijiri88, I think your assessment that they regard either of these places as "separate countries", as you say, may be a bit flawed. And as the other two editors pointed out, NPOV isn't a policy applicable to sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFA clearly states that Tibet was an independent country pre-1950. This is a very controversial statement, given Tibet's lack of international recognition at the time. Tibet was de facto independent, but internationally recognized as part of China. This was during a time of civil war in China, so much of the country was beyond the control of the central government. Yet RFA makes a definitive statement that Tibet was an independent country. Given the historical purpose of RFA, there appears to be a political motive behind this claim, just as there would be if a Russian state outlet were to refer to South Ossetia as an independent country, omitting the fact that it is internationally recognized as part of Georgia. This is an example of the type of area in which RFA's reliability is affected by its political objectives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As you note, it was a de-facto independent country. What is stated is simply factual. And no, the international community absolutely did not see Tibet as a part of China, and there was in fact a consensus in place to keep China from annexing Tibet, and to keep the Tibetan government independent of Chinese rule. But Tibet was isolationist, and thus the international community recognized the de-facto suzerainty of China, as Tibet wasn't interested in international affairs beyond its continued independence and a promise of non-interference. Regardless of all this, your reading of a political motive in RFA's acknowledgement of the political reality before the establishment of the PRC is just that: you inferring a political motive where I think none is implied. There's also no need to bring up a hypothetical whataboutism. The "historical purpose" of RFA was to provide factual reporting in places where none existed, due to government censorship and propaganda. It's not nefarious. RFA (and its sister organization, VOA) is internationally recognized as an outlet for reliable factual journalism, and has garnered a veritable cornucopia of awards in journalism over the years to prove it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not willing to cite sources, preferably from reputable scholarly publications rather than popular news outlets that may or may not be intended as propaganda mouthpieces, in support of your quite-outlandish claims, I don't see what point there is in attempting to engage in discussion with you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If a Russian state outlet were to say that South Ossetia is an independent country, I would likewise view that as inaccurate and politically motivated (you're misusing the term "whataboutism" here, by the way - I'm not pointing to one country's misbehavior to justify another country's misbehavior). About international recognition, you're simply wrong. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China before the 1911 revolution in China, and after the revolution, when China's central government lost de facto control over large parts of the country, Tibet did not achieve any significant international recognition. It continued to be represented as part of China (e.g., by the UN). Just glossing over all of this and calling Tibet an "independent country" is extremely misleading, in the same way that referring to various unrecognized states (Abkhazia, Transdnistria, the Republic of Artsakh, etc.) as "independent countries" in an unqualified manner would be misleading. Given RFA's role as the US government's broadcaster in Asian countries the US has poor relations with (and its history as a CIA propaganda outlet), I don't think this is an innocent mistake. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The United Nations did not yet exist in most of the time period you’re talking about (perhaps you’re thinking of the League of Nations?), and for the short time in which Tibet was both independent and the UN extant it was the ROC not the PRC which held the seat. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The operative word there is "most". The UN was founded in 1945, with the Republic of China as a Security Council member, and early maps produced by the UN showed Tibet as part of China - which was in line with how it was internationally recognized. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you are mistaken about Tibet’s status during the Qing... They gave up their suzerainty but they remained independent if not entirely sovereign. From an international relations standpoint your argument is a nothing burger, I hope it looks meaningful through whatever political lens you’re looking through. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Suzerainty isn't even a concept in modern international law. It's a feudal relationship from the pre-modern era. When Qing China was forced to deal with modern European nations, Tibet came to be treated as a part of China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But we aren’t talking about modern international law, we’re specifically talking about pre-1950 history here. Also its not a feudal relationship, I’m not really sure were you’re getting that from. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about "independent countries" then we're talking about the modern conception of states that developed in Europe, not the old feudal relationships that existed between Qing emperors and various vassals in pre-modern times. "Suzerainty" does not fit into the modern state conception. But if you do instead want to use pre-modern concepts, calling a vassal state of the Qing dynasty an "independent country" still makes no sense.
 * Without getting into an arcane discussion about what sovereignty is, it's enough to say that after the revolution in China in 1911, Tibet was similar to modern unrecognized states that are de facto independent, but which lack international recognition, like South Ossetia or the Republic of Artsakh. Calling them "independent countries" without qualifiers would be highly misleading, and would betray a certain bias (pro-Russian or pro-Armenian, respectively). -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , first: I didn't misuse the term. You proposed a hypothetical about another nation-state, in which the essential argument is analogous to a whataboutism in asking what our treatment would be of such a claim (even though the situation in that case would be the obverse, and perhaps a bit too dissimilar to these historical events to make it an apt comparison). User:Horse Eye's Back has already essentially said what my response was going to be, including that the UN did not exist. The international recognition came from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (a.k.a., the British Empire), the most powerful nation in the world at the time, in the form of the Convention Between Great Britain and Tibet, which was undertaken as a rectification to Tibet not being a party to the "Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet", (or, the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890). Undertaking a treaty with Tibet as a nation-state, and prohibiting Chinese rule, annexation, or authority in Tibet, tacitly acknowledged its independence and sovereignty. Later, with the Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet, Britain delegated suzerainty to China, but reaffirmed its previous prohibition on Chinese rule. China rejected the first convention, but accepted the second, which is only slightly modified. China may have still made claims on Tibet, but they nonetheless respected the treaty, essentially granting Tibet independence--- except for the purpose of conducting foreign affairs on its behalf, and defending its borders, as demarcated by the British. I'm sorry, but it was de-facto independent. And to my knowledge, no other nation in the world disputed this arrangement. And, if you want scholarly sources essentially stating what I just said, I'm willing to provide them. Calling what I stated "quite-outlandish claims", and pre-emptively shutting down any further conversation except on acceptance of your conditional terms, is ridiculously rude. Everything I said is factual, and my relatively even-handed description of these historical events is likewise fairly typical of how most scholars throughout the western world describe the situation of that time period. Current POVs and worldviews may differ, but the essential facts of history speak for themselves (and I've said nothing "outlandish" or even that controversial, outside of it being slightly at odds with the PRC's official preferred interpretation). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Whataboutism" is not simply the use of analogies. It's essentially a synonym for tu quoque (e.g., "Sure, what I'm doing is bad, but you're doing even worse things!"). I pointed out that there are many unrecognized (or only partially recognized) states around the world, and that referring to them as "independent countries" without qualification would be extremely misleading. I don't see any tu quoque in that.
 * As for Tibet, it is true that the British empire made attempts to pry it away from China in the late 19th Century. You have to keep in mind that this is a time during which European powers generally were demanding (and obtaining) special rights and spheres of influence in various parts of China. However, British attempts to take control of Tibet from China failed, and Britain recognized Chinese control over Tibet (e.g., in the Sino-British Convention of 1906, which you mentioned). After the revolution in China in 1911, Britain did not recognize Tibet as a sovereign state (nor did any other major country). Like most of China, it was beyond the effective control of the central government, making it analogous to modern states with no or limited recognition (e.g., Abkhazia, a de facto independent state that has its own flag, issues its own passports, but which is recognized by only five countries, and which is internationally recognized as part of Georgia).
 * Getting back to the point, Radio Free Asia's description of Tibet (Tibet, a formerly independent Himalayan country which was invaded and incorporated into China by force in 1950) is highly misleading. In the most charitable interpretation, it's a strongly POV description of history that leaves out key context. This reading of history is, however, in line with the bias you might expect from an outlet with close ties to the US state, and which functions partly as an arm of US foreign policy.
 * I'm not saying that RFA should be deprecated, but I am saying that we should be aware of its biases, and use it with caution in subject areas that the US government has a strong interest in (Tibet would certainly be one such area). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do want scholarly sources that support your outlandish claims. And (since experience has taught me to address this preemptively) I do know that the writings of mid-C20 anti-communists writing in different fields (like Joseph Campbell's Oriental Mythology is one I recently listened to on Audible having not read it since my teenage years) often implicitly create the impression that Tibet had been a separate "country" from China throughout history until their authors' own lifetimes, but (i) their authors are not historians or political scientists (i.e., their claims on these matters are no better than non-scholarly sources like RFA) and (ii) their authors had self-confessed political biases (as for JC being an anti-communist, the description of "Ritsumei University" in Sake and Satori is evidence enough of that). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first article you are citing show that VOA and RFA worry about the perception changing due to the Trump Administration's (failed, per "Pack had vowed to break down the legally guaranteed firewall against meddling in editorial decisions" and the article being about Pack resigning) attempt to undermine their editorial independence. It doesn't say that Pack succeeded in doing so (and it implies that his resignation ensured quite the opposite), but the article primarily is focused on cataloguing the potential for reputational damage that the journalists there worry about. In other words, the article doesn't actually say that the outlet has become less reliable, but its showing that journalists worry that it will be perceived as less reliable due to the Trump Administration's attempted meddling.
 * The second article you cited actually serves to affirm the claim that RFA and VOA have historically been reliable (at least prior to Pack), as it says, that Pack "intended to turn venerable U.S. media outlets into pro-Trump propaganda machines". There's an implication here that RFA and VOA were reliable before Pack, and that Pack tried to undermine that.
 * The third article is identical to the first article, as it was written by AFP and then republished by both of the news agencies. I'm not sure why you included it, since it doesn't add any additional information (aside from labeled photos of reporters for VOA and RFA). Why did you choose to tack this link on? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I misinterpreted anything. I noticed a trend in the GNews results when I tried to verify the claim made by a number of people further up this RFC (including you) that a plurality of third-party media consider RFA to be a generally reputable/trustworthy source. I was, of course, unable to find anything that supported your assertions, and indeed, even if what I found didn't explicitly discredit your assertions, that doesn't support the positive claims you made above (that various other media rely on RFA) and are now making (that RFA's being funded by the US government and being a direct successor to a CIA domino theory operation doesn't imply they are a US government mouthpiece). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable RFA and VOA were specifically founded and structured to bring RS-quality news media to regions/languages where it didn't exist, because spreading RS-quality news-media and demonstrating the benefits of press independence is a US foreign policy goal. It's specious to treat all government-funded news organizations as equivalent, because the real distinction is what purposes they serve and what processes they have.  RT doesn't produce unacceptable propaganda because it's government funded, it's unacceptable because Russian foreign policy is to spread disinformation and lies to weaken its adversaries, and it's well-documented that RT does that.  What really matters is the processes that RFA has, and they are those of a reliable news outlet.  Furthermore RFA and VOA are important sources for Wikipedia, because the often attempt to do RS-quality reporting in regions that are extremely hostile to it.  Also, other RS trust it enough to rely on its reporting, for instance:, , , , : "Radio Free Asia (RFA), a US-backed news group whose journalists have produced some of the most detailed reporting on the heavily securitised region of Xinjiang", , .   - GretLomborg (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the Radio Free X stations were founded by a CIA front organizations, and were tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc and other foes of the US into the respective countries. The history is discussed here. They've been reorganized over time, and claim to be editorially independent of the US government, but both recent events (namely Trump's blatant influencing of government broadcasters) and a casual glance at the coverage of these broadcasters (it's a who's who of countries the US government does not like, such as Cuba and Iran) should give editors pause. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Negative stories aren't bad things, in fact I'd say they're a key function of journalism: shining light on the bad things no person or organization would willingly reveal about themselves. Given the whole point of RFA is to be beamed into areas where RS journalism isn't allowed (due to political control) and to demonstrate its value, I'd actually expect an excess of negativity, since that's where the need is.  Pravda and Xinhua can be trusted to tell the positives stories, even if they're lies.  Negative stories are only bad things if they're untrue or deliberate lies.  I did have a lot of concerns about what was going on at VOA/RFA towards the end of the Trump administration, and I may have voted differently if Trump gotten a second term, but Biden has cleaned the Trump stay-behinds out  and replaced them with long-serving agency staff, so and I don't have any concerns for at least the next four years. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Negative stories aren't in themselves bad, but we should be cautious about a US government outlet whose main purpose is to make foreign governments that the US regards as foes look bad. That often leads RFA to promote poorly sourced stories, such as its wild claims about the death toll from CoVID-19 in Wuhan. As I explained in a comment above, RFA took a conspiracy theory from social media, then spoke with a few random Wuhan residents, and wrote a story speculating that over 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. This turns out to be about 10 times higher than any reasonable death toll one could estimate from the seroprevalence in Wuhan. You say that their purpose is to provide independent, reliable reporting in places where it is lacking, but an alternative view is that their purpose is to promote negative content, often with little regard for the strength of the sourcing, in countries that the US has poor relations with (typically old Cold War foes). This is something that editors should be aware of when considering whether/how to use RFA. When RFA reports on countries that are perceived by the US as foes, it would be prudent to include in-line attribution for RFA's claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFA's "main purpose" is not "to make foreign governments that the US regards as foes look bad." It's to bring western-style, skeptical journalism to places where it's not allowed by the authorities.  Now that's a difficult job, because of interference and intimidation by those same authorities.  Given that interference, censorship, and an important, unfolding story; reporting on what's said on social media isn't that unreasonable.  Also, your comparison above that you referenced is pretty specious: you're comparing an early news report on social media chatter with scientific estimates from a few months to almost a year later.  One, the RFA report was pretty clear it was reporting on social media speculation, and two, you can't reasonably expect breaking news to be as accurate as later scientific analysis with no timeliness constraints.  That's a limitation of the news in general, not a specific source, and it's captured in the policy WP:RS AGE.  So let's say someone wanted to cite a claim to that RFA article now, the correct response is not to claim RFA is unreliable, but 1) to note the RFA article text does not support any particular estimate, just that there was skepticism of the official estimates, and 2) note that WP:RS AGE supersedes that reporting and better estimates are now available. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFA's reporting was not at all reasonable at the time. There was never any serious indication that the death toll in Wuhan was anywhere near 40,000. It's irresponsible to take completely unfounded claims from social media and to report them as serious estimates of the death toll. What would you think of a news agency that took unfounded conspiracy theories from Twitter about NY city's death toll being 20 times larger than reported, then called up a couple of taxi drivers for their opinions, and then wrote an article mixing those opinions with its own wild speculations? That's essentially what RFA did for Wuhan. It was no surprise when further scientific studies were completely inconsistent with the RFA's estimates - that's what happens when you replace factual reporting with conspiracy theories from social media.
 * RFA's article came out on the same day as the US surpassed China in cumulative confirmed cases, and as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans began to suggest that China's epidemic had been much larger than reported . Maybe that's a coincidence, but I'm doubtful.
 * You keep repeating the mantra that RFA exists to provide reliable coverage, but that's simply inconsistent with what I see here. I see the RFA amplifying wild speculation that's damaging to a government the US views as a foe. Chinese media, by the way, covered this story much more reliably than RFA. Caixin did actual reporting on the handing out of urns in Wuhan. RFA took that kernel of truth and added in the social media speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable and biased. In addition to the uses by various RS enumerated by Mikehawk10 above, they do correct stories when they get something wrong. At the same time, the US gov't bias is clear. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFA often publishes rumors from unverified sources and these rumors have been used for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. I would rather use WP:INTEXT attribution for it. --MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable for insider stories, reliable for verifiable claims: The main problem I see with RFA is that a lot of its own reporting falls under extraordinary claims, yet is based on unverifiable, "anonymous RFA sources". Obviously every source is biased, government-sponsored ones perhaps often moreso than others (and that in itself is fine), but it does become problematic when a lot of the own reporting of a government-sponsored outlet is simply unverifiable (example 1, example 2, example 3) but used for extraordinary claims and then presented as fact. If it is kept, I would say that given the US itself has banned RFA from targetting American audiences under the Smith-Mundt Act, it should never be used for any claims that are based on "anonymous RFA sources" and can therefore in no way be verified. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this formulation. We use reporting, because reporting goes to the primary sources and can theoretically be verified. In a lot of instances, that is not possible with RFA when they use anonymous or vaguely referenced sources. I feel like it would be sensible to have a policy about not citing stories that rely on these types of sources if (as you suggest) it is not also reported by another source. Dhawk790 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Here doesn't a verifiable claim mean one that can be sourced to an RS and not just to RFA? If so, then shouldn't the RS and not RFA be cited? How's "reliable [only] for verifiable claims" different from just plain unreliable? Or am I missing something? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My wording was confusing. When I was discussing sources within an RFA article, I meant the person cited as making a claim. So for example, person Y said X. Y would be the source. In cases when person Y is anonymous or only vaguely referenced, I feel that the reliability of the RFA article should be questioned. If another source (meaning from another news outlet) has similar claims and includes a named source, I think it would be okay to cite RFA. But you are right, it may be more sensible to just cite the other article and disregard the RFA article. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the Smith-Mundt Act article itself says the restrictions you mentioned have been repealed: "The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012...amended the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be disseminated (widely spread) within the United States." And that restriction, when it existed, doesn't say anything about the quality of RFA's reporting, but rather the role it was meant to play.  Towards the end of the article, regarding one of its provisions, the article states states: "...Rep. Karl Mundt (R-SD) and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William Benton stated clearly: as private media stood up, government media would stand down."  It is not meant to be a government competitor to private media, which the US had (and has) plenty of. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. RFA stories are generally factually accurate. As with other reliable sources, additional considerations apply when RFA cites anonymous sources. Jancarcu (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional considerations apply: Radio Free Asia is not similar to BBC, NPR and other public broadcasters that are generally considered reliable.
 * First, a bit of history: Radio Free Asia was originally founded by a CIA front organization, in order to broadcast propaganda into countries that the US viewed as foes during the Cold War. As the CIA itself noted at the time, "The programs are principally anti-Communist propaganda, except for news and music" . RFA was the Asian counterpart to the CIA's propaganda outlets in Europe (Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty) and Latin America (Free Cuba radio). These outlets broadcast in local languages (Russian, Chinese, Spanish, etc.), and focused on negative stories about the US' Cold War opponents, with the aim of generating opposition to those governments. The history of the "Radio Free X" stations is described in this paper and this NY Times article. RFA was shut down in 1955, partly because it was considered ineffective (most households in China didn't have radios at the time). The US government reorganized its "Radio Free X" broadcasters in 1994, and re-established Radio Free Asia. While the 1994 legislation claims that these broadcasters are supposed to provide reliable information, it also repeatedly stresses that they should advanc[e] the goals of United States foreign policy . A glance at the reporting of RFA shows that, 1. It publishes almost exclusively on countries that the US has poor relations with, and 2. It overwhelmingly publishes negative stories about those countries.
 * Next, I'll give an example of why RFA's reporting should be treated with caution, especially for subjects that the US has a strong interest in (after all, RFA is explicitly tasked with advancing US foreign policy objectives). Over the past year, RFA has pushed a wild, highly speculative claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in China. These claims are based largely on social media claims and RFA interviews with random, anonymous people (e.g., random residents of Wuhan, with no discernible expertise). Worse yet, these claims contradict scientific research into the extent of CoVID-19 cases and deaths in China, published in respected international scientific journals. RFA's estimates of the death toll in China are anywhere from 10 to 50 times the scientific estimates.
 * "Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure" (27 March 2020): This article is based on a social media conspiracy theory. After the 76-day lockdown in Wuhan ended, there were long lines at crematoria in Wuhan of people waiting to pick up urns of deceased family members. Of course, in a city of 11 million people, tens of thousands of people die in any given 76-day period. But RFA took a couple of "estimates" from social media and random Wuhan residents it interviewed, and added some of its own speculations. RFA speculated that more than 40,000 people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan.
 * "Pension Figures From China's Hubei Spark Doubts Over Virus Deaths" (17 February 2021) repeats the urn conspiracy theory, and explores a new conspiracy theory, that the supposed removal of 150,000 people from a list of pension recipients points to a far higher death toll. Again, RFA engages in wild speculation that the death toll might be orders of magnitude higher than reported, with essentially no evidence.
 * Contrast these articles with actual scientific studies, such as this recent one in The BMJ, which estimates a CoVID-19 death toll of approximately 4500 in Wuhan. Studies of seroprevalence in China published in Nature and PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases have given results consistent with this death toll of approximately 4500 in Wuhan. Yet RFA continues to promote "estimates" that it picks up on social media, which are 10 to 50x higher. RFA's reporting here can only really be described as disinformation, or at best, a reckless promotion of unfounded conspiracy theories that are contradicted by rigorous scientific studies.
 * Finally, I'll leave you with what Dan Robinson, a long-time correspondent and foreign bureau chief for Voice of America, has to say in the Columbia Journalism Review about the independence of US government broadcasters (VOA and "Radio Free X", not NPR and PBS):
 * He concludes,
 * RFA is a biased source, and its connection to the US government should be taken into consideration by editors thinking of using it. There may be cases in which it provides valuable reporting, but it should generally be treated with caution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From WP:USEBYOTHERS, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. As I laid out in my comment above, it looks like RFA has been cited by some of the best of reliable sources for facts on issues involving China, which provides evidence to their generally good reputation for factual reporting on issues involving human rights abuses in China. You've mentioned that the "Radio Free Asia" that was initially established by the CIA was shut down in 1955. I'm not sure it's fair to compare documents about the RFA that was abolished in 1955 and the RFA that was created in 1994, since they seem to be organizations that share the same name but do not share operational continuity.
 * Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. What is required, however, for a source to be considered generally reliable in its areas of expertise is that a source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction. I believe that the general use of RFA by mainstream reliable sources that I have listed in my !vote above help to establish that the organization possesses a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while has provided examples in which RFA engages in error-correction when they get things wrong.
 * I understand that you have concerns regarding their reporting on COVID prevalence within China. I don't really have much of a response on this count, except to say that early reporting on COVID from RS tended to be filled with great uncertainty about the numbers, in part due to China's repeated changing of the counting mechanisms and that reliable sources also independently reported on the urns story.
 * This above part obviously doesn't concern the article you have listed that was published in 2021. I'm not sure the peer-reviewed scientific articles are as forward in claiming what they conclude they do (the first states that it "had several limitations" because the "study population was not drawn by random sampling, the estimation of the seroprevalence was subject to potential sampling bias... the observed seroprevalence in our study could potentially underestimate the true prevalence rate of the disease." Neither the first nor the second paper provides an estimate for the true number of deaths, though I understand why we might reasonably use seroprevalence as a proxy by which to estimate the true number of deaths). The two papers also conclude fairly different rates of seroprevalence due to their different methods, so I'm not exactly sure where the scientific consensus is (if such a consensus exists), though it appears that you're right in that these papers would suggest that the death rate is not as high as the allegations from a transparency activist that RFA includes in their report. That being said, we would typically prefer epidemiological papers over news reporting for epidemiological claims anyway, so I'm not sure this poses an enormous hurdle to RFA's general use as a source.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Use by others: That says more about the generally poor level of reporting on China and issues of systemic bias than it does about RFA's own reliability. The fact that various other outlets picked up RFA's urns story - a story that was implausible from the beginning and sourced largely to social media speculation - illustrates this problem.
 * Re: continuity: RFA itself was shut down in 1955, but its sister/brother "Radio Free X" radio stations continued to broadcast propaganda throughout the Cold War. When RFA was re-established in 1994, it was during a general reorganization of the US' Cold War propaganda stations (note the timing, just after the end of the Cold War). As is clearly laid out in Congress' 1994 reorganization of government broadcasters (which I linked to in my above comment), RFA, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, etc. are explicitly tasked with advancing US foreign policy interests. These outlets are not the equivalent of the BBC or NPR. They're much more directly government mouthpieces, as Dan Robinson noted in the Columbia Journalism Review (which I also cited above).
 * Re: "concerns" about their reporting on CoVID-19 in China: I have much more than just "concerns". RFA has repeatedly published demonstrable falsehoods about the death toll in China. Its latest article, just a few weeks ago, speculates about a possible death toll of 150,000, which is more than 30 times the latest scientific estimate from a high-quality medical journal. As for limitations of studies: yes, they can have sampling bias, but they're not off by a factor of 30. You note that the two seroprevalence studies conclude "fairly different rates", but "fairly different" in this case means 3.2%-3.8% in one study vs. 1.68% in the other. In order to get in the ballpark of RFA's estimate of over 40,000 deaths, you'd need about 40-80% seropositivity. To get to RFA's newest speculative death toll of 150,000, you'd need every single person in Wuhan to have been infected, and you'd additionally need the virus to be far deadlier than generally assumed. The BMJ paper's scientific estimate of the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan is 4,500, which is roughly in line with the seropositivity studies, and a factor of 10 to 33 times smaller than RFA's various estimates. In other words, RFA is indulging in absolutely wild speculation. There's really no other way to describe RFA's reporting on this issue as anything other than disinformation. If a Chinese state outlet were engaging in the same sort of behavior with respect to the US, we'd know what to call it.
 * Re: uncertainty in Western reporting on China's numbers: this does not justify RFA promoting wild conspiracy theories that it picks up from social media. It's true that some Western outlets have imputed sinister motives to China's National Health Commission's modifications to diagnostic criteria early on in the pandemic, when knowledge about the virus was rapidly developing. Whether or not that reporting is fair (and it probably isn't - there were good reasons for the modifications, and the most significant modification actually made Hubei province's definition of a "case" much more expansive than the definition used anywhere else in the world), there's no excuse for promoting outright disinformation about China's death toll, as RFA has done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "concerns" about their reporting on CoVID-19 in China: I have much more than just "concerns". RFA has repeatedly published demonstrable falsehoods about the death toll in China. Its latest article, just a few weeks ago, speculates about a possible death toll of 150,000, which is more than 30 times the latest scientific estimate from a high-quality medical journal. As for limitations of studies: yes, they can have sampling bias, but they're not off by a factor of 30. You note that the two seroprevalence studies conclude "fairly different rates", but "fairly different" in this case means 3.2%-3.8% in one study vs. 1.68% in the other. In order to get in the ballpark of RFA's estimate of over 40,000 deaths, you'd need about 40-80% seropositivity. To get to RFA's newest speculative death toll of 150,000, you'd need every single person in Wuhan to have been infected, and you'd additionally need the virus to be far deadlier than generally assumed. The BMJ paper's scientific estimate of the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan is 4,500, which is roughly in line with the seropositivity studies, and a factor of 10 to 33 times smaller than RFA's various estimates. In other words, RFA is indulging in absolutely wild speculation. There's really no other way to describe RFA's reporting on this issue as anything other than disinformation. If a Chinese state outlet were engaging in the same sort of behavior with respect to the US, we'd know what to call it.
 * Re: uncertainty in Western reporting on China's numbers: this does not justify RFA promoting wild conspiracy theories that it picks up from social media. It's true that some Western outlets have imputed sinister motives to China's National Health Commission's modifications to diagnostic criteria early on in the pandemic, when knowledge about the virus was rapidly developing. Whether or not that reporting is fair (and it probably isn't - there were good reasons for the modifications, and the most significant modification actually made Hubei province's definition of a "case" much more expansive than the definition used anywhere else in the world), there's no excuse for promoting outright disinformation about China's death toll, as RFA has done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable, as so adequately demonstrated by here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. Although it is U.S.-government funded, it appears to have a reasonable degree of editorial independence. Sources reflect this: this 2020 Atlantic article notes that RFA, although funded by the U.S., is journalistically independent. As Mikehawk10 noted, there were real concerns under the Trump administration about the risk of RFA being manipulated or made into a hard-edged political tool, but that appears now to be a threat that has passed (or, at the least, has much diminished) given the end of the terms of Trump and Stephen J. Yates. See also this 2001 work on media in southeast Asia which states that in Cambodia, a country lacking a free press, "The Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, both funded by the US government, are important alternatives for Cambodians seeking more independent news." If sources conflict, or if there is some specific use case at issue, then of course that should be the subject of case-by-case discussion. Neutralitytalk 17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable - This is the mirror image of the China Daily discussion above. Yes, they are state-owned, but as far as I know they tell you directly when they are broadcasting and US gov editorial and have reasonable levels of editorial independence, which is key. Any publication may publish information that is not true by mistake, it is the degree to which they are held accountable for doing so, and which they go to correct mistakes that is important. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Usable as acknowledged propaganda, with attribution. Radio Free Asia was founded as a "C.I.A. broadcasting venture", and while it officially ended its relationship to its founder (!) in 1971, it's still funded by the US government with a mission to advance US foreign policy objectives, and is still publishing false and conspiratorial propaganda about China . -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable based on what RS say about it (and use them as a source) and based on my knowledge/experience. People mention the fact, that the source was a propaganda tool, but it was true 50 years ago. Now it's not (at least it's not affecting it's reliability). It is funded by the US government - yes, but there are many aspects, not only financing, when it comes to things like this. Judging by financial aspect only - not acceptable.-- Renat 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * unreliableSea Ane (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:GLOBAL
 * I can't find an obvious part of the essay being referenced that talks about how to analyze the reliability of sources in line with WP:RS. The point of this RfC, from what I understand, is to evaluate whether the source being discussed has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Which point in the essay are you alluding to, ? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think that the [statement at the beginning of this RfC is neutrally worded. The RfC's opening statment contains the highly-contested assertion that RFA's reporters "almost only publish news critical of enemies of the United States. The articles regularly do not cite their sources, which makes their reporting unreliable." As many editors have demonstrated by providing numerous sources, it is not clear at all that the quoted statement is truthful when taken broadly and it is reasonable to conclude that the quoted statement is at the very least non-neutral. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Beijing Asks Alibaba to Shed Its Media Assets
WSJ: Beijing Asks Alibaba to Shed Its Media Assets

We probably don't need to take immediate action, but depending on how things progress, we will need to review South China Morning Post's reliability going forward. Expect more self-censorship from SCMP as the government statements will likely have a chilling effect on its journalists. feminist (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Volunteer (book)
The Volunteer (book) was written by British journalist Jack Fairweather and published by a popular (not academic) press, WH Allen. Is it a reliable source?

I know of only one scholarly review of the book, in which Michael Fleming states: "the dominant narrative about Pilecki in Poland is a myth. The legend includes the claims that Pilecki “volunteered” to be imprisoned at Auschwitz, that he was particularly concerned with reporting on the fate of Jews at the camp, and that it was the Polish Communist authorities alone who were responsible for suppressing his story. In The Volunteer, journalist Jack Fairweather presents some, but not all, of the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers."

Partly mythical is just not good enough for basic WP:RS expectations, let alone antisemitism in Poland topic area. Fleming also states: "Fairweather’s problematic title signals the main weakness of the book, as does its first sentence, which endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth: “Witold Pilecki volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz.”... [Fairweather] does not address the tension between the myth of the sincere volunteer and the evidence that pressure and manipulation were at play. It should also be noted that those arrested could not choose their place of imprisonment. The most one can say is that Pilecki was pressured to allow himself to be arrested in the hope of being sent to a camp."

I also found a scholarly article about Pilecki in the peer reviewed journal Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały, written a few years before the book was published. Historian Ewa Cuber-Strutyńska states: "As a consequence, in the case of the “volunteer to Auschwitz”, the commonly used expression only partially corresponds with the facts.As already noted, one cannot fully recognise Pilecki as the promoter of the idea to enter Auschwitz and start underground activities there on the basis of source materials. Furthermore, it appears from the materials that the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal. In no way does it diminish his heroism and achievements but only shows that the term “volunteer” in the context of those events is used inaccurately. Using the expression “volunteer to Auschwitz”, one must bear in mind that Pilecki could not be certain that he would be sent precisely to Auschwitz after the September manhunt."

Nevertheless, my edits are reverted by and  and our Wikipedia article still incorrectly identifies Pilecki as a "volunteer". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's worth discussing whether the book The Volunteer (book) is reliable or not (though the answer to that seems obvious - it is) but I'm not sure why this particular issue is being brought to WP:RSN since the disagreement has nothing to do with the reliability of sources but rather it's question of straight up WP:UNDUE. Fleming is reliable, but presenting a couple quotes completely devoid of context and plumped willy nilly into a section that has nothing to do with them is at best bad practice stylistically and likely to confuse a reader who is not already familiar with the subject. There is an academic disagreement here over whether Pilecki "volunteered" or whether he "received an order and as a soldier obeyed it" but the the way the quote is presented insinuates that the entire story of Pilecki getting himself captured in order to get sent to Auschwitz is "a myth" (obviously it's not and no source questions that).  Volunteer Marek   16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's an academic disagreement, you should be able to cite academic sources that have a different perspective. Are there any? Fairweather is not an academic source and does not meet the minimum requirements to be cited in this topic area. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue is not sources but WP:UNDUE and a misleading presentation of selected quotes.  Volunteer Marek   20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Fairweather does meet the criteria. Are you saying that he or his publishers are not “reputable”?  Volunteer Marek   20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The requirement is to be "academically focused books by reputable publishers". I've seen no evidence that the book is academically focused, or that the publisher has a reputation for publishing accurate books about Polish history. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Fleming states that "Fairweather reduces the “cast of characters,” oversimplifying in order to advance the narrative in a manner sufficiently compelling for a mass-market book." So no, not academic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not you realize how strange it sounds? There is a mainstream well known book about someone, but we can not use that book on a page about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing restriction would have been unnecessary if popular (indeed "mainstream"... as in "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional") perceptions were reasonably in line with facts and academic consensus in this topic area. That is not the case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, nothing prevents from saying on the page that "according to popular perceptions ... [refs], but a historical research revealed that ... [refs]". This is a common situation in all subject areas. The sourcing restrictions are not necessary (this is an RS, not self-published materials). Also, in this case the difference between the popular/mainstream perceptions and the source you are using seem be only in details, i.e. in the motivation of a person to do something: he is not a "hero", he just did his duty as a hero. No one disputes what he actually did. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But making that attribution to "popular perception" would be OR, unless an RS already states that that author's perception is "popular" (in which case using it as an example would arguably be only mild SYNTH). And yes, it's common in many other TAs, but few TAs are as sensitive, complex and well-developed as this one; ideally, we'd do it nowhere at all. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The publisher seems to be "reputable", and it does not have to be academic. The book received an award. Is the book itself "academically oriented"? I did not read the book, but it was described as "compelling study" in reviews . So I think it does qualify as research. Yes, the author does not work for a University, but this does not automatically disqualify his research. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * News articles are not counted as reliable sources in this topic area, so any article published in news cannot be used to justify the reliability of the source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the publications in The Guardian are RS per WP:RS and Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I am not saying the book is infallible... I am only saying it was described in RS as a "study", and it apparently was a study. That should be enough to describe it as a "study" on the page about such book, and the book (not the article in The Guardian) can be arguably seen as appropriate for this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not the best source . It is much better than some of the trash pushed further up on this page, but it is a mass market book that is a heroic biography. Witold Pilecki is at the centre of modern myth making in Poland. After the communist regime was toppled down, he was promoted as an anti-communist hero, the arch typical "cursed soldier". An heroic biography by a non-academic may mix the mythical and non-mythical here. If academic sources disagree with this source on details, then the academic sources should be used.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * :Unreliable. As a review by Cyra states this contains fictional elements ("partly only fictionalised").--Bob not snob (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * While scholarly sources (written by academics and published by academic press) are most desirable, books written by respected journalists and published by likewise reputable publishers unquestionably meet the requirements of WP:RS. The issue of whether a description of him as a "volunteer" is correct or undue does not belong on this noticeboard. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom remedy set higher expectations than traditional WP:RS for Poland in WW2, including the Holocaust; pls see: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and the books clearly meets it, since it is focused on history ("academically focused", having received at least one review in academic journal - Fleming, already mentioned here) and published by a reputable publishers - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a case to be discussed here. Fairweather is a reputable journalist, his book published by a reputable house. Whether Pilecki volunteered, not really volunteered, or was ordered & coerced to be caught is an interesting topic that should be discussed & elaborated in the article, not at RSN.--Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable. Since this is dragging for over a month now, I had some time to delve into the reviews of this book. I am convinced now, it is Reliable, a quality academically-focused work that can be used here.--Darwinek (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So-so. It looks like a fine book, but without peer-review it's a problem to use it, especially in this TA. If the question is about the use of the term "volunteer", then the book is superseded by the journal article. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The book does not meet the Arbcom remedy at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, which states:
 * 5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. (...) 
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To the contrary it's a "high quality source", a "academically focused book by a reputable publisher".  Volunteer Marek   21:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the book "academically focused"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research.  Volunteer Marek   08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It lacks in-line citations and it's unclear if it was peer-reviewed. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is completely false. The book does have in-line citations and it was peer reviewed by, among others Anthony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska. Where did you get this false notion that this wasn't the case?  Volunteer Marek   20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you quit it with your perennial practice of inserting yourself into conversations that do not involve you. It's extremely rude.  Volunteer Marek   02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And "lacks in-line citations"? Seriously? What is it suppose to be a Wikipedia article (cuz yeah, those are "scholarly" /sarcasm)? There are plenty of scholarly works which don't utilize inline citations. You're grasping at straws.  Volunteer Marek   02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In re: It's extremely rude -- this discussion is taking place on a noticeboard, is it not? Editors do not get to control who responds to whom, here or on Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's taking place on a noticeboard does not cancel the requirement for courtesy and WP:EQ. Especially from a user with a history of warnings and blocks for harassing behavior and following others around.  Volunteer Marek   19:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In-line or footnote citations are a feature of all academic style guides that I'm aware of; their absence suggests this is not an "academically focused" work like you claim. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've checked the book again and it does have inline citations, though they're not footnoted. It might be the copy that I had (the book has three editions, multiple formats etc.) or just a lapse of attention, but I don't recall seeing them when I first checked the book - only a "select bibliography". So I apologise. The rest of the points still hold, AFAICT: the book lacks peer review, is mass-market-oriented rather than scholarly, and contains fictional elements; but I'll defer to others on their applicability to APLRS. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories . According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you actually citing a "alternative weekly newspaper" from Vermont, to argue that this source is unreliable? How hard did you have to scour the internet to find that "source"? And the Harper Collins quote? It says "thought provoking nonfiction" right there, so what's the problem?
 * And yes, Fairweather is a journalist. A distinguished investigative journalists who:
 * Fairweather was a war correspondent embedded with British troops during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was bureau chief for The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad, where he met his wife, New York Times journalist Christina Asquith.[2] Fairweather survived an attempted kidnapping and an attempted suicide bombing.[2] He later covered the war in Afghanistan for The Washington Post.[2] His war coverage has won a British Press Award and an Overseas Press Club award citation.[3][4] His book The Volunteer, a biography about Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz, won the 2019 Costa Book Award.
 * The book has also received numerous favorable reviews from both academics and other "academically focused" outlets.  Volunteer Marek   02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I doubt neither your good faith nor that the book is well-researched and interesting. The article I cited features an interview by the author, and it's the main source for the Jack Fairweather (writer) article, which is how I found it. I am not an academic snob and I often read non-fiction books by non-academics. I have no reason to think that Fairweather did a sloppy job here. But the point is that ArbCom said "academically-focused" and no matter how hard I try, I don't see how this book can fit in this criterion—sorry. Also I don't know how one would go at challenging this remedy or asking for an exception.--JBchrch (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @VM: none of the proffered reasons suggests that the book is "academically focused". --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * " based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research" <-- Not academically focused? I don't know what your arbitrary standard for "academically focused" is, but that sounds to me like it's what it should be.  Volunteer Marek   02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Academically focused": written by a scholar of a particular discipline, published by an academic press, and / or peer reviewed. In addition, lack of inline citations is a strong indicator that the book is not scholarly, as it's impossible to verify information against sources the author used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I read The Volunteer when it first came out and found it to be an important and inspiring book. It is, however, a work of advocacy and I agree with that it fails to meet the requirements of the Arbcom remedy, which I think was designed specifically to exclude journalistic works designed to persuade like this one. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting WP:APLRS

 *  Defer to academic sources where they disagree with this book.  I'm not going to say that it's flat-out unreliable, but I don't believe it meets a reasonable definition of 'academically focussed', which I would interpret as meaning 'intended for an academic audience'. My partner is an academic historian - she has written monographs about her academic research, for which the intended audience is other researchers and academics; she also has written text books, for which the intended audience is A-level students and history undergraduates. All of these are peer-reviewed, intended for an academic audience, and thus could be defined as 'academically focussed' sources. She has also been approached by publishers about writing books "for trade", which is jargon for a larger, more general readership - interested amateurs. Although she is an academic, these would not be academically focussed, no matter how well-researched they were, because they are written in a different way for a different audience. The Volunteer is clearly such a "for trade" book; that doesn't make it generally unreliable of course, but where it disagrees with academic sources we should defer to those. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Amended - see comment below.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think your conclusion sidesteps the point. Same with editors here invoking WP:RSP — not relevant. This is about living up to the spirit of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, period. Michael Fleming (historian) qualifies. Jack Fairweather (writer) does not. It really isn't much more complicated than that. And, until , himself, is otherwise restricted, expect him to participate in matters pertaining to this topic area. He does not need to follow you necessarily in order to arrive here, at WP:RSN. Not sure why it would be a priority for him to target you in particular, again, here at RSN, rather than him just wanting to engage a topic, which, like for you, is clearly dear to his heart. I'm not saying he is without blemish. On the contrary. But, when he says: It lacks in-line citations and it's unclear if it was peer-reviewed, he is entitled to advance that view without you responding with: I would appreciate it if you quit it with your perennial practice of inserting yourself into conversations that do not involve you. It's extremely rude. I'm sorry, but that response is, in fact, what is rude. You well know how sympathetic I am (and consistently have been) to your devastating Icewhiz plight, but , I'm letting you know that using his specter as a blunt instrument, that's a problem. It's a problem when it distracts from a matter-of-fact discussion about content and it's a problem whenever it injects further hostility into the APL mix, for naught. El_C 07:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I confess I didn't read that - I was just considering the question of whether or not this could fairly be described as an academically focussed book. Since I conclude that it cannot be so described, it clearly not meet the requirements of the sourcing expectations set out in the link you have provided, and thus should not be used as a source on any article on the topic of Polish history during World War II. I'll amend my comment above. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just setting the record straight here: in the nine years I've been editing on Wikipedia (three of which seriously in the Polish TA) I've only been blocked twice. I've never been T-banned, and I have a faultless, bilateral I-ban with one editor. That's about as "blemish-free" as you get in this TA, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't reinforce VM's false accusations at all. François Robere (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't just remarking on whatever formal sanctions that have been levied, but rather, my impression of everything, overall. That said, fair point. Stricken to soften. Hoping for de-escalation for APL disputes, in general, so, happy to set an example (dang, that sounded pompous!). El_C 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I laud your optimism and good intent, but seeing as your third warning to VM had little impact, I doubt we're not headed to some form of WP:DR. As an aside, VM has been making PAs for longer than I've been in the TA and against more people than I'd care to count, so tying this behavior to him being harassed by Icewhiz's is wrong. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El C, User:Girth Summit - the problem is that the book by Fairweather is a comprehensive biography of Pilecki. The article by Fleming is a REVIEW of that book. Apparently we can use the book review but not the book itself. How does that make sense? And I guess it's possible to come up with some definition of "academically focused" if one really wants which would exclude the Fairweather book. But here are the reviews of the book:
 * The Guardian: "Fairweather’s book is an impressive feat of research, organised by a keen moral intelligence and written with the elegance and pace of a first-rate thriller." Also calls it "extraordinary" by comparison.
 * The Guardian, again, a glowing review
 * interview with NPR
 * "Book is full of brilliantly researched passages". In the interview it's also brought up that Fairweather had a staff of researchers, including professional historians working for him. The two researchers that are brought up are Dr. Katarzyna Chizynska, a historian and Dr. Marta Goljan, a professor Jewish Studies. It's also mentioned how Fairweather has been attacked by the "right-wing" in Poland because his book doesn't whitewash anything.
 * Review in WSJ "Few books have enthralled, incensed and haunted me as "The Volunteer" has done", "Superb account of (...) Jack Fairweather".
 * Here is Washington Post (where Fairweather has worked as a prize winning war correspondent for a decade+ (!))
 * Interview in Time magazine
 * The book was featured on C-SPAN (!)
 * Here is Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York, which invited Fairweather to give a presentation and a discussion with historians and Holocaust scholars.
 * Here is Kirkus reviews: An inspiring story beautifully told.
 * Here is The Times
 * Here is Publisher's Weekly "Fairweather mines letters, coded diaries, and personal interviews to tell the story " and "Fairweather tells this tragic tale in gripping fashion, bringing a new angle to the literature of the Holocaust"


 * And so on and so forth. Look. Yes, Fairweather is an investigative journalist and a war correspondent not a guy with a Phd in history. But so what? The book has received glowing reviews from scores of respectable outlets and professional historians. It's published by a "reputable publisher". Fairweather spend several years researching the book with a team of actual historians (this may sounds strange but this is actually how a lot of books are written these days). This is a work DEDICATED to its subject.

But apparently we can't use it because ... the author doesn't have a PhD? Because someone went and found a single review where someone else has a little quibble about the definition of the word "volunteer"? (why can't we just mention that and still use the source?) This is *exactly* the kind of comprehensive work that we SHOULD be using. And you have to take a very narrow interpretation of both the letter and the intent of the sourcing restriction to reject this source. Apparently political hit pieces from tabloid newspapers are ok, but a thoroughly researched and widely acclaimed book isn't because of some technicality.

This just makes me shake my head. This is people trying their best to WP:GAME any kind of restriction or rule they can. Oh look! [Bob not snob, an account which started editing in November 2019, right after the ArbCom case concluded, who's first edits were to pick a fight with me, and who right from the beginning displayed a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies, and who ceased editing Poland topics when the 500/30 restriction was imposed, and who then resumed editing Poland topics, as soon as they hit 500 edits, has now used this as an excuse to to completely gut the article, removing 25000 bits of text from the article. And they didn't just remove Fairweather's book. They removed half a dozen of actually reliable sources. Like a book by an Italian historian. A book by a British historian. An article by [[Timothy Snyder]]. And a whole bunch of others. And this even before the discussion has been closed.

Why is "Bob not snob" removing 25000 bytes of text on the pretext that one of these sources doesn't mean the sourcing restriction? Because they WANT someone to just revert them entirely so they can go running to WP:AE. Because "Volunteer Marek restored sources prohibited by sourcing restriction, oh noes! Someone safe Wikipedia from him!!!!" This is so painfully transparent. This is such a waste of time. This is the reason why this topic area is so toxic - because obnoxious game playing and bullshit like this is tolerated. Because new accounts that are obvious sock puppets STILL infest this topic. Because it's so easy for a couple editors to pull wool over admin eyes. This is a source we SHOULD be using. If it violates the sourcing restriction, then the sourcing restriction is absurd.

I'm so. sick. of. this. bullshit.  Volunteer Marek  19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well,, if you're able to show that the author employed academic researchers, then it likely meets the sourcing requirements. But how could anyone had known that this is so? I seem to keep telling multiple editors lately: don't expect omniscience. Live up to the spirit of WP:BURDEN. I know feels my pain in this regard (diff). So, I'm sorry to say, but that is on you. As for , feel free to file an AE report or contact the Arbitration Committee about him, I, personally, am not inclined to act with respect to him — he has somewhat cunningly preempted me with that bogus AN complaint about me, even though it was aspersion-riddled and ultimately deemed nonsensical and disruptive by all concerned. That normally would not stop me, but as it happens, I, myself, just don't want to deal with him right now due to... reasons. El_C 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C, I 100% understand not wanting to get involved wrt to BnS (I'm also 100% right about that account). And I'm not asking for omniscience, I'm asking for a bit of common sense. This is NOT what the sourcing restriction was suppose to do. This here is just WP:GAMEing and WP:WIKILAWYERing. We are NOT talking about some journalist for the Daily Mail or something writing some salacious tract. Fairweather is a veteran journalist for Washington Post and award winning war correspondent. Journalists actually write books (often in fact, biographies) as way to "cap off" their careers. These books - as long as we're talking about professionals at top outlets like WP or Guardian or something similar - are always researched thoroughly, they always have PhD historians and scholars as consultants and while they are intended for a popular audience they follow scholarly standards. This is how publishing works these days (it might also come as a shock to a lot of folks to learn that even many of the academic books out there are "ghost written" by an academic's grad students with the "author" just plopping his name on the cover) And here we have an entire work dedicated to a subject that we want to have a good Wikipedia article on - and yet we can't use it? Again, this just goes against common sense.
 * As far as who the particular researchers are on this book you have to dig for that a bit. Fairweather mentions who the researchers are on his twitter (they're both scholars with PhDs in relevant subjects). I know twitter isn't a reliable source but he also mentions it in the Haaretz interview (the interview itself is a good one, though the headline they slapped on it is click bait).  Volunteer Marek   20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you want "common sense" then live up to WP:BURDEN, each and every time. It is not a violation of WP:GAME for editors to insist on that. Veteran journalists do not meet WP:APLRS by definition. Whatever the degree of scholarly scrutiny that may be present in their respective works, again, needs to be established each and every time, not assumed a priori. Failure to do so is where problems are likely to continue to rise. The Committee has quite deliberately set an especially high bar for APLRS, similar to WP:MEDRS in many ways, and it is what it is. The sooner you come to terms with that, the better. El_C 22:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If saying you had an academic consultant, on twitter or an interview, turns a source into academic, then Poldark (2015 TV series) is academic too because it is advised by Dr. Hannah Greig of York University. Braveheart surely had historical consultants as well.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * , the point is that when, say, a veteran journalist employs scholars to produce a work of note, it's reception and esteem among scholarly sources determines its corresponding status. Not sure drawing a parallel from that to historians hired to help make production sets of historical dramas more believable is that on-point, to be honest. El_C 10:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use this as an RS. It doesn't meet WP:APLRS, which isn't optional. It's a little breathless in the telling and there's reconstructed dialogue. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to add to the above that I intended no disrespect to the author. This discussion is purely about where the book lies within Wikipedia's sourcing standards for articles about the Holocaust in Poland. It's not a judgment about the overall quality of the work itself. SarahSV (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Further to this, having a book reviewed well by a non-scholarly source implies that the book was well written, but doesn't mean that it is accurate, as I doubt that most reviewers in English language press sources would be familiar enough with the source material to fairly judge that. Tiger King is a compelling documentary, but that doesn't mean the way that they presented the events was factually accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This may be a bit of an aside, but I still want to make it clear that my interpretation of WP:APLRS is that, once challenged, Consensus required on the side of WP:BURDEN basically comes into effect. That is, from that point on, the onus to achieve consensus for inclsuion of the disputed source as APLRS falls squarely on those advocating for its usage. Just to remove any doubt. And I'll finish by adding that I, for one, am a proponent of responding to any violations of that nature decisively, with impactful Arbitration enforcement remedies. El_C 00:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion above illustrates how this sourcing restriction is leading to enormous waste of time and does not help to improve anything. Here is the problem. Some less significant sub-subjects are covered only (or mostly) by sources that do not fit such restrictions. And it is only fair using books for general public that qualify as RS (such as that one), along with academic publications. Nothing prevents from saying that "according to a popular perception/a book/an organization/whatever ... [refs], but the research demonstrate that ... [refs]". But that should be decided by Arbcom. I think they already said "no", but perhaps someone might ask again. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's right, this is a matter that is solely at the discretion of the Committee. I'd also say that fair is in the eye of beholder. I, for one, consider the sourcing requirements to be of paramount import and will strongly argue before the Committee against amendment proposals to weaken or rescind them outright. El_C 00:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not really see why this subject area must be different from others, even more contentious subject areas. I do agree though that making WP:MEDRS on medical subjects was helpful, but it has been decided by community, after discussion, not by Arbcom. But whatever. I do not care too much because I do not usually edit these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, let's keep this space free to discuss on-topic matters, now that we got all of that out of the way. I'll add that if there is a less contentious topic area on the project, I, at least, have not encountered it. El_C 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP:ARBPIA is a lot more contentious - based on my personal experience. There, simply commenting on a talk page, presumably in a neutral fashion (but of course it never is), can trigger a serious conflict between other contributors; that had happen; since then I avoid these pages like a plague My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree: not WP:ARBPIA (which has calmed down a lot recently), not WP:ARBIPA, not WP:AP2, et cetera, etc., none of them comes close. Anyway, hopefully, that's it as far this OT is concerned. El_C 08:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It just hurts me to see so many educated and well-intended people wasting their time in such discussions. This is the reason I am against such sourcing restrictions, at least in history and politics. It makes people so profoundly unhappy. Just mention what the book say on the page (this is an RS, just not an academic one), with proper attribution, this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It ebbs and flows, but generally ARBPIA is worse. This topic area was pretty peaceful 2012-2016 until Icewhiz and “friends” showed up. It’s been a disaster ever since. Also, in some ways this is a spill over from ARBPIA (even the same restriction 500/30).
 * Anyway, the sourcing restriction is most definitely not a carte Blanche to completely gut articles and then demand “consensus!” on talk, while stonewalling.
 * Every rule on Wikipedia can and will be WP:GAMEd (including WP:GAME itself). At the end of the day there’s no replacement for common sense and doing the grunt work and learning the sources.  Volunteer Marek   08:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , until otherwise amended or rescinded by the Committee, it is to be enforced and that's that. Anyway, yes, ebbs and flows, but we're talking about the here and now. Yet, these ebbs and flows are not due to some bad actors appearing somewhat randomly, let's make that perfectly clear. Icewhiz is as much a symptom of and a response to recent key developments happening in Poland. Ones ultimately, culminating in the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and all that has followed since. So, best to just put everything on the table, wouldn't you say? To me, that is the true meaning of common sense. Yes, there's an WP:ARBPIA spillover, but so what? This is about disputing culpability for the darkest moment of our species. Sticking to the pretense that it's just another topic area — that is an inexplicable position. El_C 10:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El C, like I mention to Girth below, I had a long, profound, insightful and very persuasive reply all written here but my power and internet keep going out because of a snow storm so it got lost to the internet ether. Anyway, I 100% agree that the Polish government passing that idiotic Amendment influences/influenced what happened in this topic area. One way it has done so is that some editors arrived feeling like they had to "punish" Poland's government and even "Poland" for passing it by editing Wikipedia articles. There's a very strong element of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. And they've used its existence as an excuse for their own disruptive actions. There's definitely "wrongs" in the actions of the Polish government, but this is as if I went to the article on, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln, and removed half of it because "look, Americans elected Trump as president so obviously all American written sources are questionable, and everyone knows you just can't trust those Trumpist Americans to write about their own history, we need impartial Eastern European editors to do so". I could repeat the analogy with Boris/Brexit and UK, or France where the National Front is the most popular party, or Israel where the left has effectively ceased to exist it seems like (Meretz has like ... 3 seats and Labor... does it even exist?) or Germany where the Alternative for Germany is making huge gains in parliament, etc. Yes, Poland has an aggressive right wing government that passes fucked up laws. So do a lot of countries these days.
 * And how are you going to enforce this restriction when nobody can tell what qualifies or what doesn't? What if someone goes to an article, removes 80% of it, then camps out on talk page insisting strenuously that none of the sources meet the requirement while yelling about "no consensus!" We gonna have to waste time going through each and every one or risk getting reported to WP:AE? This whole thing is a recipe for abuse. You pass ill thought out rules you get MORE litigation, MORE conflict, MORE battleground.  Volunteer Marek   17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restrict myself to responding to your comments on the source, rather than the history of the article itself or of any of the accounts that have been editing here. From the many positive reviews of the book you link to above, you could make a very strong argument that this book was widely well-received, but I don't see how they support the notion that it is academically focussed - they're all general publications. I already said that it isn't just about the author, or indeed any researchers they may have collaborated with, it's also about the style of writing and the intended audience. The front cover of this book (the one on sale on Amazon in the UK) is emblazoned with '#1 SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER', and 'the true story of the resistance hero who infiltrated Auschwitz' - it's very obviously popular history. I'm not saying that this automatically makes it bad, or that it makes it necessarily wrong on any of the fundamentals, but I cannot in good faith look at that book and agree that 'academically focussed' would be a fair description.
 * I have no view on whether or WP:APLRS is a good thing for the project or not - I don't know enough about the history of the conflicts that led up to it being put in place. It you obviously think that it's a bad thing, and I'd urge you to make the case for it to be modified or rescinded; as long as it remains in place though, I can't see how this book is usable as a source on an article on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45).
 * I'll add that I don't understand your comment about 'political hit pieces from tabloid newspapers' being OK - they would obviously not be OK on any article, but would be categorically prohibited by the restrictions of WP:APLRS. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Girth, I wrote a substantial response but we've got a snow storm here and my power went out and it got lost and I don't feel like rewriting it again so let me just say that I have no problem with anything you're saying and I understand where you're coming from. My complaint and frustration is with the general absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in.  Volunteer Marek   16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that people read this article: Maria Suchcitz, "A volunteer’s journey to hell and back: A review of Jack Fairweather, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz, London, WH Allen / Penguin Random House, 2019", New Eastern Europe, 12 November 2019.

What the article has to say seems more substantial than whether or not Gazeta Wyborcza is a "leftist" newspaper, or whether Witold Pilecki – 1940 cofounder of the Secret Polish Army resistance movement – should be regarded as having "volunteered" to get himself incarcerated at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp or whether he had been tasked to do so by his underground organization.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others that The Volunteer does not meet WP:APLRS. It is not an academic book but one written for a mass market audience and published by a mass market publisher. It doesn't have the hallmarks of academic reliability ( internal citations, real peer review, etc.) as others have pointed out above. That doesn't mean it's not an RS or can't be used anywhere, but I don't think it qualifies as APLRS and its use, if any, should be sparing, with attribution, and careful. It should probably not be used to support statements in wikivoice. Levivich harass/hound 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Levivich - how do you know the book has "no internal citations"..? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it does have internal citations. Levivich harass/hound 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Fairweather's study, The Volunteer: The True Story of the Resistance Hero Who Infiltrated Auschwitz (2019), appears to qualify as a reliable source on Witold Pilecki. The book received an extensive positive review in Memoria, a publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, by Adam Cyra, since 1972 a Museum staff member: "Review of Jack Fairweather's Book 'The Volunteer: The True Story of Witold Pilecki's Secret Mission', Memoria, no. 36 (September 2020), pp. 14–23. The book discusses the methodology used in its researching and composition and provides copious notes. Fairweather acknowledges the assistance of ten institutions including the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Yad Vashem; of a large staff of qualified researchers and translators; and of respected scholars of Polish-Jewish history and the Holocaust including Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer, Wojciech Kozłowski, Hanna Radziejowska, Rafał Brodacki, Jeffrey Bines, Staffan Thorsell, Wojciech Markert, Kate Brown, Magdalena Gawin, Anna Bikont, Francis Harris, and Suzannah Lipscomb. Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Adam Cyra's review is a positive one. But it also says: "The Volunteer by Jack Fairweather should be considered as non-fiction literature. The book presents authentic characters and events, and their description is based on a richly collected historical material, partly only fictionalised. From the novel, the author has drawn on the technique of narration and fiction of events, with scientific texts, and combines the factual nature of the historical narration, included in wellthoughtout and neatly presented chapters, with plenty of footnotes" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, hold up. Where did this idea that there's no inline citations in the book originate? The book most certainly has inline citations - numbered, with endnotes which cite the specific source. The book was likewise reviewed by top Holocaust scholars and historians such as Antony Polonsky, Robert Jan van Pelt, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Dariusz Stola, David Engel, Bernard Wasserstein, Yehuda Bauer and others.  Volunteer Marek  20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SarahSV,Volunteer Marek,Nihil novi,Levivich,Girth Summit,El_C,My very best wishes,Hemiauchenia How about we contact some of the scholars listed above and ask them if they think the book is academically focused or not and whether they think it is a good source for Pilecki's biographical article or not? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but there is no way at all that a book like that can reasonably be described as 'academically focussed'. It's not about who wrote it, or who helped with the research, it's about the target audience, the style of writing, the level of peer review. This is not an academic book, it's a popular history book - and, at risk of judging the book by its cover, a rather sensationalist one. Academically focussed books do not have breathless statements on the front cover like 'the true story of the resistance hero who infiltrated Auschwitz'. They do not become Sunday Times #1 Best Sellers.
 * If APLRS said that sources must be well-reviewed, or very popular, or very comprehensive, I'd have no problem with this source, but it doesn't. It says they must be academically focussed; this book very clearly is not. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly a book has to be dull as dishwater in order to qualify as "academically focused". And any academic's book that does wind up on a bestseller list (as some regrettably do) must be viewed with utmost suspicion.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not certain, but you appear to be using sarcasm here. That is seldom helpful in a text-only environment, I'd advise you to avoid it.
 * It's got nothing to do with whether they're dull or not, that's a subjective measure. Academically focussed books are written by academics, for an academic audience. Plenty of academics write popular history books - there's nothing wrong with that, they're often fun to read and informative, and it's reassuring knowing that a real expert has written them, but it doesn't make them academically focussed. This book was written by a journalist (albeit with an unknown amount of help from academics) for a popular mass market - it is not an academic focussed book, I don't understand how anyone could reasonably dispute that. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , With all due respect, but "Academically focussed books are written by academics, for an academic audience" seems to be your own definition of this term. Crucially, ArbCom never clarified it. As an academic myself, I understand "Academically focussed" as referring to the methodology used, rather than the target audience, as I explain below, and I'd define it as "Academically focussed books are written using academic methodologies and best practices" (which the book does, as it has endnotes, discusses its own methodology and the author employed academic researchers and consulted with professional academics). It also would make sense to me that ArbCom (and we) should be more concerned with how the book is written than who is reading it. Anyway, given the vague and undefined term that in the end, only ArbCom could clarify, I doubt RSN can really help here, except concluding that the book is reliable but as you wrote and I fully agree, "where it disagrees with [more] academic sources we should defer to those". Anyway, I note that below you clarified that the dealbreaker for you is the existence of reception in academia in the form of reviews by academics. I think we have found four such reviews (Flemming, Cyra, Suchcitz and Chodakiewicz). So the book was noted and reviewed (positively, I may add) not just by journalists and book critics but by scholars, all of which seem to be historians, as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , this discussion is bouncing up and down a bit - I found the link to the Fleming review, but can't see the others, any chance you could put links to them all in one place? Girth Summit  (blether)  08:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ~:, Sure. Cyra:, Suchcitz : (paywalled?)/OA mirror?, Chodakiewicz: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . What I said was that reviews in academic journals taking the book seriously as a piece of history might sway my opinion. Now, I claim no expertise in this subject area, but those three don't look like scholarly journals to me - more like literary magazines or institutional newsletters?
 * Looking at the authors: Cyra and Chodakiewicz are unquestionably academics who specialise in this area of study. Suscitz is a recent masters graduate working as an intern at the British Embassy in Warsaw: uncomfortable as I am with saying that we should ignore a woman and focus only on two men, it seems like a stretch to describe her as a scholar for the purpose of this discussion.
 * Cyra likes the book, and despite devoting a couple of paragraphs to factual inaccuracies, he says that it should be viewed as a piece of 'non-fiction literature'. Chodakiewicz obviously hates the book: he describes it as methodologically flawed, lists examples of the use of stereotypes 'too numerous to debunk in detail in this short review', and the way that he constantly refers to the Fairweather as 'the journalist' makes it clear that he does not view this as an academically valid work.
 * You are correct that my interpretation of the phrase 'academically focussed' is only my own personal interpretation - reasonable people like yourself and DGG could come to different interpretations of that phrase. By my reading though, the fact that the full description of the allowable sources is specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers implies that by 'academically focused' they did indeed mean 'intended for an academic audience' - why else would they have put it next to 'peer-reviewed scholarly journals'. If they intended to allow books like Fairweather's one, then why would they have raised the bar so much higher for periodicals?
 * Perhaps it would be best to go back to Arbcom and ask for a clarification to the wording of that requirement. I really don't have a dog in this fight, my knowledge of and interest in the subject area is very slight. Speaking purely as an uninvolved administrator trying to interpret and implement Arbcom rulings, I still can't view this as a permissible source based on what has been presented in this discussion. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Out of curiosity, when you were catching up, did you read DGG's opinion (near the end of this discussion)? He is, AFAIK, the only ArbCom member to comment here, and he views the book as good enough.
 * Anyway, you asked for academic reviews. Flemming is undeniably one, and curiously you don't comment on this (isn't the existence of his review exactly what you asked for?); the other three are not in peer-reviewed journals but they are by academics (well, one in training, fair enough). Chodakiewicz is the only one whose review is negative, an interesting exception considering he is also the least reliable as a scholar (go read his bio to see why). So to some degree, a negative review from him is a solid endorsement of the book's neutrality :>
 * I don't think you have a dog in this fight either, but I do think there is some strange bar-raising. "No footnotes" - here they are. "No academic reviews" - here they are". Not an academic press - sorry, ArbCom didn't say it, they said reputable, and that's the end of the story unless someone bothers to ask them for clarification of what they meant by "academically focused". Until then I think we should stick to what was written, rather than offer our interpretations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Girth Summit, Fleming's review is scathing. He described the book as presenting "the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers", a myth he describes as a legend. He concludes by praising the prose, pictures, maps, but states that: ". It is unfortunate that in addition to having an inaccurate, sensationalist title, the book is framed as a “new chapter in the history of the mass murder of the Jews and an account of why someone might risk everything to help his fellow man.” This has resulted in a hagiographic narrative in an Anglo–American idiom." This is an awful review, that underscores this not being academic.--Bob not snob (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * can I ask that you take a step back from words like 'curiously' and 'strange' - I'm not comfortable with the possible implications they might have. I don't think that there's anything curious or strange about people on Wikipedia disagreeing about sources and guidelines, it seems pretty standard to me.
 * Yes, I read DGG's comment - that's why I mentioned him in my last reply. I recognise that he's an Arb, and I take his opinion on this matter seriously (as I do yours); at the same time, there are other admins on this thread who are very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement (such as El C) whose views align with mine. As I said, reasonable people can read the same words and infer subtly different meanings.
 * It has already been pointed out, by Levivich, that Fleming's review explicitly says that the book is intended for a general readership. Given that the meat of my argument is that such an intended readership would mean it is not academically focused, Fleming's review is one of the reasons why I believe this source is excluded by the wording of the Arbcom ruling. I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate that, but I'm happy to do so since you have questioned that.
 * Academics reviewing a popular history book in general-readership periodicals and quality newspapers is not an unusual thing; it doesn't, in my view, make the books they are reviewing academically focused. What I said earlier was that academics reviewing the book in a scholarly journal, and treating as a serious historical work, would likely sway my opinion, but I'm not seeing that.
 * I don't think that there is any bar raising here; or rather, I think that the bar was raised by Arbcom when they imposed that sourcing restriction. I have never said anything about footnotes, or an academic press, I don't know why you're raising them.
 * I agree with you that we should 'stick to what was written', but nobody can do that without first interpreting what is meant by what was written, which is where we disagree. If Arbcom were to make a definitive clarification on that point, I would be happy to abide by and implement whatever they had to say on it. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the style of writing, the book begins: "Witold stood on the manor house steps and watched the car kick up a trail of dust as it drove down the lime tree avenue ..." Fairweather actually agrees with Fleming (2014). Pilecki's commander "volunteered" him. "Witold struggled to hide his shock" (p. 43). But it continues: because the mission was so dangerous, the commander was unable to order him to do it. He needed Pilecki to volunteer. This last point is sourced to the following (footnote 53, p. 417): Cuber-Strutyńska (2017), p. 287—who agrees with Fleming (2014)—uses the first source too, but does not mention that it said this. The second source, a primary source, was written by an Auschwitz prisoner; it isn't clear how he would be in a position to know what the commander was able to do. Fairweather doesn't tell us what the sources say exactly, although it's a crucial point. SarahSV (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Malinowski, Kazimierz (1986). Tajna Armia Polska. Znak. Konfederacja Zbrojna. Zarys genezy, organizacji i działalności. Warsaw: Pax, p. 54.
 * Gawron, Wincenty (1992). Ochotnik do Oświęcimia. Oświęcim: Wydawnictwo Calvarianum, Państwowego Muzeum w Oświęcimiu, p. 114.
 * Gawron, Wincenty (1992). Ochotnik do Oświęcimia. Oświęcim: Wydawnictwo Calvarianum, Państwowego Muzeum w Oświęcimiu, p. 114.


 * What constitutes "academically focused" books? The stated criterion has been "academically focused books by reputable publishers" – not "by academic publishers". The publisher of Jack Fairweather's book is reliable.


 * What otherwise makes a book "academically focused"? Fairweather's book has copious endnotes; was written with the aid of, and in consultation with, numerous researchers and academics; and is concerned with academic disciplines including historical biography and German concentration camps in occupied Poland during World War II. What appear to be reconstructed narrative or dialog – used for stylistic purposes – should clearly not be quoted in Wikipedia articles. But the book's substantive matter is well documented. As Adam Cyra writes in his review, "It is very difficult to find any factual errors in the masterfully written biography of the Auschwitz 'volunteer'". Of the documentation, he writes: "[The endnotes] allow the reader to check the authenticity of the presented facts, which is further supported by biographical notes, persons described in it and an extensive bibliography containing studies and source materials in Polish, German, and English, and occasionally in Czech and Sorbian. The whole is enriched with lots of photgraphs, documents, plans, and diagrams." That would seem a description of an "academically focused" book.


 * The question of Pilecki's "volunteer" status is irrelevant to the present discussion and should be taken up on the "Witold Pilecki" talk page.


 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I offered it as an example of how the footnotes don't really help. Key information is missing. Wikipedia has footnotes, but that doesn't mean we're "academically focused". SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of an "academically focused" source?
 * Did the Arbitration Committee provide one?
 * ArbCom explicitly allowed books by "reputable publishers". Is the publisher of this work not reputable?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ArbCom explicitly allowed books that met two criteria: they should be academically focussed, and reputably published. Nobody has questioned the reputation of the publisher, it's the academic focus that it doesn't have, it's popular history. ArbCom hasn't, as far as I know, spelled out exactly what they meant by an academic source, presumably we're expected to use our judgment. Endnotes, consultation with academics, being concerned with history: all of that is what I would expect from a popular history book.
 * Randomly picking one such a book off my shelf (The Suspicions of Mr Whicher by Kate Summerscale), I find a comprehensive ten-page index, 35 pages of end notes, a five-page bibliograph listing all the primary and secondary sources the author used, a list of plates and illustrations, an acknowledgements sections which thanks various academics, archivists and other experts for their assistance. It is, in my view, a very well-put together piece of popular history - but it's still not academically focussed. It has snippets of reviews in the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, the Spectator and the Mail on Sunday. It has a quote from Ian Rankin on the front saying it's "Terrific". It was very widely reviewed in newspapers and general sources, but it has not been (as far as I can find) reviewed as a work of history in any academic journals. Indeed, it's discussed in this academic book about 21st-century fiction. It is written with a general audience in mind, to be a good and interesting read, to sell lots of books and ultimately to make money, as opposed to being written for an academic audience to make a scholarly contributions to the discipline. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's a slightly different thing.
 * If you could show that academic journals have reviewed this book as a work of history, I might form a different impression, but as things stand I can't see this as an academically focussed book. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Fairweather's book has received a number of English-language reviews, including one by Michael Fleming in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, surely a serious publication.
 * The Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies has listed Fairweather's book in its index of "Recently Published Works in Holocaust and Genocide Studies". Presumably the Journal would not have done so if it did not deem the book worthy at least of mention as a work in Holocaust studies.
 * A review by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, translated into Polish in Tygodnik Solidarność, while expressing many reservations about Fairweather's understanding of Pilecki's cultural background and motivations, does not find fault with the author's basic presentation of Pilecki's actual deeds and accomplishments.
 * It can take years for academic reviews of a book to appear. Is it practicable to delay using new research, discriminatingly, until a given number of reviews have come out?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Polish but Fleming's review explicitly says this book is written for the general public. That suggests that this is not an academically focused book. Levivich harass/hound 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More reviews - this one of Maria Suchcitz, right here - -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This review was linked up above. I don't think Maria Suchcitz is an expert or scholar (the article identifies her as an intern who just received her Master's degree), and New Eastern Europe is a political news magazine, not an academic journal. I don't think this review helps. Same as the Chodakiewicz review above in Tygodnik Solidarność, which is another political magazine, not an academic journal. Levivich harass/hound 03:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What about review by Cyra? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As Sarah quoted above, Cyra is the one who describes the book as "non-fiction literature ... partly only fictionalised". It's a positive review (they're all positive reviews), but it is not treating the work as an academically-focused book (which would not be fictionalized even in the smallest part). Levivich harass/hound 06:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cyra states this contains fictional elements ("partly only fictionalised"), which makes it unusable all together, even without it failing APLRS.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * , Have you heard of narrative ethnography, for example? / Or ethnographic fiction (note our article is poor, I will see if I can improve those topics in the near future). Narrative style and even storytelling (//) are allowed in academically focused works, too. Take a look at this. It's a chapter in an academic book (Davis, C. S., & Ellis, C. (2008). Autoethnographic introspection in ethnographic fiction: A method of inquiry. In P. Liamputtong & J. Rumbold (Eds.), Knowing Differently: An Introduction to Experiential and Arts-Based Research Methods, (pp. 99-117). Nova Sciences.), not a short story - even if most random readers could be excused for being confused (and it has 29 citations according to Google Scholar...). So I am afraid that the argument that the book is written in a narrative form which makes it non-academic fails. Narrative style, although rare, is perfectly acceptable in academia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable outside direct quotations for reconstructed dialogue. As others have pointed out, the book is reliable and would be fine except in this topic area there is the additional vague requirement of being "academically focused", which is causing some uncertainty. I've read the discussion above and I see a tendency to raise the bar for what it is. The book has been criticized for not having footnotes/endnotes, a claim that is simply false as it has a few hundred of those. It has been criticized for narrative style (which is however acceptable in academia, per my comment above - just avoid direct quotations for reconstructed dialogue, not that to my knowledge anyone wanted to use them anyway). It has been criticized for not being published by an academic press but this is not required by the ArbCom remedy which explicitly uses the term "reputable publishers", not "academic publishers". The author has been criticized for not being an academic, but again, this is not explicitly required by the remedy (plus he collaborated with several academics, as described in the book and several reviews). It has been criticized for being directed at mass-market - so what? If ArbCom intended this, they should have been more explicit (and limited the acceptable publishers to academic presses only); also we have found reviews that show the book received reception in the world of academia (having been reviewed by Flemming, Cyra, Suchcitz, Chodakiewicz, although the last one does not appear to be in a peer-reviewed outlet, then there is the inclusion in the list of Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies). Anyway, to me, 'academically focused' means the book meets academic standards, which IMHO this book clearly does, given the density of citations, collaboration with academics, and their positive reception in their reviews. All that said, in the end, this is not the forum to decide on what ArbCom meant by that phrase. The book is reliable, and if we cannot agree on what 'academically focused' means, then we should ask ArbCom for a clarification. I'll also ping User:DGG, a former arbitrator and the only one I am aware of that is familiar with the world of academia, although I expect there are others too (everyone, please feel free to ping any other arbcom members whom you think could be interested in this discussion). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not on arb com the year of that decision. the relevant remedy reads "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions " which refers to "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. ", an opinion by a individual admin, .  I would never have voted for this remedy, which I think worded too restrictively.  I like to think that had I been there, I might have affected the wording.  The general idea is right, but it should have been "Only high quality sources may be used, preferably peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. "   But in any case, the remedy does not actually limit us to academic books, but academically-focussed books, a very much wider concept.  The book, which I have not read, was written by a major journalist and had very positive reviews from respectable sources. I see no reason why it should not be used, unless contradicted by more academic sources. The publisher is a division of Harper Collins, which is respectable, but certainly not academic. There's an interesting review in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs by Michael Fleming,["https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23739770.2019.1673981?journalCode=rifa20] which mentions additional sources for the same general material   I see no reason why this book should not be used, unless contradicted by more explicitly academic sources. I deliberately did not look at prior discussions here, but it seems Pietrus and I take the same position.    DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are any of the Arbitrators who wrote the APLRS decision still active? If so, I would ping them and ask them whether the source in question meets their concept of “Academically focused” (or not). Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was actually thinking about raising a clarification request with the current committee. I've just got to get my head around the paperwork, not sonething I've done before. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable I have read the above discussion and the book is in my view highly reliable, fulfilling all the necessary criteria. It has has been subjected to academic reviews, and the publisher is respectable, the book is also academically focused.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note since this discussion has been running for some time now, and there does not appear to be consensus about how the sourcing restrictions recorded at WP:APLRS should be interpreted, I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee here. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fails to meet the requirements of the Arbcom decision. A great book, I enjoyed reading it, inspiring, as was its purpose, but fictionalized. A work of advocacy, journalistic not academic or scholarly. Not even a close question I'm afraid. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a proper noticeboard to discuss if a source meets the requirements by Arbcom. This is only to comment if a source was RS. I think this specific question can be answered only directly by Arbcom (at the "Clarification and Amendment") because it's not entirely clear what they wanted to accomplish by such restriction. To improve content? OK, but if that was their intention, then why using strong RS, such as this book, would be forbidden? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

When maps and postal addresses do not match up.
We have an issue over at Tommy Robinson (and maybe at related articles).

The government says Onley Prison is a men’s prison is in Warwickshire [], as does (it seems) most sources [] . However over at [[HM Prison Onley is listed as Nothhampronsgire based upon this []. So which do we use?
 * (Followed you her from TR) The crux here is that an address need not be a location. Because it's on the border with Warks, it's close enough to fall under a CV postcode, and therefore the address is written 'CV-, Warwickshire' because of course, it would be bizarre for an address to use a postcode that didn't match the county. But Postcode areas can range far beyond their actual counties. For example, King's Lynn, Norfolk has a Peterborough (PE) Postcode—but we wouldn't address a letter to King's Lynn, PE- ---, Cambridgeshire'.I'd say this is a case of WP:SKYBLUE; or, use the map and cite map. ——  Serial  13:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing which of these is supposed to be based on a postal address. As a person whose postal municipality does not line up with my actual municipality, it is obvious to me that postal municipality is not reliable for geographical location, but I am unfamiliar with these sources so I'm not sure which may be in error. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the King [ Citation Needed ] Of Wikipedia [ Citation Needed ] we hereby declare the following:
 * If we are talking about a physical location -- "Woolfardisworthy is in Devonshire" or "Woolfardisworthy is in Torridge" -- use the map. If we are specificly talking about a postal address -- "Woolfardisworthy is in the Exeter postcode area or "The post town for Woolfardisworthy is " -- use the postal address.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Go with the location that is commonly referenced in reliable, mainstream sources. I am unfamiliar with UK addresses, but in the US, it is common for an address inside an unincorporated county to use the name of one of nearby cities and the same address can have several different city name variants. Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not so familar with the UK context but in general I'd go by the county boundary as shown on maps (assuming the map is reliable. Google Maps certainly isn't; I'm not familiar with Streetmap.) County boundaries would presumably be legally defined whereas postal boundaries are for the convenience of the postal service and change at random.
 * What seems strange in this case is that the map clearly shows the prison complex to be in Northamptonshire but the prison web site says it is in Warwickshire based on the closest town being Rugby. The site appears to be in a tongue of Northamptonshire which crosses a canal into what would otherwise be Warwickshire, and the prison itself only appears to be accessible by road through Warwickshire.
 * Maybe describe it was "a short distance south-east of Rugby, Warwickshire"? Technically correct, as Rugby is in Warwickshire, and is the nearest town to the prison that I've ever heard of, but doesn't actually say that the prison itself is in Warwickshire? Daveosaurus (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This really isn't a case of reliable sources, this is a case of oversimplifying a complicated geographic anomaly. And, I might add, not one that is all that rare, especially in the UK, where there are Multiple meanings of county, and where borders change frequently enough, and where postal systems (i.e. who delivers the mail) may not use the correct county, etc. etc. etc.  What we've got is a minor bit of trivia which requires much more text to explain correctly than its own value.  At best, it might be efficient to describe it "Near the town of Rugby, Warwickshire" and then add an explanatory footnote about the prison being near the border but physically located in Northamptonshire.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Coalition of Women for Peace/ WhoProfits.org
Is the Coalition of Women for Peace/WhoProfits.org a reliable source to be used in the IP Conflict area? On Israeli wine it is used without inline attribution. WhoProfits pdf, Coalition of Women for Peace Sir Joseph (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It is a highly partisan advocacy group with a clear agenda. It can only be used for its opinions, not facts. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC) user disallowed from participating per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4
 * Its not clear when its WP:DUE maybe only on thier own wiki page. --Shrike (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably ok for the claim being made, that Shimshon wines are made with grapes which are grown within the Occupied Territories. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, do they? Stating any further analysis from them would require attribution. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the question here. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If no one disagrees with it you could find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an academic source here, but tbh I don't think it is necessarily. All you need to do is look at a map of Israeli wine regions to see that the report is correct. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bald assertions dont really help determine reliability, use by other reliable sources do. The journal article Boynamedsue shared cites this specific Who Profits study. A bald assertion that it is "highly partisan" or has a "clear agenda" by an unnamed person on the internet holds no weight next to the considered views of academic expert, and those assertions should be ignored. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also add that being highly partisan does not disqualify a source. I had not noticed that the academic source cites Who Profits?, to me that more or less nails it on. This Who Profits? report is WP:RS for uncontroversial statements of fact, and is notable on the topic of Israeli wine.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable This outfit is advocacy oriented so better to attribute for anything that might be contentious. It is cited by scholarly rs with reasonable frequency and their reports appear to be mainly factual, no complaints that I know of, so that tips it for me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that the claim in question is not remotely contentious. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable just to further clarify the evident merit of "Forbidden fruit? The Israeli Wine Industry and the Occupation", it gets 8 citations from academic sources on google scholar. Given this is a fairly niche topic, and this is the work of an advocacy group, I think that's enough to establish notability and RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems like it can be can be easily resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, but perhaps I'm missing something. Just attribute the statement. And bluelink the source of that statement in said attribution, to the relevant article. It is indeed an advocacy group, but from what I'm reading: this appears to be a relatively non-controversial statement of fact, but given the source, it's better to not use Wikipedia's voice. Bare in mind such a move has no affect on determining its future reliability in any other circumstance. But this seems much ado about nothing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. The very name makes this clear. "Coalition of women for peace." Advocacy group. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, this is an advocacy group. If a reliable sources uses their information, after vetting it thoroughly, then that is usable, but the site itself is not. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adoring nanny, 11Fox11 Which wikipolicy states advocacy groups are not RS? WP:RS specifically states that opinionated sources can be used.Symmachus Auxiliarus Where the source is used to give the opinions of the group it is attributed, the borders of the occupied territories and the location of the Israeli wine regions are statements of fact that are not disputed by anybody. There is no need for attribution in this case, per WP:RS statements only require attribution if they are disputed or opinion. WP:UNDUE might have been relevant, but notability has been demonstrated by widespread academic citation.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously reliable - this specific article has been cited in a number of academic works, such as Environment and Planning A, Gastronimica, The Journal of Food Studies and Comparative Studies in Society and History. Usage in unquestionably reliable sources demonstrates the reliability of this source, and as far as the claim that an advocacy group (who exactly is against peace anyway?) is not reliable, that is not a criteria that WP:RS gives as determining reliability. Usage by high quality sources however is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance
The Institute of National Remembrance is a Polish authority in charge of researching, archiving and prosecuting WWII and Communist-era crimes. It was nicknamed the "Ministry of Memory" by scholars.

Starting on March 4th the article underwent a "cleanup" of criticisms, including some high profile sources (cf. before and after). Some of the removals include:
 * An interview with historian Gideon Greif as "low quality"
 * A paper of record as "not meeting source requirements" (see discussion)
 * An article by historian Jan Grabowski for "[involving] personal dispute"
 * A criticism by the Simon Wiesenthal Center as "outdated recentism"

Considering the scope of the changes - I've challenged 28 of the diffs myself - I'd rather more eyes were on this. Discussion is taking place here. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This was originally posted at NPOVN, but since the issues encompass both NPOV and RS I've decided to move it here. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FR, I thought you were going to wait for my full response before escalating the dispute.  Volunteer Marek   21:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't "escalation" - you made close to 40 edits in the span of a few hours, and I doubt that page even has enough watchers to go through them, so I'm inviting others. What I wrote has to do with the risk of fragmenting the discussion (you only replied on six of the points, and I wasn't sure if you're even going to reply on the rest), not with asking others to opine. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway. It's not true it was "nicknamed"... anything. One scholar called it that though despite the fact that some editors are trying to pretend otherwise, this wasn't meant in a negative way. It was described as a "Ministry of Memory" in the sense of an institution, like many others across the world (for example, Yad Vashem), whose task is to preserve historical memory.
 * For others - the Greif link, youtube interviews are indeed low quality sources and that reference wasn't even needed. Haaretz does indeed does not meet sourcing requirements here, particularly with an article based on information provided by user who has been globally banned by the WMF (which you know very well for obvious reason). Even without the sourcing restriction we wouldn't be using this.
 * The AP source is also problematic. First WP:NOTNEWS. This is old stuff and has not received long standing coverage. Second, man, just look at that headline: "Poland urged to fire publisher". Like, wtf? Is "Poland" a person or something? Like do you ever see a source that says something like "United States urged to fire a publisher"? Or is "France" ever "urged" to do something? "Canada urged to be less polite" "Mexico urged to host fewer parties" (actually I wouldn't be surprised if there was a headline like that) "Germany urged to do something about its popular music". "Malta urged to honor more cats". "Britain urged to implement sinks in its bathrooms that actually make sense". Whoever wrote that headline is seriously tone deaf. The headline is just a prime example of some real bias, bigotry and prejudice - when you treat a whole country as if it was some kind of a monolith with everyone in it sharing all the same characteristic. Anyway, that info IS outdated.  Volunteer Marek   21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "Ministry of Memory" was used by historian Dariusz Stola (2012) and political scientists Valentin Behr (2014) and Tomasz Stryjek (2018); the latter two explicitly tie this to Orwell.
 * The Greif interview is not a random video, but an upload by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as cite episode just as well and you'd be none the wiser.
 * Haaretz is a papers of record that routinely covers the situation in Poland. That particular piece cites historians Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, and was subsequently referenced or syndicated by a dozen global outlets, from the Corriere della Sera to Deutschlandfunk Nova.
 * We're citing the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the IPN itself, not the AP headline, but if it bothers you so much we can cite at least the Center directly. As for NOTNEWS - that's debatable, especially as there are so many of these "NOTNEWS" events with the IPN... I'm not sure how it's "outdated", though - did something happen with the publisher since then?
 * And these are just four diffs out of 38... Shall we take it back to the TP? François Robere (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * latter two explicitly tie this to Orwell Ummmm... they "tie it to Orwell" by explicitly noting but NOT in an Orwellian sense. Come on FR! If a source "but not in the sense X" and you show up and say "look! The source ties it to X!" that's kind of... inaccurate. It's as if we were discussing some person making lots of money and I said "they made lots of money but not in a dishonest way" and someone said "see! the source ties their riches to dishonesty!". That would be a pretty straightforward misrepresentation.  Volunteer Marek   15:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Behr (2014): "Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance (INR) is often referred to as the “History Ministry” or “Memory Ministry.” The success of this Orwellian terminology is undoubtedly largely due to the media controversies that its work has often provoked... [but] it would be wrong to see the INR solely in this light. Beginning in 2005, it became the vanguard of Poland’s “historical policy,” a fully-fledged government historical program aimed at serving the state’s presumed interests that was commissioned by Poland’s new leaders."
 * Stryjek (2018), in the context of "identity policy" and the politicization of the institute: "[The] previous management was ready to get feedback from representatives of the Polish humanist professorship and learn how experts evaluate their activities, organizing conferences on its image and duties every few years... Under the new management, these directions of research and action were abandoned. Concentrating almost all the functions of the state’s remembrance policy in Poland, the National Remembrance Institute, together with the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN), approached the ideal of the Orwellian “Ministry of Memory”." François Robere (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry, thought this was referring to Stola who explicitly states "not Orwellian". The Behr quote is referring to the terminology which is used in regard to the Institute in political discourse not to the institute itself.
 * As far as the "Ministry of Memory"... this is honestly kind of strange. The name of the institution is Institute of National REMEMBERANCE. Remembrance. In fact a possible translation of the name into English would be Institute of National Memory (though that's not how sources have translated it). So why exactly is it suppose to be surprising that the word "Memory" is mentioned? It's the same thing as "Remembrance". And the existence of such an institute is not at all unusual in countries with big historical traumas.   Volunteer Marek   22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the Grief interview was not even necessary and in this particular instance may not meet sourcing requirements.
 * You know very well what the background of the Haaretz piece is so why are you going out of your way to avoid addressing that background? Should we really use pieces that really on mis-info provided by users who have been indefinetly banned, for good reason, by the Wikimedia Foundation? (Neither Grabowski nor Drayfuss is the part being cited here - and neither is an expert on Wikipedia, which is what they're being quoted for, and both are making fairly ridiculous assertions about how Wikipedia works ("hundreds" of editors being paid by the government of Poland to edit Wikipedia articles - lol lol lol)
 * Again, NOTNEWS and outdated.  Volunteer Marek   23:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Greif was one of three sources. That's not WP:TOOMANYREFS.
 * why are you going out of your way to avoid addressing that background Because, put simply - it's not covered by Policy. Of course I know Icewhiz is a sore spot for several in the community, yourself included, and I try to respect that; but from where I'm standing this is just another source, and there's nothing in Policy to suggest that we should discard it if it otherwise 'fits the bill'.
 * Neither Grabowski nor Drayfuss is the part being cited here They are. The statement in the text is about politicization, and both experts are cited in that context. Dreifuss: "Since the law changed, the IPN’s fundamental role has changed. Today their official mission statement is to defend Poland’s reputation, and it is in that light that they should be viewed." Grabowski: "today [the IPN] are focused on Holocaust distortion – they are very simply the new face of this revisionism".
 * The case itself is fairly unusual, you'd agree, and was covered in a bunch of places other than AP. Why is it outdated? François Robere (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * this is just another source - but that's the thing. It's NOT "just another source". It's a source based on misinformation contrived together by Icewhiz, a person who was indef banned by WMF. And actually in both cases where that source was used in the article 1) it was not necessary and 2) it didn't actually support what was being claimed. So there's MORE THAN ONE reason to not use it.
 * I don't know if the case was "unusual". tvn24 and information.dk ... doesn't exactly show widespread coverage. Of something that happened four (?) years ago and hasn't come up since.  Volunteer Marek   01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the experts quoted above were mislead by Icewhiz about the IPN (which is what they're cited for), or that their statements do not support the claim that the IPN is politicized (again what they're cited for)?
 * Re: "necessary" - for an article like this and a claim like that, it's both necessary and common to have 2-3 citations (see WP:TOOMANYREFS), and the fact that you and Piotrus so easily removed two out of the three sort of makes the point.
 * I don't know if the case was "unusual" It's akin to a university press appointing someone who published creationism books as deputy director, which is to say - not at all common, and the fact that the guy kept his job even less so.
 * something that happened four (?) years ago and hasn't come up since Actually it has, in connection with the Greniuch incident. François Robere (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no indication of any sort in the diff you provide to "connection with the Greniuch incident". And what I'm suggesting is that that article just isn't a good source and shouldn't be used.  Volunteer Marek   07:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the diff is just Piotrus's removal of the Greniuch incident from the article; the news bit is the one that ties both. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a fork of the discussion taking place at Talk:Institute_of_National_Remembrance and of little relevance to RSN. Perhaps WP:NPOVN might have been better, or an RfC on article's talk page. If any editor wants to discuss whether a particular source is reliable or not, a section should be started for that source here. On a side note, I don't think there was any 'mass removal of criticism' anyway, this is a rather exaggerated claim (heading). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms appear to be quality publications and opinions of note. The IPN article downplays the awful reputation of the IPN, it is ostracized now by all liberal media in Poland, and criticized world over. It is known for employing political hacks from Law and Justice and even neo-Nazis from ONR in order to appeal to Law and Justice's base. The IPN is described as:
 * "the Institute of National Remembrance, a state body that has spearheaded efforts to keep history on a narrow, patriotic path" -- The New York Times
 * "As part of this struggle, in 1998 Poland created a state-run Institute for National Remembrance (IPN) to research and document losses suffered by the Polish nation under the Nazis and Communists. IPN has a history of ignoring or explaining away Polish complicity with the Nazis. IPN has appointed Dr. Tomasz Greniuch, head of a major city branch. Greniuch, a far-right historian, founded a chapter of the National Radical Camp (ONR) group, a successor to a pre-war antisemitic far-right organization. As the leader of an ONR chapter, Greniuch advocated neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacist ideology, far-right rhetoric and participated in neo-fascist rallies and marches." -- Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum

--Bob not snob (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC) sock puppet
 * tl;dr, sorry, so I checked only diffs with allegedly improper removals:
 * 1) - . That's YouTube.
 * 2)  - This source mentioned the subject of the page only in passing.
 * 3) - Excessive sourcing, the statement is already supported.
 * 4) - Arguably undue on the page: there are many squabbles surrounding this organization; how many of them would we like to keep on the page?
 * Bringing this to WP:RSNB was ... bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't tl;dr this. It took me three hours just to check those 38 diffs; then some more to already explain what's wrong with these four:
 * An interview with historian Gideon Greif... [uploaded] by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as cite episode just as well
 * IPN isn't mentioned "in passing", it's highlighted: Dreifuss: "Since the law changed, the IPN’s fundamental role has changed. Today their official mission statement is to defend Poland’s reputation, and it is in that light that they should be viewed." Grabowski: "today [the IPN] are focused on Holocaust distortion – they are very simply the new face of this revisionism".
 * The only reason that statement is "excessively sourced" is because some editors won't allow more criticisms in the lead, leaving all of the criticisms to be represented by that one statement. We should expand that statement so it's less dense, not cut it further. Also, mind the ref wasn't removed because it was "excessive", but for "involving personal dispute", whatever that means.
 * And shouldn't we mention if "there are many squabbles surrounding this organization"? It's pretty unusual (cf. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes). François Robere (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It took me three hours just to check those 38 diffs; then some more to already explain what's wrong with these four [long explanation]. OK. Obviously, you do not expect such complex content issues to be resolved on this noticeboard? Here people only comment on general reliability of specific sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please read what I wrote: Considering the scope of the changes... I'd rather more eyes were on this. Discussion is taking place here. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But just on the point/diff #4. Oh yes, the story that involves Milan Kundera (Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes) is highly significant and rightly included on the page. By comparison to that, someone working as a director of a publishing house that had published fringe books is absolutely nothing, undue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that "someone published something about Milan Kundera" is more DUE than the IPN appointing a publisher of David Irving as an executive in their publishing house; a right-wing extremist as head of their Wrocław branch, and a Holocaust denialist as head of education in Lublin, in all cases justifying their actions and avoiding action when they're discovered? François Robere (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I can see that one of books by Irving was published by Macmillan Publishers. Does it mean that Macmillan Publishers are somehow right-wing or extremists? My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In 1987, two years before he started publicly denying the Holocaust. You know when when Wingert published him? 2009-2014. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN should really institute a comment limit on involved parties in a dispute. I will say dismissing something as being a youtube link is not valid when it is an upload from a reputable news organization. Though I dont think that meets the sourcing requirements here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . This is a topic area which has been heavily dealt with by ArbCom due to the poor behavior of several editors working in the area.  Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is the relevant case.  Due to a remedy of that case, articles and text dealing with antisemitism in Poland are held to a particularly high standard of sourcing, per WP:APLRS.  Given the LONG history here, of which I believe both principal parties are WELL aware, perhaps this is the sort of thing that needs to be revisited by ArbCom?  This has shown to be beyond the ability of the community to solve.  As noted by MVBW immediately above me, this is not really the kind of thing this forum can solve, and is part of a long-running intractable dispute that has already occupied far too much of Wikipedia's community patience.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They dealt with it, but not "heavily". Despite the complexities of the subject and the connection to past ArbCom cases (WP:ARBEE, WP:EEML) they decided to cast it as a conflict between two editors, with the only TA change being WP:APLRS. It was a much anticipated failure, so I doubt anyone would be eager to go back there any time soon. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we're all eager to keep fighting the same battles for the subsequent two years without remit. Have fun.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing improper sources and making sure that the proper sources aren't being misrepresented is actually doing exactly what ArbCom already mandated (although yeah, you create more rules you get more arguments about what those rules "really mean" and you get some editors who might try to WP:GAME the rules, this kind of thing always happens)  Volunteer Marek   15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And frankly, what makes this topic area such a topic mess is the constant and relentless sock puppetry by a several indef bann'ed editors (Icewhiz, Yanniv, Kaiser von Europa, Jacob Peters, just to name a few). The disputes among long term regulars are really just "normal" what you'd expect from a contentious topic area. But everytime there's a disagreement the socks flood the discussions and pour gasoline on the fire. And everytime one goes away or is banned four more pop up. The 500/30 restriction helps with the most obvious ones but generally until this topic area gets a handle on all the sock puppetry, it will continue to remain a mess.  Volunteer Marek   17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The TA was a mess long before Icewhiz was blocked. I got here on February 2018, and was immediately assumed hostile and my edits stonewalled. I couldn't even get a quote by Irena Sendler in, if it implied that there was some Polish collaboration. Jan Grabowski didn't even have an article, and when he finally had one it contained more criticism than anything we ever had on the +2,000 employee IPN. No, the TA was a mess long before Icewhiz was blocked, but he makes for an easy excuse for why it still is. François Robere (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * " and was immediately assumed hostile and my edits stonewalled" - I guess different people remember what happened differently. As for Grabowski, in all honesty, I'm still not quite convinced he should have his own articles (though I am a bit of a deletionist when it comes to BLPs) so that doesn't really illustrate much of anything.  Volunteer Marek   01:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere, going back to your original post, I would say the following


 * I would agree that youtube videos are hardly a good source for that topic. If the information described there is really important, it is likely to be published elsewhere;


 * Removal of Haarez doesn't look legitimate, at least, I cannot understand the pretext;

In general, I think a solution would be an ARCA: if only best quality sources are allowed per APLRS, what should we do with removal of the best quality sources under a wrong pretext? That is directly relevant to APLRS, because APLRS prevented POV-pushing using questionable sources, but an alternative way for POV-pushing may be removal of good quality sources, thereby shifting balance without adding questionable sources. I think, we should ask what ArbCom thinks about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but the third diff just is a removal of a duplicated reference (no 11);
 * To claim that the Wiesenthal's criticism is an outdated recentism, it is expected to demonstrate that the incident has already been resolved, so there is no need for that criticism anymore. No proof has been provided that that is the case.
 * Hey ,
 * The Greif interview is not a random video, but an upload by the broadcaster, a national television station. I could cite it as cite episode just as well
 * The third source is duplicated, but all of the refs in the lead are, and only those around the critical statement were removed (for various reasons). The reason given for this removal was "[involving] personal dispute".
 * I considered filing for ARCA for a related reason, so perhaps combine both; but it's only one of several problems exemplified in these edits, and I doubt ARCA (or even ArbCom) would solve them. François Robere (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that is a simple math: if APLRS was intended to prevent dilution of good sources with bad ones, removal of good sources is tantamount to addition of bad ones. Therefore, repeated removal of good sources under vague or poorly explained pretext should also be sanctionable at the same extent as addition of poor sources. The key word here is repeated: whereas a single removal may be just a good faith mistake, a repeated removal of sources under questionable and poorly explained pretext, which shifts balance towards some certain POV should inflict serious sanctions on those who commit it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, it's not that simple and in fact that's wrong. Having a good source is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. There could be a lot of other good reasons to remove something cited to a reliable source - it's UNDUE, it's cherry picked, or, quite simply and of most relevance here, the source could be misrepresented (which is the issue with several instances in this particular case). That's one of the big problems in this TA (and prolly on Wikipedia in general) - often times an editor will stick whatever they fancy into an article and then just tack on a citation to reliable looking source to make it look legit, even if the source does not support the text at all.  Volunteer Marek   01:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does not make any sense. The Arbcom remedy does not prohibit removing any sources whatsoever for whatever reason. Neither do the policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * François Robere (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The National Interest
Article: Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed "The International Monetary Fund has also warned Mohamed that debt relief will be 'off the table' if oil blocks are auctioned to companies which are not involved in actual oil exploration." I am wondering if this is a reliable source. Amirah  talk  07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the reliability or lack thereof of The National Interest, the particular article in question is a blog post, so it must stand or fall on the credibility of the author as an expert and should in any case be used with caution. For a report of a warning from the IMF, I would think that other sources would be available and preferred.  John M Baker (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One issue at the top: from the text above, it looks like we're saying that the IMF said the words "off the table" when it's actually quoting the blog post in question. Speaking of attribution...
 * The National Interest is the publication of a conservative think thank, Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center) which exists to advocate a particular foreign policy perspective. It seems to have higher standards than your average think tank publication. Still, if the claim is remotely contentious (and I presume it is, or we wouldn't be here), it should be attributed in the text. In this case, it's also part of the blog rather than the journal, but it's written by a scholar from the Middle East Institute. So, still, not bad if attributed. But none of this is to say it must be included in the article, of course. Doing a quick search doesn't return any other coverage of this, so there's a valid WP:WEIGHT argument to be had on the article talk page. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-Citing in article on James Chuter Ede
I have added a great deal to the article on James Chuter Ede, and believe that the template seeking more citation can now be removed. But I have done this by citing my own published work many times. These are my book James Chuter Ede, by Stephen Hart, published by Pen & Sword, 2021, and my article James Chuter Ede - a Model Unitarian Overlooked, by Stephen Hart, in Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society, 2020.

This should not breach the conflict of interest policy, as self-citation from published works is permitted, provided it is relevant, not excessive, and conforms with policies. I believe there is not a problem in my case, but I would value the confirmation from an independent contributor that this in order. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjshart (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Editors should not have added citation needed templates to each place they thought a citation was required but should have added one general template saying that the article needed more citations. However, in order to remove the notice, you need to provide specific cites for the information, i.e., page numbers.
 * Articles should have multiple sources and not rely primarily on one source. However, it's probable that your book is the only recent biography.
 * On another point, I did not think that the British Nationality Act 1948 allowed all citizens of the UK and colonies to reside in the UK, but that the right already existed for British subjects under common law. It's particularly confusing because later versions of the act would specifically restrict immigration from British Overseas Territories.
 * TFD (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD, for your help. I have added citations where another editor added several requests for them, in many cases citing page numbers in the same source, but others where possible. This book is the first biography ever of the subject, so there is little else to cite. I take your point about the British Nationality Act, and have modified the text accordingly.