Talk:Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone

Critical reception

My edit here has been reverted by David Gerard. Why can a review written by Peter Hitchens not be used as a reliable source for the views of Peter Hitchens with regard to the work reviewed? WP:DAILYMAIL states: "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. … The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." And WP:RSOPINION states: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." The inclusion of the material is warranted as it demonstrates that the series has received praise from both the left (The Guardian) and the right (Peter Hitchens). Khiikiat (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Because that's not what ABOUTSELF means - it means facts about the Daily Mail itself, which this isn't. This is made as clear as it can be at the top of WP:ABOUTSELF itself - a review running in the paper really obviously doesn't count. For the opinion: as it's a deprecated source, we prima facie don't care about its opinion. Is Hitchens a noted expert on Russian history? No, he is not. So it's extremely unlikely to pass WP:DUE - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure your very narrow interpretation of "in an about-self fashion" is correct. Furthermore, this is not an article about Russian history; it is an article about a television series and the response to that series. Stuart Jeffries and Dan Einav are not noted experts on Russian history either, but their opinions have been included. Peter Hitchens was, at least, living in the Soviet Union during the period in question. Khiikiat (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Can a TV review published in The Mail on Sunday be used as a reliable source for the views of the author (in this case, Peter Hitchens) with regard to the TV series reviewed? Can this edit be restored? Khiikiat (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Khiikiat: You don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this, it's a matter for WP:RSN. Just ask your question there, don't make it an RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

indeed - you can't override a broad deprecation RFC with a local talk page discussion - you risk falling into an invalid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Take it to RSN if you think it'll fly there - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot to the now-deleted RFC) First a disclaimer, I'm against all such over generalizations regarding sources and am also quick to point out that the linked overgeneralization page is neither a policy or a guideline. A better criteria is expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. So, regarding the source, it's clearly suitable to support that Peter Hitchens said that. Next is whether or not Hitchen's view should go into the article. My second disclaimer is that everything I know about Hitchens I learned in the last 5 minutes. My thought would be to include. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you for replying even though the RfC had been deleted. I have raised the matter on WP:RSN as Redrose64 and David Gerard suggested. Khiikiat (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64: Khiikiat did take it to WP:RSN, it's now archived here: Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone. I was part of the thin 3-2 pro-restore majority but don't think that's enough participation. If the matter is brought again as an RfC on this talk page, will you object again? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Archived or not, it seems clear to me: the source is not admissible. But regardless of that, you should not start a discussion on the talk page of one single article with the intention of overturning a broad-scope community consensus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)