Articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. But forget that, anything goes, really, regardless of author’s reputation, publisher’s outlook, reviews, or lack thereof, as long as it’s just ‘facts’, ‘entirely unexceptional’, ‘unremarkable’ and / or not too ‘blatant’. If any content happens to be ‘blatant’, we would just ‘turn down the volume’. Any source, even if criticized, can be used ‘freely’ for ‘uncriticised elements’. ‘it's all contextual’ and citations to questionable sources, in general, are ‘not problematic [when] they cite facts not opinions’. If ‘there are no other sources which provide a conflicting opinion’, that’s even better, because this lets us include any detail too obscure for reputable historians to notice. This guidance applies especially to our GA articles because ‘this is an online encyclopedia, constructed by volunteers, not professional historians’.[1]
References
- ^ So quit your whining about these so-called unreliable sources and undue details. If you find some claims to be 'exceptional', ‘perhaps this is (politely) just your POV’.