Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 110

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure overall. But the idea that the information comes only from memoirs does not seem to be correct. It has been widely reported in the news media, so I do not think there is a PRIMARY problem, provided the information is properly contextualised. Nor is there likely to be any OR problem, unless an editor wants to advance a new theory not outlined elsewhere.

Recentism may be more of an issue, but you will see from the guidance that it is far from clear what exactly should be done about that. --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Concern - All the recent news coverage stem from interviews with Davern, the boat captain, piggybacked on a police announcement they are reopening the case. The police deny that Wagner is a suspect and say they are not going to interview Wagner. Davern went on a media blitz to advertise the re-release of his book in which he changes his story from saying Wagner was not at fault to saying Wagner was at fault. Hence the interviews. There is no new information from any other source. If you look at the sources, you will see they only report what Davern says. Look at the Daily Mail referenced here. It is a well known
  WP:UNDUE? MathewTownsend (talk
  ) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The book is clearly a primary source account, and I would say given the contentious nature of the various accounts—in relation to an incident that could well be a crime—then using primary sources should be a strict no-no. Any details of the incident should strictly stick to secondary sources. If secondary sources aren't propagating this version of events then you really have to ask whether Wikipedia should be? Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Further comment: It seems that plenty of secondary sources are being used; CNN and Time are certianly both reliable sources, and although I disagree about the Daily Mail that is generally regarded as reliable too. This clearly isn't an RS issue, because you have secondary sources interpreting a primary source account; that is the purpose of secondary sources. There is a neutrality problem if only one person's account is being represented though; since that account is biased against Wagner then Wagner's account should be given equal consideration, and the official finds at the time should be represented too. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The police ruled her death an accidental drowning at the time. They recently announced they are reopening the case based on "new information", but they have not elaborated on that statement and not revealed what the "new information" is, other than stating Wagner is not a suspect, that he has not been contacted and they don't intend to interview him. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the sources are ok in this context; the secondary sources obviously use Davner's book, but all information has to come from a primary source at some point, and as a material witness to the events leading up to and at the time of her death then Davner's point of view is notable and should be given
  WP:BLPN and get their input. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• ok, thanks Betty. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Request a second opinion - Could someone else take a look at this? Davner is accusing Robert Wagner of causing his wife's death. The homicide detectives investigating this case have stated that Robert Wagner is not a suspect. The "primary" source in this case is Davner's recent Good Morning America" appearance to promote his book. His book is not used as a reference. The sources used in the "Death" section quote Davern as saying that Wagner is responsible for Natalie Wood's death.

• "Asked on America’s Today breakfast TV show yesterday if he thought Wagner was responsible for Wood’s death, Davern replied: ‘Yes, I would say so. Yes.’"[1]
• "When pressed by Gregory, Davern said he believed Wagner had intentionally kept the investigation into her death low-profile. And when asked if he thought Wagner was "responsible" for Wood's death, Davern said, "yes, I would say so. Yes."[2]
• Also:New Natalie Wood Accusations Aimed at Robert Wagner

Per

WP:BLP

concerns, are these reliable sources to accuse a living person of a crime?

Many thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The above editor who opened this RfC seems to now be
  talk
  ) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Betty Logan above advised Mathew to run it by BLPN to see if there was any issues.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Accusing an editor, who stated a few times that he has little experience in going to admin boards, by throwing that list of links is way overboard and insensitive to
    talk
    ) 22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • According to Townsend on his own talk page today, he is new to editing but not new to "looking around", indicating he doesn't want any guidance or help with how things work here. Earlier today, he claimed ignorance in how to do things in Wikipedia. At this point - along with the personal attacks and lack of good faith he's now exhibiting after being advised to slow down and that
      talk
      ) 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• [redacted] per advice from [3]

I withdraw my request for further comment here. The suggestion to take my concern to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard was a good one. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I need some help assessing the reliability of the

Re: reliability, Franklin Lamb appears to be a previously published expert on the middle east, so likely his opinion could be seen as having weight in itself, but it probably shouldn't be represented as unattributed fact on Wikipedia. Have you looked around to see if other sources cover the same material? It does raise some redflag/fringe/weight concerns that a movement that is described as quite significant and given that much weight within the article is only verified by one source that is admittedly out of the mainstream. If no other sources can be found, I think it would be appropriate to at least give clear inline attribution. Perhaps off topic, but I also have some

WP:CRYSTAL concern with having representitives for a movement describe all the wonderful things they plan to do. Might be better to just describe what has actually happened so far. Siawase (talk

) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There are other no reliable sources covering this exact 'movement', but Lamb's article mentions

WP:CRYSTALic in any case.--Anders Feder (talk

) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, Lamb's credentials: books on Lebanon and Palestine[7] "A researcher at the American University of Beirut"[8] bio[9]

With the combined strength of the two sources, I think something less specific about loyalists still being active might be appropriate to include, perhaps with more focus on Aisha Gaddafi and less on the "movement" per se. At least, I don't see any reliability issues as long as it's attributed correctly ("CounterPunch contributor Franklin Lamb said" or some such) but I can't speak to weight issues since I haven't looked too closely at the article. Siawase (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Counter-Punch is a solid left wing source. Print the fact, attribute the source, disclaim on bias in the footnote if necessary. This should be a universal at WP instead of the ludicrous pretense that some publications like the New York Times and Time are godshead and everything else shouldn't be used. Print objective truth, identify biases, represent all sides in a debate — it's not that difficult. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the specific query, the sentence should begin "According to PERSON X in an article published in SOURCE Y, blah blah blah...." Identify where the info is coming from and let readers make their own determinations. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very confused. I am trying to find reliably sources for the date granted, who or what granted to and the correct heraldic (is it?) charges for

• Isle of Ely: Gules three Ducal Coronets two and one Or. which I believe, from Civic Heraldry (assigned to Etheldreda? Granted 1290 to Bishop William de Luda), is the Bishopric of Ely which is different in VCH Cambridge and the Isle of Ely vol. IV p. 51 as Gules three crowns or. (Seal of Bishop William of Louth 1290–8), op. cit. p. 118 Argent three bars wavy azure and a pile gules charged with three crowns or. (granted 1931) and also in Heraldry of the World as Diocese of Ely and this image from the market place, Ely, confusingly Cambridgeshire And Isle Of Ely County Council (granted 1965) and finally this image from commons
• Three Keys: This image of three keys has me stumped. The picture was taken recently by me on the south side of Ely, Cambridgeshire market place against the Almonry wall. This particular shield is on the right hand side of the World War II memorial. The three crowns image was taken at the same time and is located on the left hand side of the same memorial. This shield is not in VCH and I do not know enough heraldry to form the words necessary to search heraldic sites for this shield. It may possible be St Peter as indicated by Heraldry of Medieval Flanders though that is just a guess on my part though two keys (charges?) are indicated for St Peter here. Wait: Just remembered. Ely Cathedral is The Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity so are the three keys the Holy and Undivided Trinity?

--Senra (Talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Website for St Wulstan's, Malvern here shows the coat of arms with the three keys vertically, ascribing them to Ely, presumably (as it says at the top) a Benedictine house with a cathedral prior.Ning-ning (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the following webpages reliable for the notability of Graig Weich? I've been told that GPX Gaming and Geek Propaganda are "huge", but I'm not sure. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.gpxgaming.net/comic-books/446-interview-with-beyond-comics-graig-weich.html
• http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=4574
• http://geekpropaganda.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/graig-f-weich-is-part-of-what-makes-nyc-comic-con-fun/
• http://www.comicrelated.com/news/13785/watch-john-interview
• http://moarpowah.com/2011/10/27/silverwolfs-den-interview-with-graig-weich/
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/294-book-comic-company-interviews/8537-beyond-comics-interview
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/258-movie--series-interviews/8539-ravedactyl-life-beyond-death
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/259-book-interviews/8538-code-name-justice-interview
• http://movieandeventreview.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/graig-weich/

Geek Propaganda's Alexa rank is 4,229,756 i think it is far from "huge"[10]. GPX Gaming's Alexa rank is 4,411,147 it too is far from "huge" [11]. Eopsid (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not the most central criterion. Reliability is. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that these sites have editorial oversight, or a reputation for reliable reporting? In regard to GPX Gaming, this is not reassuring. Moarpowah at least lists staff members, see [12], but these seem to me to fall into the realm of fansites, and we generally do not consider them reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to gauge whether a website has editorial oversight. I mean, sometimes there are About Us pages or contributors page that indicate this, but often there are not, which is why I come here to ask you guys. Is it true that GPX Gaming and KGeek have been mentioned on G4 and that MTV show about comics? And what precisely is it about that GPX page you linked to that troubles you? Nightscream (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are either of these RS for the connection between the myth of "scorpion men" in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the constellation and star sign Scorpio?

• Lewis Spence, Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, 1916, pp.182-183.
• Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia.

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Spence is a famous fringe author, an early version of Velikovsky or von Daniken. He obviously cannot be considered a reliable source on a scholarly topic like mythology.

The White book is self-published by a fake publishing house. No evidence that the author has any qualifications to write on the topic. Obviously not a reliable source for anything. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DV and glad I asked, because I was thinking Spence looked scholarly for his period. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Spence reference could be used to support the references already given, but since that point is already adequately supported, it seems unnecessary to add another. Gavin White's book is not an academic publication, but it is well known, and White's opinions, as expressed in his work, can be seen to be reported by other authors (check this on Google books and Google scholar, in addition to a a wide exposure of his ideas via web-references). His opinion is worthy of reference where he neatly summarises non-controversial points that have been made by many others. This is not a problem where the text is clear in attributing the views to him personally - as is the case here, where it reads: "Gavin White, author of Babylonian Star Lore, writes ..." -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong, it is a problem - As a SPS, we need further evidence that he can be considered an expert. What reliable mainstream sources indicate that he is an expert in this area? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And there's also the problem that, as an SPS, he can only speak for himself, and can't be used as an representative example of the "astrological community" at large, or even a part of it. Pretty much makes it useless as a source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cameron (and others), if the point were reliant on White’s text then I agree more support of his position would be necessary. But the point is widely reported and already referenced to a number of other texts that make the same point. At the end of the day the Gavin White reference is not a big deal - it can easily be replaced, but the bigger problem is that nothing is deemed acceptable to Itsmejudith or Dominus Vobisdu. Be aware of the situation on the discussion page of the article. Dominus Vobisdu and Itsmejudith habitually support each others' arguments but are directly involved in content disputes in this and other astrology-related articles. Dominus Vobisdu recently self-imposed a topic ban on himself when his edit warring on the Scorpio page and his blatant hostily to the subject and all of its sources was called into question. You can see from the diffs in my latest post why Itsmejudith has a motive of prohibiting referenced information, whilst happily proposing the inclusion of her own unreliable and unreferenced content. After a 'dubious' tag was placed next to one of her unreferenced remarks, she stated that her future contributions "will only revert and remove, not try and be positive and find encyclopedic sources or add anything".

This reliable sources noticeboard is a place that should bring balance and helpful resolutions to situations that have become impossible because they are too heavily affected by bias and anti-fringe agenda. I would ask for a fair consideration of the content below, which she has just blanked with the edit summary suggestion that it has no reliable sources and a talk page condemnation that my addition of a reference to Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald Hawkins is "wasting everyone's time". Gerald Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University and a highly reputable author; famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy. Here is a Google scholar search on his title. But we are not exploding the borders of science here - just attempting to include some basic information on what is reported of the zodiac signs' mythological associations. Unfortunately all sections of the article get subjected to this treatment on a regular basis, and not so long ago a mainly unreferenced report of the myth was about all Itsmejudith considered to be acceptable information on the page (see here).

I and other editors are willing to improve the content and add whatever further references are deemed necessary. But we need the impartial assistance of this board's experienced contributors because all definitions of what constitutes a reliable source for this subject have been squashed. There appears to be lots of double standards exhibited by the other two contributors to this thread so more independent eyes are necessary. The argument - explicitly stated by Dominus Vobisdu - is that there are no reliable sources for this subject. References to well known traditional astrology texts and the works of its most influential historical authorities are rejected with the suggestion that WP does not approve of references to primary sources; more recent older works are deemed out of date, recent works are either in-universe or "feature fringe", and any academic work that covers this subject cannot be treated seriously. So can those with good experience of dealing with sources for controversial topics please help to define some sensible guidelines, so that if the passage below is not seen as suitably referenced, editors who are trying to develop the content can have a better idea of what a suitable reference might be?

It is understandable when editors such as DVobisdu and Itsmejudith, who have shown a strong dislike of a field like astrology,[13] that they should seek to marginalise it. Continually and unreasonably questioning sources will further that campaign and frustrate editors like Zac who is using expertise to try to improve WP articles such as this in a neutral and uncontroversial way. Requiring peer-reviewed or equivalent scholarly sources for a page like

I have pointed out in the 'General astrology sources' thread that no one has given a good reason why the deleted comments were not adequately referenced since I presented them in context. If there are good reasons why that content is not appropriate can these be given; otherwise I'll assume that the refs are not a problem for this content and return it to the article, along with others from Brown's work which show that the sign is of Babylonian origin, not Greek, as some editors seem to want the article to imply. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Richard C. Hoagland
• After providing no sources for 3 edits,(all reverted as unsourced, plus 2 previous edits by an IP which is probably this editor before they created this account which is so far an SPA for this information),
  WP:RELIABLE source? Especially for the material pertaining to Dick Cheney. Another editor reverted with "Bell and/or Jones is not a credible source re Hoagland/Cheney" as an edit summary, and I am inclined to agree, but would like outside opinions. Heiro
  04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you complained about the unsourced information, and kept erasing it, I spent over an hour finding the appropriate show, and adding all the appropriate tags to get all the links to go to the proper places. Now that the information is in there, you once again took it out, I did want you wanted and put in the sources, but now that is not enough for you for some reason. The coast to coast references to Elenin and YU55, & Hubble Space Telescope do not have a reference to the appropriate show where it was mentioned in audio form. I went and took the time to find the appropriate audio, and none of the others did that, however they are acceptable by you for some reason. If you listen to the audio stream on the youtube link, you will come across the information I mentioned. There are no sites that have word for word what was said during a five hour talk show. If there is a problem, you should look at the other links to coast to coast that do not have a reference to the audio in question. Also Richard mentions speaking with Cheney, however there is no audio of him talking to him, therefore I cannot put a direct link to their conversation that he mentioneed on the show. Also if you take out the reference to Cheney, there is no reason for this particular post to be in wikipedia, since the discussion with Cheney is the whole reason for the post. Also I have had this account for years, so you can check that out, Im sure its logged somewhere, I just didnt make it to edit the Hoagland information. DocHolliday 360 01:27, 1 December 2011 (EST)

First, if you add ~~~~ after your posts, it automatically signs it for you so you don't have to type out all of that. Second, until your two edits to this page, all of your other edits are to the Hoagland article, seven of them, starting just a few days ago, I assumed you were a new account because of this, sorry. Heiro 06:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Point of information - Doc Holliday360 was created in 2009, though they only started editing recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Doc_Holliday360 Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted some recent edits in the article. The beauty of

As I was immediately reverted, I have raised the issue at BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong :) A YouTube video of a broadcast may be reliable: I think the reason we don't use them is that they are (almost certainly) copyvio.

I'd say that inserting commentary about the failure to ask or answer questions (unless we can find some secondary source that discusses the interview at this level of detail) is inappropriate and, in any case, useless. Andrew Dalby 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's slightly nuanced than that. If we set aside the copyvio thing for a moment, a youtube video would almost certainly be a reliable source for what the people on that video are saying or doing. For example, a youtube video of an interview is probably accurate when it comes to the interviewee's beliefs or claims (though they might have been asked leading questions, or deceptively edited); it doesn't necessarily mean that the claims are true. This might seem like a petty distinction but on controversial issues there are lots of people who put videos on youtube pushing their particular side of a debate. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is Stop Online Piracy Act. As there was a rush to cover a lot of material in a short time (there was a committee hearing on the bill Nov 16) I let this discussion go at the time, but I'd like some feedback, primarily out of curiosity. The quote was rather long and the article now contains many other quotes so it may not go back in even if there's a consensus that Boing Boing is reliable for this purpose.

It does seem to me that it is, though, and if it is not, I'd like some feedback on why it isn't, in furtherance of my wiki-education. So. I have looked at the previous three mentions of Boing Boing on this board. None got a great deal of response.

• One seems to say that Boing Boing's website can be used for attribution in a mention of a Boing Boing staffing issue in the site's Wikipedia article, which is substantive and rated B-class by the way, so the publication is notable to the Wikipedia community.
• Another mention here, concerning an article on an Australian ISP, discounts it as a blog. The discussion page for that article also shows editors agreeing that the Boing Boing citation was unnecessary since a print newspaper had also written on the policy they wanted to document.
• The third revolves around whether Boing Boing +
  Wikileaks is more reliable than a literary publication called The Believer
  for an article about a libel suit over an incest allegation withdrawn by the alleged victim after the story aired on CBS. It seems to have drawn some "maybe" answers without convincing the advocate for The Believer or really reaching consensus, although the literary magazine seemed to have more and firmer responses.

The issue in the SOPA article is changes to copyright law that the the proposed legislation would make. Cory Doctorow, an Boing Boing co-editor, has his own B-class article describing him as a "blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who serves as co-editor of the blog Boing Boing...an activist in favour of liberalising copyright laws and a proponent of the Creative Commons organization." He has published a book on the topic of copyright for which Tim O'Reilly wrote a forward (see footnote 36 of the wikipedia article). He has been a Fulbright scholar at the University of Southern California and director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. There's more, but I think that qualifies him to speak on matters of copyright, doesn't it? He does not have a mention on this noticeboard.

The material that got removed went: Canadian journalist and blogger Cory Doctorow, who co-founded the popular social media site Boing Boing, explains his objection to that process: "When small sites, and it's the small sites that get turned off in the night and no one for the most part notices, say my friend's political blog or news site gets blocked by the US government and she has no way to get it back up even though everything she did was legal according to current law, and no one can help her except she can choose to file suit to defend herself, I feel like I die inside a little," cited to http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop-sopa-save-the-internet.html.

This is an opinion, and the citation was used for attribution. I believe that Boing Boing would be RS for this purpose but if I am mistaken I'd appreciate it someone could explain why.

A second, slightly different question also, if I may: The same edit removed a citation to the same article that was meant to support "The US

My second question has two parts: Would Doctorow/Boing Boing have been a reliable source for this statement, and two, if so, could it be used for the quote that was in place when it was removed? Thank you kindly for reading this and for any thoughts that you may have. Elinruby (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page and rephrase your request for RS/N editors to comment, as I find your exposition confusing in the extreme. For each claim, follow the process at the top of the article, in a clearly separate group of text. In particular dot points may help you. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Was wondering why nobody answered. It's that far out of format? My apologies. I don't have time for structural edits just this second, but I'll come back and fix this, probably later today. Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is just so confusingly written it is impossible to tell what the source is, what the link to the source is, where you're describing the source, what you're describing the source's use in the article as, what the article is, and what's ancillary discussion. It doesn't help that you're asking for three[?] sources to be evaluated at once (easy!) but you weave them into each other so I can't make head nor tail. I'm not even confident to give my opinion on Doctorow here because I don't know who is using him where for what and what source of his they're using! Fifelfoo (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not complaining. If you are genuinely confused then I did not explain well. Trying again below.

restating the questions as requested

The editorial that is questioned is Doctorow, Cory, Stop SOPA, Save the Internet, Boing Boing, Nov 11 2011. The link is here. The article is Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.

The article at one point cited this editorial in two places. Both were removed, one without explanation I believe, and the other with an edit summary about "misattribution."

The first footnote was purely for attribution, ie Cory Doctorow, a co-editor of Boing Boing, said this. It seems to me that this is surely RS for that at least? However, as overkill, I discussed the three prior mentions here of Boing Boing, which seem mixed.

I then say that I think that Doctorow qualifies as an expert on copyright, based on the qualifications I mention above, because the other footnote was for a statement of fact:

"The US

Paypal or Visa

to stop doing business with, and search engines to stop displaying results for, sites found to infringe on copyright."

Hopefully that makes it clearer what I am asking and why? If not, let me know and I will try again. Thanks, and sorry this took so long -- been a bit unwell. Elinruby (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • thanks. Doctorow is an expert on copyright politics and his opinion is notable. His use for the article text quoted is reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would like to get this cleared up, therefore looking for multiple responses, especially from uninvolved regulars. Can astrology-related articles, or any articles come to that, use

Generally speaking, I think we would treat older sources such as these as primary sources. I think they would be reliable for their own views, but we'd want to avoid them as sources for assertions about astrology in general. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an extensive popular literature on astrology, with an internal system of judging quality and hierarchies. There is an extensive literature in History and Sociology of Science regarding astrology, which is peer reviewed and undergoes academic scrutiny. We should rely on the scholarly literature of astrology for weighing and direction of narrative; and supplement this with the most professional peak of field works from the popular/practicioner literature where they are making claims within their professional domain (the practice of astrology). Only when significant historical primary sources are directly cited, or quoted, by these literatures should we use them--and only then as primary sources for quotation. Articles on astrology should not be written from interpretations of pre 20th century sources, and we should rely on modern academic sources in guiding our interpretation of pre-20th century sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Certain authors are recognized astrological authorities, widely read and still appearing on recommended reading lists for students of astrology. The three particular authors that concern me most are

Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo. All three of these writers have been recognized in serious histories of astrology, by Nicholas Campion

and Benson Bobrick, as being important to the development of astrology. All of these authors have written treatises on the subject, that set forth basic facts about astrological belief and practice. All three's works are conveniently in the public domain in the USA. (Leo died in 1917.) I say this is encyclopedic public domain material that we should grab with both hands.

All of these authors wrote in English or have been reliably translated into English. The translations are also in the public domain. At least the parts of these authors that are the most "treatise like" are low hanging grapes. The real question to me is not whether these are "primary" or "secondary" sources. There is a fair amount of astrological commentary on all of them. They are recognized by astrologers as foundational texts in the practice of astrology. If you're going to carry on about how astrology is pseudoscience that isn't confirmed by scientific evidence, you can't complain about the fact that astrologers still consider renaissance, medieval, and ancient books as high authorities.

The most important question an article like

positivist bias. I'd like to get some kind of consensus that this particular line of argument is out of line. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

06:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about Ptolemy (I don't really know about the other two) he was a notable authority in his time and we surely could treat him as we would treat any primary source: reliable for his own views. Any commentary or evaluation should be based on proper secondary sources.

We should quote him from a reliable translation. The Loeb translation is available at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius, here, and it's complete, "despite what you may have read on a widely followed cult site out there" (he means Wikipedia). We should use this translation, I'd say, and definitely avoid earlier ones. Andrew Dalby 10:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a reliable translation of an old sources should still be treated as a primary source. Since we have articles on these individuals, I assume there are reliable secondary sources discussions discussing their work. We should use those secondary sources instead, and use their work only for their opinions.

Smerdis of Tlön, I do not see anyone here making the blanket statement that astrological texts cannot be used here. I am aware that other discussions are taking place elsewhere, but I'm not following those at this time. The in-universe issue strikes me as important, and worthy of discussion, but not really a topic for this venue (if it is being discussed in another better venue, please give me a heads up). But it seems to me that like any area of interest, astrology would have people who are considered experts in the field, writing about it, and of more recent vintage than Ptolemy and Leo. Perhaps you could find some of those to bring here for discussion? This is a fringe topic, and we'd want to be careful, but it is undoubtably a topic worthy of inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön, go insult someone else by misreading what they wrote. Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo are primary sources, and unreliable as the scholarship within astrology itself has moved on from here. In addition, there are serious modern readings of the classics of astrology by sensitive expert Historians of Science who don't treat pre-modern science as pseudo science. We don't write articles based on the content of hundred year old texts because such primary text interpretation is the job of expert astrologers and historians of science. We are encyclopaedists, not historians or science, and not expert pracitioner astrologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The "in universe" business is in fact a serious problem[15], as are baffling claims that astrology is somehow "racist".[16] Astrology is in any case, and despite the wishes of some, not really a "fringe theory" subject to

WP:FRINGE. The point of WP:FRINGE is to avoid publishing original thought, and that minority points of view not be given undue weight. But astrology, in its several traditions, has an immense literature. Within the context of astrology, the real fringe position is that astrology is nonsense because it does not propose purely materialistic causes or explanations. This point of view seems to get more than it is due.

What sources would you find acceptable to get some information about astrological commonplaces ("Scorpios are dark and sexy. Virgos are fussy. Geminis talk too much....") into the articles? More recent astrologers who might fit the bill are Liz Greene, Linda Goodman, Derek and Julia Parker, all of whom have written widely distributed middlebrow texts that set forth this body of belief. I referenced Alan Leo specifically because it is my understanding that most historians of astrology consider this vein of astrological writing as ringing changes on themes that were introduced by Leo, whose text is available for adaptation because it's in the public domain. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (Gemini. Talks too much.)

. . . and within the community of flat-earthers, it is the spherical view that is the fringe. Rare is the member of a fringe community who thinks the community's views are inferior to the mainstream consensus. Most critics of astronomy object not only to its reliance on mysticism rather than having an actual mechanism, but also to the complete lack of evidence that any of these beliefs have the slightest basis in reality. What would be a reliable source to put "Scorpios are dark and sexy" in an article? I would suggest it would be a review of quantitative statistical analyses of skin tone by sign of birth (or are you using dark more loosely - a correlation of mood with sign, or bloody-mindedness with sign), as well as one correlating induced arousal by sign, showing that Scorpios have a statistically significant difference in these characteristics as compared to the other 11 (oh, and the studies would have to be blind - none of the individuals being evaluated should know that they are supposed to be more dark and sexy, or more fussy, or whatever). The sources you name may justify the conclusion that specific astrologers have claimed this to be the case, but not that it actually is. It is the in-universe problem in a nutshell. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of

scientistic bias that has gotten in the way of building these articles. Nobody's talking about adding information about the character astrologers attribute to Scorpio to an article on human psychology, only to the article that talks about what astrologers say about Scorpio. Whether astrological beliefs about sun sign characters are true or false is irrelevant. It's a relatively consistent body of lore. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientistic bias? I want a claim that 'X share the characteristic Y' to be supported by evidence that Xs actually are more Y than anyone else, rather than it being the arbitrary pronouncement of some collection of self-declared pontificators, and this is bias? Whether such pronouncements are true is absolutely relevant, if it is presented as truth. If you say 'astrologers claim that X have characteristic Y', that can be perfectly accurate even if the Xs have no more Y than anyone else, because it is describing the belief of the community. If you simply say 'X have characteristic Y' it is a different story all together. That is a claim of fact, that group X is actually more Y than other groups. It doesn't matter on what page this misinformation appears, it is a statement of fact and not just of community belief. As such, it needs a reliable source that supports it as fact, not just a source saying that the community has decided that is what they will accept. It is not OK for the page on the

Flat Earth Society to say that the earth is flat, just because it isn't the NASA page. Agricolae (talk

) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(T)he arbitrary pronouncement of some collection of self-declared pontificators... Nope, no bias that I can see here. None whatsoever. You aren't biased, it's only retrograde Mercury acting up again.

But I'd look at it this way. Suppose we had enough material to create an article, "Cosmology (Flat Earth Society)". In such an article, identifying the particular point of view would be adequately done by beginning, "The cosmology of the Flat Earth Society holds that...." We could discuss the cosmology of the flat earth in ordinary prose, having identified the presentation as presenting that particular viewpoint. It wouldn't be necessary to make the point in that article that the earth really is round, either. This isn't a source issue, more of a stylistic issue, but why is an article on Scorpio in astrology any different? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked what type of source would be necessary to state that "Scorpios are darker and sexier'. I told you and you immediately called me scientistically biased, and basically said, 'evidence? we don't need no stinkin' evidence!' I am not going to get into a 'You're biased! No, you're biased!' argument with you. Next time don't ask the question if you are just going to dismiss as biased any answer that you disagree with - why bother with the whole pointless exercise in self-affirmation? (And contrary to your suggestion, any page on Flat Earth Cosmology that does not include the fact that it bears no resemblance to the established consensus is not appropriately telling the full story. It is necessary.) Agricolae (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked you what kind of sources would be adequate to verify some 'astrological commonplaces', part of the shared body of lore that constitutes mainstream Western astrology. Your response would be that you would exclude them until they had been tested as scientific hypotheses. That isn't even responsive to what the discussion is about. You know and I know that astrology is not science. There is a body of lore out there, true or not. It exists. It can be described. It has a quite large literature. This shouldn't be that difficult. It isn't, unless you discount the literature of astrology itself as a source. Can I get a witness here that this is not constructive? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I will certainly support your suggestion that this is not leading anywhere constructive, although not perhaps for the same reason. Agricolae (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest looking for a scholarly text, or a high order professional practicioner text, that specifically critiques newspaper astrology as a social phenomena; and drive the WEIGHTing of how much "fan cruft" to insert with newspaper astrology. This is a problem on religious articles, where the colour of the object used to perform ceremony X is not actually of enduring encyclopaedic value; compared to discussing ceremony X and its significance. We don't ramraid unreliable texts for this kind of stuff and incorporate it because it is public domain; because:

• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write from within a view of science that is now discredited
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) make science claims that are not currently supported by science, and are FRINGE
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write without the use of modern analytical tools in either the fields of science or astrology
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write from within a cultural practice as if their cultural practice is fundamentally and absolutely correct. Modern social science disdains this, and uses methods sympathetic to people's cultural practices and their meanings without making strong assertions about their practices actually reflecting reality (a science claim)

As you can see there are a variety of claims that cannot be sourced to ancient astrology texts: that their way of practicing science is discredited; that their conclusions are discredited; that their literary value is far far below modern history of science and professional practicioner texts; and, that their use to explain social systems is a bad claim given that there are now expert systems for describing social practices. Use modern texts to appreciate ancient texts: these texts are themselves objects of study. Use modern texts to weight ancient texts, and preference scholarly texts for large scope, truth claims, and weighting. Wikipedia is not written from within any belief system or practice, it is written using the highest quality reliable sources to grapple with all belief systems and practices to the extent that they are of encyclopaedic interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that contemporary astrological beliefs represent a "way of practicing science" strikes me as implausible in itself. The information I'd want to add to an article about an astrological sign from classical sources would be in the nature of, "Scorpio is a water sign, cold and moist; feminine, of northern ascension. Mars is the ruler of its triplicity, both day and night, and it is the night house of Mars. Venus is in detriment, and the Moon is in fall, in Scorpio. Sun sign astrologers say that people born with the sun in Scorpio are dark and sexy and have the following general personality traits....." Little of this involves making scientific claims, as I see it, and it would make little difference if it did: even if you accept that astrology is utterly falsified by science, astrologers continue to believe it, and there is a general consensus among astrologers as to what the sign means. I do think this is the sort of information that people looking for an article on Scorpio in astrology will in fact be looking for. Our articles so far do a very poor job of presenting it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We aren't discussing contemporary astrological sources; we're discussing a sequence of primary texts like Tetrabiblos. You don't support an article from classical sources ever. You support it from modern appreciations. Look at this method: 1) Read a major HPS text on Astrology, it says that the Tetrabiblos was fundamental to the practice of astrology for 1800 years, this allows you to WEIGHT references to the tetrabiblos appropriately. Secondly look at a scholarly annotated edition of the Tetrabiblos's introduction, or a modern professional astrological practicioner at the peak of their field publishing in the most eminent manner, their major work notes that the description of humidity in the Tetrabiblos is still the definition in use in current practice, finally, we quote and cite the Tetrabiblos to the extent that it is cited and quoted in the secondary source. So we'd cite humidity as: Humidity does X and Y in both historical and contemporary western astrology, following the essential classical text in the matter, "[Quotation from Tetrabiblos to the extent given in the highest quality secondary sources.]" (HPS Scholar on the Tetrabiblos, p. 15; Scholarly introduction to Tetrabiblos, p. xliv; Tetrabiblos (foo edition), p. 403). The chain of weight, importance and purity of the quotation is maintained. Reader interest is satisfied as well. In contrast, our current article on Tetrabiblos is crap, being written entirely out of the Tetrabiblos and thus original research. Also, by using high quality reliable sources, it is possible to insert an appropriate, "Scorpio in History" written out of the history of science literature, which treats astrology before the modern era in an appropriate way. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

skimming some of the articles, the biggest problem with a lot of the articles is that they are way too technical for a general reader's encyclopedia and seem to be written for people who are into this stuff. cutting out a lot of the cruft would make it easier to assess sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis/Ihcoyc. As a potential user of the articles, I am mainly interested in the European middle ages. When you say "the information I'd want to add to an article about an astrological sign from classical sources", what do you mean by "classical sources"? If it is Lilly, or Leo then no good for my purposes. If from the Tetrabiblos, then I would want the scholarly guidance to Tetrabiblos per Fifelfoo's post above. I do want to know if it is a water sign and all those other things, but only if they were believed in the middle ages. Differences between European, Islamic, Indian and Chinese beliefs might be relevant, so I would want to read about them too. I know also that people might want to read about their sun sign, but that isn't a main aim of the encyclopedia, per

WP:NOT, not a directory. We don't have to include it but can link to websites that cover it. Itsmejudith (talk

) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

When contemporary astrologers write that Mars rules the first decan of Aries, they may be copying Lilly, who wrote that Mars rules the first decan of Aries, who copied

Alchabitius, who copied Julius Firmicus Maternus. We've already established that astrology isn't science. One advantage of not being science is that technical details like this don't expire. It isn't like someone is doing research that might show that Neptune really rules the first decan of Aries. This is why I see the classical texts as reliable sources for the substance of the tradition, and their public domain texts as worth appropriating. Much of what they repeat is simply copied by later authors. We might want the later authors to establish that the details are still considered important, but as to the substance of the tradition, I think we can take and adapt the public domain texts.

Contemporary Western sun sign astrology is a body of lore that is relatively consistent, coherent, and the subject of a large volume of commentary that's considered reliable to the extent that it conforms with the tradition. It's a folklore subject, in other words. "Scorpio is dark and sexy" is a true statement in the same way that "Wednesday's child is full of woe" is a true statement: true to the extent that it is made in conformity with the tradition. I do think we can have articles that discuss sun sign beliefs. I am gravely concerned that hostility to the tradition is making the articles unimprovable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what when they don't copy the older source exactly? When they are selective? I am not "hostile to the tradition". At all. I just want to read real history of ideas. And what you call "classical texts" are sources more than a thousand years apart. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. They're a thousand years apart, but as to these technical details the newer one simply repeats the older. All within the Western tradition, which comes through Hellenistic and Islamic astrology, will agree that Scorpio is somewhat implausibly a water sign. They will agree that the

120° angles are good, but 90° is bad. The only parts that have been changed were to accommodate the more recently discovered planets; most 20th century astrologers will treat Scorpio as being co-ruled by Mars and Pluto; before the discovery of Pluto it was Mars alone. (And the contemporaries like Pluto too much to simply abandon the planet after it was relegated to the status of dwarf planet by astronomers.) The approach to interpreting a horoscope has in fact changed (and Leo lies at the root of much of that change) but almost all of this nuts and bolts stuff remains the same. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that this is why I think that discussing whether source texts like Lilly or Ptolemy are 'primary' or 'secondary' sources is a matter of mostly indifference. I think they are secondary sources, because they were written as treatises on the subject of astrology; their subject is the astrological tradition itself. They are witnesses to the tradition, not its source. None of them claimed to have discovered or invented it. My understanding is that most historians don't even think Ptolemy was a practicing astrologer, though Lilly was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't find any of this remotely convincing. I don't think you have understood what Fifelfoo said above. "Treatise" is not some kind of magic charm that makes a text written hundreds or thousands of years ago immediately intelligible, or that obviates the need to refer to the volumes of explanatory scholarship. "Their subject is the astrological tradition itself", I don't know what that means and I can't see that you do either. Finally, by "primary" source, I refer to the usage in Wikipedia. The Bible. The Qur'an. Dao De Ching, Plato. We regard none of these as reliable secondary sources, but instead use recent scholarship to interpret those sources for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not write encyclopaedia articles by stitching together sections of primary sources. It is this simple. We rely upon modern, expert, appreciations of ancient texts. We rely upon histories of ideas, and histories of science. And if these moderns explicitly mention and approve of an ancient text that is pertinent, then we might quote it if it improves the article. It is this simple, and this has been repeatedly said. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith and Fifelfoo. Your argument that these old texts can be treated as secondary sources for WP purposes is absurd. They have to be interpreted by modern scholars. The history and philosophy of astrology are scholarly topics that have to be sourced with real scholarly sources, not in-universe garbage or, even worse, OR and SYNTH on the part of WP editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is, instead, that

primary sources are "written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision." Historical documents "such as diaries" are primary sources; but all historical documents are not primary sources simply because they are historical. It is true that, given the nature of astrology, you could cite the same material to a recent author. As noted, they say the same things. (And all the arguments that make Ptolemy a primary source apply to them too.) If that's easier to deal with, and it sidesteps the issue, so be it. I would have thought we'd prefer public domain material when it is plentifully available; but apparently that's just me.

The larger concern, of course, is that astrology is more than just an episode in the history of science. It is a belief system that continues to have followers and practitioners, even if it stands in the way of the rational utopia of the science apologists. What I'm largely concerned with is what constitutes acceptable sourcing for the substance of astrological beliefs about, say, the character and meaning of Scorpio and people born under its influence. Our articles are in poor shape, but that's not for lack of available astrological literature that purports to analyze just this subject. Our articles are in poor shape because the astrological literature is simply discounted because it's astrology, and treated like fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you really have been given an answer. Are there no academics doing research about astrology, not as a science, but as a system of thought, or the history of astrology? The primary objections here are that the sources are old enough to warrant interpretation by experts. Academic sources are generally the best sources we can get. But any analytical work on the subject might be considered reliable enough if the author can be shown to be an expert in the field. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the field of history or philosophy, of course, and not in the field of astrology. And that expertise has to be recognized by the mainstream scholarly community, not only in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As with any other topic in WP, we report what high-quality reliable independent mainstream scholarly sources have to say. Unfortunately, unlike creationism or some other branches of woo-woo, the mainstream scholarly community finds the subject of modern astrology of little interest, and few works have been published on the topic. As for the history, there are some scholarly works available that have been written by real scholals and published by academic presses. In any case, the "astrological literature" is unreliable and just about useless, except for "entertainment purposes". Such works are generally written by self-described "experts" who have no qualifications to write about scholarly matters like history, philosphy or science, and their writings are published in low-grade popular presses, fake presses, vanity presses, or by sham pseudoacademic societies in sham "journals". As such, it's of little interest to anyone outside of the astrological community, and is therefore

WP:CRUFT. There's no need to mention it at all in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not strictly limited to scholarly sources, although I can imagine that much of what's out there would not meet our criteria for reliable sources. I haven't looked at the other conversations surrounding this issue, I expect they must be doozies. But I would expect we could find some sources that are reliable enough to characterize the common interpretations of a given astrological sign. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having edited mostly on creationism, I thought that there would be no problem finding reliable sources for astrological topics. But modern astrology is more or less ignored by the mainstream scholarly community, and few good sources exist. Furthermore, astrology has no clear center or clearly identifiable authorities. Almost nothing of what has been published can be considered representative of the field as a whole, or even a substantial part of it. There has been a three-month long battle over sourcing on astrology-related articles. For a recent discussion, see here: [[17]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious by now that the real problem is not lack of available sources that are considered reliable and mainstream within the subject of astrology by astrologers. That will never be good enough, will it? Instead, we're dealing with lawyering from the "sceptical" crowd, who simply wish that the subject itself would go away. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it perfectly obvious that such sources are not good enough. The opinions of astrologers on scholarly topics are of little interest or value to anyone outside of the astrological community, including here on WP. Being an astrologer does not confer any special insight into the scholarly aspects of astrology like history or philosophy. I'm afraid your in the wrong place. You might want to try starting up your own Astropedia, where you can make up whatever rules you want. But on WP, we have to conform to WP policies, especially

WP:NPOV Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that a simpler supposition is that Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön is simply bad at academic research, for example "contemporary astrology" from Google Scholar's first three pages:
  • Volume 2 of the book reviewed here: DOI:10.1080/13507486.2011.591117 "Unlike other histories of astrology, Campion's does not end with the demise of astrology in the eighteenth century, but traces its continuing influence on nineteenth and twentieth-century intellectual currents such as theosophy, the New Age movement and psychology. He ends with an epilogue on the twenty-first century, putting the question of ‘whether astrology's current popularity in any way constitutes a second revival’" and then go use its footnotes
  • While Ulrich's shows Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture as non-peer reviewed; and the journal may have FRINGE connections which would need to be checked; they claim "The text, if submitted to a peer-reviewed section (e.g., Articles), has had the authors' names removed. If an author is cited, "Author" and year are used in the bibliography and footnotes, instead of author's name, paper title, etc. The author's name has also been removed from the document's Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu." and have this special issue that covers some contemporary astrology from the religious studies angle.
  • Other RS/N editors may need to check the credentials of this book which appears to produce something approaching a HPS position (though it reads poorly to me). It is more sociological in character using the theory of enchantment/disenchantment.
  • Gustav-Adolf Schoener has published two texts in this peer reviewed journal
  • 10.2753/RSS1061-1428360575 ; and Fehérváry, Krisztina (2007) Hungarian Horoscopes as a Genre of Postsocialist Transformation. Social Identities 13(5)
  • And then there's this and the people associated with this; and possibly PhD students, and the academics involved, and their publications
  • And this from 1972: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2776304
  • And who they cite, and who cites them, and where they publish &tc &tc &tc.
• The sociology of astrological knowledge and practice is reasonably well developed for the sociology and religious study of a minor subculture. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently reading the Campion history, which was one of the things that piqued my interest in astrology and had me looking at our sorry pages on the subject. But it isn't a good source for what astrologers believe and say about the meanings of zodiac signs; it says very little about that particular facet of the field. What needs improvement most is not the sociology or history of astrological belief and practice, but the more basic level of the substance of astrological belief and practice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly draw your attention to this which I noted above: a MA programme in cultural astrology in the UK university system. Nuujinn's citation below also looks excellent. Following Lewis' other publications would be worthy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at that; tomorrow I will see if it can be ordered up at the community college library. I do have at hand Nicholas Devore's Encyclopedia of Astrology, an older (1947) but apparently similar tertiary source, from a mainstream publisher (Philosophical Library). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please drop me a note on my talk page if there's a particular book you'd like some access to but cannot get through your library or via interlibrary loan, the library I have access to is quite good, and I'm willing to do some RA work for you if it will help. One of Fifelfoo's points is well taken in this context--Lewis looks like a reliable academic with expertise in the field, so secondary works he cites gain weight as reliable sources--for example, if he used a source for his encyclopedia, that source is more likely to be considered reliable by us than if the source were plucked from the air. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good place to start, the author's notable in our sense as a academic, also an astrologer. It's a tertiary work, but the would be appropriate for an overview of characteristics of signs, and he provides references for followup. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In classical studies, all surviving literary texts are considered primary sources, of greater or lesser value depending on their age, their reliability, their sourcing (if A is quoting B, and both survive, A doesn't really add to B's testimony). The reason for this is straightforward; all of them are foreign to us, and hardly any of them (and Ptolemy is not Thucydides) are doing what we consider history.

So here. None of this means we can't use them; but we are much better off seeing them through the eyes of academic writers on the history of astrology. Editors and commentators put hundreds of hours into understanding a text; it is folly to throw that away. This is doubly true for the Greekless editor reading an English translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditional texts as sources for traditional principles

This thread opened with the question of whether the texts of traditional astrological authors (such as Ptolemy and William Lilly) can be used as verifiable sources in references intended to show that the astrological content given is not controversial but presents details of well known astrological principles. It should be brought to resolution on that point.

The reply above states "none of this means we can't use them", but I think the approval of these sources need to be made clearer - with a better understanding of why there is nothing unreliable about quoting these works directly, and why it is part of the norms of the referencing of astrological content generally.

The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books. We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques.

William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology (for example)is the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available.

Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them.

I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. It has been suggested that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. That I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in front of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There is no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for reference of traditional astrological principles.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your citation does seem problematic without modern context-setting. Here are some question to show the need for modern interpretation to establish modern astrological opinion.

• Does Lilly mean the thighs physically only (and by this, the "fat part of the leg")? Does he mean the thighs in a sexual euphemistic sense too? Does he really mean (or mean to include) "loins", as English translations of the bible sometimes seem to have thighs to mean?
• the sentence finishes "...and buttocks in the parts of man's body". It may sound silly, but is this both men and women? Are men's and women's buttocks ruled by the same forces in the same way? We can't simply presume that "man" means both men and women; there is a long history in texts of women simply being written out or overlooked, treated as aberrant.
• When Lilly goes on to talk about how Sagittarius "generally denoth blood heated, Fevers pestilential, fals from horses, or hurts from them or four-footed beasts" does that mean that modern astrologers consider Bubonic plague to be a matter of astrological influence rather than the germ theory? Should modern astrologers disparage the idea of germs causing pestilence? If the reply is "no, of course not", how are we to know which parts of the text are still accepted, and which are not, without reference to a modern text?
• Why are horses referred to as if they are not four-footed beasts? Do modern astrologers not consider horses to have four legs? (surely not) Does beast mean "wild animal" as it sometimes does, or do domesticated animals (beasts of burden) also come under this title? What about pet cats?
• Does "hurt" refer to emotional pain, or only physical pain? "hurt" used to refer to feelings rather than being hit is attested by 1779, but we don't know how far back that usage went before then.

People aren't being difficult - you're up against a regular problem we face with the assessment of documents from another era, and with documents that are used as authorities, rather than commentaries. With laws we can usually know if one law supersedes a previous one. With authoritative texts from another era, there is always going to be picking and choosing, reframing and reinterpretation. If this particular sentence is still considered authoritative in modern astrology, it should be no problem finding a modern source that says so.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He means thighs, and if there were any justifiable reason to suggest there is controversy then (and only then) would there be a need to question this. But there is not - the association of Sagittarius and the thighs is consistent throughout traditional literature, as are all the sign/body part associations. The pages are not presenting intricacies of the subject: only the most well known and reliable associations. Your question of whether, by this "Does Lilly mean the thighs physically only (and by this, the "fat part of the leg")? Does he mean the thighs in a sexual euphemistic sense too?", etc.," could just as easily be asked if that reference were made instead to a modern text.

Your question:

• the sentence finishes "...and buttocks in the parts of man's body". It may sound silly, but is this both men and women? Are men's and women's buttocks ruled by the same forces in the same way?

Yes, and yes. How do we know this - because there are ample examples in the book to demonstrate if it were necessary. And because it's not controversial. No one is going to contest this because it is so easily proven to be an established part of the tradition. The same associations are given in the Hellenistic era, Arabic era, Medieval era and Renaissance era. The continuity of this association is only rendered worthless if the traditional texts which are considered to be key astrologcial textbooks are disqualified for references. That is not normal for this topic because astrology is not a modern invention and it has a long etablished history. New theories, obviously, can only be referenced to modern works but traditional principles are quite appropriately referenced to traditional works.

With regards to your other questions - all of the book is considered still relevant in astrological terms. And you are right, it is not difficult to find a modern reference instead, but the ppoint is that this text is authoritative and it is a better source. It is the astrological standard to show where modern ideas exist in traditional texts, so unless the material is deemed controversial in astrological terms there is no need for this time-wasting discussion to exist. We take it for granted that the whole of astrology is deemed controversial in other terms, so we have no need to discuss bubonic plague theory. Astrology is not on trial in this discussion - the purpose of this board is only to discuss how the content can be shown to be built on verifiable astrological principles, not whether those principles are themselves verifiable -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In case newcomers don’t ‘get it’ the sole purpose of this discussion, and the reason why it is being entertained with such prolonged agony, is clear enough in the collapsed box below. This presented a long list of reasons why there are supposed to be NO reliable sources for this topic. The implication is that all its practitioners must be presumed to be fools or frauds, and there is no continuity of astrological belief anyway.

This long list of unsupportable criticisms was allowed to be displayed for days, but became hidden within minutes of me placing my responses to show how unfounded those criticisms were. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For two days and one and a half hours. Normally RS/N regulars don't moderate or "close" threads because we don't have threads that go off-topic. Thank you for your council, in future I will more aggressively hide threads of discussions that go off topic here. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I'm sorry, but you've missed the point. For starters, you are sourcing modern interpretations of a 400 year-old text to the text itself, which makes no sense. You also contradict yourself by saying that the references to pestilence are not relevant, but that the whole of the book is relevant (I simply chose what was in the same paragraph - I'm sure there are lots of things here and there in the book that are not accepted by modern astrology, it being 400 years later and a different era). You claim it's obvious that the reference to thighs can both obviously be biblical (where in English versions it may mean "loins" and stand for male fertility) a biblically-influenced reading ("thigh" can mean loins can refer to male fertility) is obvious to me from in a text from that era, yet you say it obviously applies to both men and women (and he further blames Sagittarius in the same paragraph for "intemperateness in sport", which is obviously to me a male activity in that period...). Overall, you're busy doing your

own research on this, rather than letting modern sources speak on the matter. We're a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It is not our job to fill in large gaps in the secondary literature. If the text is that important, there will be secondary literature explaining its meaning. Astrology may be controversial, but that doesn't mean that a wikipedia editor can be given free rein to write what they like on the topic. VsevolodKrolikov (talk

) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to deny the continuity of astrological beliefs. However, it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to present an antique source ahistorically as if the result of centuries of interpretation and adaptation accurately reflected the original author's intent. We must distinguish between an original old astrological text and what is known about it with some certainty, and later interpretations, in the same way that we are routinely making the same distinctions when writing about the Bible. Whether modern Christians and astrologers like it or not. Look at the lead of Book of Genesis for example. It describes what everyone including historians agrees that the book says. In the Composition section it describes the origins of the book and its original function, not what Jews and Christians have made of it over many generations. Under Themes it also says some things in Wikipedia's voice because everybody agrees about them, and for the others uses attribution to the appropriate modern authorities.

Proper scholarship has much stricter standards than pseudosciences, and Wikipedia tries to follow the standards of scholarship. This creates a bias against astrologers that has an undesirable impact on our treatment of astrology, but if astrologers are unable to adapt to our conditions, then there is nothing much we can do short of presenting astrological fiction as fact. Which is not an option. Hans Adler 10:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I am not sure it was clear enough: Original texts from antiquity don't tell us much beyond what their specific literal text is. Everything else requires interpretation. We can distinguish three kinds of interpretation: (1) Interpretation which reads the text in its historical context and tries to find out what the author meant and how his contemporaries understood the text. (2) Interpretation which is based on a specific tradition or school of thought and puts the text into this context without regard to historicity. Even if such a tradition has a continuous history reaching back to the time of the texts' origin, this kind of interpretation will still tell us more about the tradition than about the text. (3) Free-style interpretation which is based on the modern author's fantasies.

What we need in astrology articles is (2). To some extent we also need (1), although sometimes it will be off-topic. What we definitely don't need is (3). It is impossible to distinguish between (2) and (3) without using modern sources. Hans Adler 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I created an edit break for convenience and to make sure that this stays on topic. Hopefully that will help us create a sensible consensus that is specific to this issue.

Sourcing to a 400 year old text only appears strange to those who don't understand that this is still widely used as an authoritative textbook, and that it is considered good practice, even in modern astrological study, to source comments to the traditional texts which possess this kind of authoritative reputation.

I am not the one missing the point. The point I have stressed is that where Lilly's work has been used it is for a point where no controversy exists. There is no other reputable astrological text, ancient or modern, which says that the area of the thighs is governed by a different sign and not Sagitarius. Ditto the other sign/ body attributions. This is what we would call mainstream astrological knowledge, and since it's not controversial, my argument is that there is no need for this rejection of reference, or to take a matter like this to this RS noticeboard. If someone wants to question that reference they should be able to produce some kind of argument that dispute exists around it.

If there are areas where contention hangs over what Lilly wrote, then yes, it is easy to reference that: according to so-and-so, Lilly's definition of this term means this, whilst according to so-and-so it has been interpreted it to mean this. But we are not talking about points that are not accepted by modern astrology, we are talking about traditional definitions, and the absurdity of not being able to reference non-controversial traditional points to the well known, authoritative traditional texts. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I have gone ahead and filed a request for clarification of the fringe material guidelines with respect to astrology at

The last discussion involved two people. [18] It mentioned that it gets brief mention here and there. Three people make a website. It wins awards for being a good website from various people, no real coverage though. They mention books such as this one [19] which just thanks them for providing them with press photos they didn't have. One website mentions them in a single sentence saying they have an interesting write up on something [20], another website mentions only they have an interview with someone who once worked at a game company [21], and the third notable website they link to doesn't mention them at all. Wired magazine mentions them on a page [22] saying only "Resurrection Hot Spots: Atari Gaming Headquarters www.atarihq.com Games and history galore, with many links to emulation sites and companies still making Atari 2600 cartridges". Does any of this prove they are a reliable site? They have no editorial oversight. If they claim their favorite system was better than a competing system out at the same time, when IGN and other references saying the opposite, would we trust them? Dream Focus 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I stayed out of the last discussion because of COI, and planed to do that with with this as well. However regarding editorial oversite, that is completely false. We have editorial oversite and a link to the editorial standards was already provided to the statement of this. My background as fact checker and a writer for Retro Gamer Magazine and previously as editor on GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming site for 6 years is also more than covered here and on that standards link. The piece in question is an opinion piece on an Atari related site (i.e. an editorial), which I freely admitted to the person who wanted to use it is a bit slanted because of that fact. That in no way reflects on the previously decided reliability of the site itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over the site and read many of Marty Goldberg's excellent articles and analyses in the past, I see no reason why this site should be considered unreliable. I do not like the trend in the video game project of giving blanket acceptance to every statement in every source deemed reliable, however. I think any historical or editorial article from Marty or other contributors to AtariHQ needs to be examined individually to make sure the facts check out because even the best of us make mistakes sometimes, but I see no reason why we should be inherently suspicious of material appearing on the page. After all, Marty Goldberg is not a "fanboy," but rather a professional historical researcher and writer in the video game industry with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Indrian (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"rigorous research"? Just list where the research came from, and problem solved. We could just cite the source directly and avoid any doubt. Just because someone worked for what is considered a reliable site for years, doesn't mean their own site isn't just a bias personal website. Places he worked for required proper fact checking, while his own personal site can just have him look at it, say it looks believable, and accept it, without bothering to find a reliable source for the information. Dream Focus 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, Goldberg is both the owner and editor of the site and it therefore falls under
  WP:SPS. That said Goldberg himself is probably reliable under SPS. I would be inclined to mark it as a situational source to be used with care, replaced where possible etc. and to only cite content written by Goldberg. This would be analogous to how we treat, say, Kurt Kalata's Harcore Gaming site. bridies (talk
  ) 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'll add my two cents: I've been working alongside Marty for a number of years now on Wikipedia (have not worked with him at all professionally, though), and I have no reason to believe that he would ever abuse his position as an industry expert. I am more than willing to vouch for the neutrality and accuracy of at least a few of the articles I've read on his site, and I trust the editorial oversight there, in fact more than I trust it at IGN, which tends to produce many opinion pieces that sometimes show evidence of not being well-researched. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/ is a reliable source? It looks like it might be user-editable (similar to Discogs or Metal Archives), which makes me think it isn't a RS. It is currently being used as a source at The Compendium Archive, using http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/agalloch--the-compendium-archive-1996-2006%28compilation%29.aspx. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable: an open wiki. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are TechCrunch and Engadget considered reliable sources for software articles? SL93 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TechCrunch has editorial oversight by an editor that has written for the New York Times, InSync, USA Weekend, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Money. Engadget has many editors. Both of the websites are now part of AOL. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the question is reliable for what? What statements would be sourced, and what are the specific references? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is

Read It Later and the sources are used in a reference list. SL93 (talk

) 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they work for that article. Is there a dispute? I see no talk page discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't, but I was wondering because the sites call themselves blogs. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, we tend to not use blogs, but if a blog is associated with a reliable source, or if the author of a blog is an acknowledged authority, we can use them. In this case, we have software reviews of a software package in two popular tech magazines. I think they are fine for this kind of use. Others might disagree, however. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider them a bit, well, AOL, but as a source for consumer reviews they are fine in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep close to

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and you'll be okay. Tell the reader that TechCrunch says this and Engadget says that, rather than trying to state some omniscient truth. Binksternet (talk

) 06:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say they are probably fine for basic and uncontested biographical data, but not much else. I have no problems with the first paragraph of the Career section, but the other two paragraphs are rather fluffy and overweighted because of the sources used, and they are flirting with the border of promotion. I'd much prefer to see them sourced with mainstream science reporting than a church newsletter that has no experience at all with science reporting and undoubtedly based its article solely on material supplied by Roth himself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The

self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. These sources are being used in reference to SDA persons, just what these magazines are intended for. Johnjonesjr (talk

) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(i)

WP:WEIGHT to Adventists' self-evaluation. Would we consider an article on a conservative topic cited almost solely to the Washington Times and the NRO to be NPOV? I strongly doubt it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Treat them just like any other

self published source, with caution. Roger (talk

) 16:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider that this pattern of usage demonstrates 'cautious' treatment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I could use some clarification. The article in question is about Dr. Roth. If he were to publish a book by himself, or post some articles he wrote on-line, I understand that those things would be considered self-published. Am I correct that papers written by him that appear in journals, magazines, and newspapers would not be classified as self-published? If information about Dr. Roth appears in journals, magazines and newspapers would that information be be self-published? Since the article is about Dr. Roth and not about the organization or beliefs of the SDA church, then would anything appearing in a SDA publication about or by Dr. Roth (and not specifically about the SDA church) be self-published? And whom would or would not be doing the self-publishing. I could see that something about the SDA church being published in a SDA publication would be self-publishing by the SDA church. Johnjonesjr (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Given DonaldRichardSands' complete intransigence on Ariel A. Roth, I have decided to call an RfC on the topic. You may wish to comment at Talk:Ariel A. Roth#RfC: Adventist sources in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• Hrafn, your comment above about the magazines being primary sources is wrong.
  Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
  .
• Aticles written by the subject but published by someone else are not self-published. They are not entirely independent sources, but they are not self-published. Simple example: if you write a story for your local newspaper, you are the author, and the publisher is the newspaper. For something to be self-published, the author and the publisher must be the same. So unless someone is prepared to make the case that Roth is the magazine's publisher (rather than Bill Knott, whose job title is "editor and publisher", or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which ultimately owns it), then such articles are not self-published.
  If you want a simple example of a self-published source, look at the faculty directory page for his employer. That's written and published by the university, and therefore self-published. It's also a broadly accepted class of sources for background information on a BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article for Carol of the bells had an alternative title "Ukrainian Bell Carol" removed because according to those editors it's not known under this title. The sources I provided were deemed inelligible because they were not the original manuscript. I don't think the orginal manuscript is the correct source to prove that a musical piece is also known by another name. The other name might have been coined later and while I can't locate where it was first used, I think it's just sufficient to show that it continues to be used by various media and individuals performing, recording or distributing the musical piece. And it is used a lot. I provided many links to music notes that refer in the title to both "Carol of the bells" and "Ukrainian Bell carol", actual images of recordings with the name of "Ukrainian bell Carol and actual renditions of the song by varius artists, choirs, etc. on youtube under the title "Ukrainian Bell Carol. It's a question if the alternate title exists and is used, therefore why would links showing people actually using the alternate title be not sufficient? There are many, many instances when this carol is referred to under this alternate name and I think the article is incomplete and frankly confusing when it does not include it.

Here is just a sample of instances where the alternate name was used:

Music notes

• http://www.8notes.com/scores/9648.asp
• http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0087460
• http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/title-p375436.aspx
• http://musescore.org/en/node/3691
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Carol-Educational-Octavo-Three-part/dp/B005OKGUB4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322372544&sr=8-2

Books

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alfred-Publishing-00-3001UP1X-Ukrainian-Carol/dp/B001OTJXEU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1322952054&sr=8-3
• http://www.amazon.ca/Celtic-Christmas-Phillip-Keveren/dp/063401823X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1322625864&sr=8-8#reader_063401823X

Recordings

• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol-Bells/dp/B006AT6M4S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1322626243&sr=8-4
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol/dp/B0013GJBH8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322372544&sr=8-1
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol/dp/B004BGHPLQ/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1322951737&sr=1-8
• http://www.amazon.com/Carol-Bells-Ukrainian-Bell/dp/B0046KJY7U/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1322951737&sr=1-31

Performances

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lUsYcoOQM&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bDYoa6fv8&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWi4zbdpK1w
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bDYoa6fv8&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOeFbVecwxw&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s83mp6bxe4

Mykyta (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page. RS/N doesn't cover Title disputes; we deal with source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue about the reliability of sources. The original poster is suggesting that these sources are reliable and any one or all could be used to determine that the information is reliable. I'm not so sure. If not here, then where should this be discussed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Wikipedia protocol so I'm not sure where to take this discussion. I don't think it should go under title as I don't think the title should change at all. I only want to add alternate title in the body if article. Also not sure if this should go under reliability of sources - it's only a question of "is is used", therefore a mere existence of ANY sources, reliable or not answers the question affirmatively.Mykyta (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• None of the youtube links are reliable: they're self-published sources by non-experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• None of the recordings are adequate to support the work also being known by that title—I could publish a CD tomorrow that renames any piece as any other piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The pieces of sheet music "Books" don't discuss this, its the same problem as the recording issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The same problem with the scores, half of them are self-published like youtube; the other half do not actually discuss the topic.
• What you really want is a taxonomy of folk music. The standard isn't mention of the encyclopaedic topic, it is discussion. Sadly people don't discuss using music as a language. Given the work is repeatedly listed as a "folk melody"—it oughtn't be too hard to find such a taxonomy, or list in scholarly folk studies; or a book on (not a book of) Ukrainian folk music. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This was exactly the crux of the discussion I had the with editor on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion is not on the correct page, I don’t think it is a question of “are the sources reliable” it is a questions of “is the alternate title used”. It doesn’t matter if they’re experts or not – the point is that they’re using the alternate title and the issue is whether the song is also known by another name. The article is incomplete if it fails to show a different title regardless if the title is accepted by scholarly folk studies as correct - hardly the point. The point is - it is used. Mykyta (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't whether scholarly folk call it anything, it's whether you can find a reliable source that it is used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A scholarly article would be ideal, but a newspaper clipping, magazine article, or some neutral third-party who, when discussing your title relates back to the more common English title. I know that it is occasionally called "Ukrainian Bell Carol", as I too have some CDs that use the term, but you have to understand the purpose of the reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://audiopinions.net doesn't seem to have any paid staff and the reviews feel more like blogs, but some editors at Hats Off to the Bull are including it as a review. Should it stay or go? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a blog to me (it calls itself a magazine, but it's still powered by wordpress). No mentions in Google news archives, nor google books, suggests it is not even considered an important blog. We should only include opinions from notable reviewers (either long track record of publication or writing in an important outlet, such as a national newspaper). I wouldn't consider it appropriate at all for sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The second concern for me was that it was meant to mimic the epinions.com's name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How can sites such as Under The Gun, Bring On The Mixed Review, Sputnikmusic (a community review site which allows all users to post reviews), ect all be allowed to post links to reviews which everyone knows it's done by someone affiliated with their site but Audiopinions is considered not reliable and a conflict of interest?

It honestly seems like you're targeting me and me only when so many others do the same and their allowed to stay. Also a review is a review is a review, and the section is for reviews. The album releases tomorrow and no one else has posted their review on the page yet, but If I want the Audiopinions review up there where it hurts no one I have to fight over it. 4.252.15.102 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The site is not reliable. See the guidelines. Your

WP:COI and self-promotion is a separate issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk

) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"We should only include opinions from notable reviewers (either long track record of publication or writing in an important outlet, such as a national newspaper)." I've been a reviewer for 6 years, first at Albumfreak, then created Audiopinions. Have also written for Lexington Music Press when they had online magazines. I also manage over staff. I get press releases and promotional copies of albums. How much more reliable can you get? 4.252.15.102 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse being a reliable (or long-term) reviewer with being a reliable source. See

WP:RS

for what constitutes a reliable source.

I fully appreciate your concern about other unreliable sources being used as professional reviews. If you want to list some of those articles, I can take a look at them and remove as necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's always the concern about notability, but that's a different noticeboard. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See I feel UTG, BOTMR, Audiopinions, and other sites like this that are very active and actually care about what they put out as reliable and sites like Sputnikmusic to not be reliable. That's my last two cents on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesick_%28A_Day_to_Remember_album%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.15.102 (talk • contribs) 2011-12-06 00:00:49‎

The only thing that I can think of here is that being a long-time reviewer makes you an expert. That information is not recorded anywhere on the site so it's not particularly clear how long you've been an expert reviewer.

Again, not sure why you think Sputnikmusic isn't reliable, but that's a different discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually JUST edited my about page last week to make it shorter and am thinking about writing a complete new one. Also debating on adding a staff page. I started my amateur writing on Sputnikmusic back in 2005 (first review http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/3574/Darkest-Hour-Undoing-Ruin/ ) then during Albumfreak days i posted on both sites, but have only posted 4 reviews from audiopinions in late 2009/early 2010 in which i started devoting all my time to AO. 4.154.4.167 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter's quite right to point out my words have been misinterpreted. Someone putting up reviews on MySpace for a bit doesn't really equate to, say, having a proven and long track record of being paid by major media organisation to write reviews.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wanting to use Dragon's Den as a source for Dragon Quest and all of its spinoff titles. They have been used as resources by:

• 1up - listed as a resource
• GamePro used as a source

I'll note that both sites also credit the Dragon Quest shrine which meets SPS for the same type of articles as its been used extensively as a source in video game encyclopedias. I want to see whether I can use this site to help flesh out details as well.∞陣内Jinnai 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a site set-up by a fan and doesn't appear to have any editorial oversight. Can you show us anything to the opposite? Doesn't seem to be a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a fan site. Those 2 sites I link to are RS magazines. They both list the site as a resource for Dragon Quest related articles. I am asking then is that enough evidence to claim that it would pass as a SPS (except for the usual suspects like forum posts). As cooberating evidence, both sites also link to the DQshrine which has been accepted as a valid SPS due to being used in encylopedias as well. Those are the only 2 sites the two share in common.∞陣内Jinnai 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the fan who creates the material is a subject matter expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting by inference of other RSes that they consider the author a website.∞陣内Jinnai 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A dedicated website. Looks like a non-starter to me. I clicked on Contact to see who is the author, but it doesn't even give a name. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On its own, yes. I am not asking you to denote whether in a vacuum where you look only at the website it is a RS, but whether the RSes of 1UP and GamePro which are RSes that it is enough to confer the status of a

subject matter expert to the site. If you mean that would be enough, please state it more clearly because it appears you are not taking into account SPS which is what I'm asking about here, not a website with a general editorial oversight.∞陣内Jinnai

17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no inference from other reliable sources conferred on a fan site. There is no vacuum. The only way that this fan site could be considered a reliable source is if the creator of the site has been recognized as an expert by either publishing material in a recognized source or by proving credentials as a lecturer on the topic. The fact that individual pieces have been picked-up while other have not indicates that the writer's material may not always carry the same quality. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've noted an editor inserting a lot of references to http://www.michiganrockandrolllegends.com/. Is this website a reliable source? It seems to me like it's one person's passion as opposed to something like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't really see anything to indicate that it is more than a well-put-together fansite. So, no, I doubt that it will meet

WP:RS. Looking at the Suzi Quatro entry brought back a few memories though... :) AndyTheGrump (talk

) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A site called "CFLapedia' is being used across many BLP's as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=CFLapedia Appears to be a mom&pop site. Or just a pop site. I don't think it meets WP:RS. Its fans/proprietor disagrees. Vehemently. Research the site and nuke and destroy its usage on Wikipedia if you see fit. Cookiehead (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted this section about the same time you deleted the other one. It does indeed appear to be a site maintained by just one guy making it a

_complex

01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable (lots of radical left "news" sites, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Manually archived as Malformed Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Article title:Re-Envisioning Our Environment

"...using a process known as tree shaping." "...allowing tree shapers to create anything..."

Written by Russ Baker, Published by Business Insider Oct. 6, 2011 Article about different forms of tree shaping and how we can change the world.

My questions are, given the article is using tree shaping as the term for the field of Tree shaping and it is using the wording tree shapers as a describing term for the practitioners would the above citation be:

1. a reliable source?
2. support the use of Tree shaping as a title?. ?oygul (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Russ Baker is not a fine art historian, fine art critic, or fine art taxonomist. Baker is not reliable to support the use of Tree shaping as a title.
• Russ Baker is an investigative journalist in an online newspaper with an editorial staff and policy, that subsists off commercial revenue. This article is reliable for the claim that, "Peter Cook's art practice is known as tree shaping" where the statement makes clear that this only extends to Peter Cook's own works and not to the works of other artists who manipulate trees &tc.
• The mention of Peter Cook's work is one paragraph in an article about multiple items—it isn't reliable for anything other than what Peter Cook's own artistic practice is called. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Russ Baker is clearly talking about more than one artist. He does only name one artist, but when he goes on to describe what tree shaping is, he uses tree shapers and gives examples from other artists from around the world. I have asked both Slowart (Arborsmith) and Blackash (Pooktre) if they could let us know who the other artists are. ?oygul (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the text of the article, "Although growing infrastructure elsewhere in the world may not seem very realistic, one possibility for many areas could be to grow our own furniture. In Australia, Peter Cook has been growing tables and chairs for 25 years in his back yard, using a process known as tree shaping. This technique involves directing arboreal growth into pre-determined designs, allowing tree shapers to create anything from ladders to entire building structures." "Although growing infrastructure elsewhere in the world may not seem very realistic, one possibility for many areas could be to grow our own furniture. In Australia, Peter Cook has been growing tables and chairs for 25 years in his back yard, using a process known as tree shaping. This technique involves directing arboreal growth into pre-determined designs, allowing tree shapers to create anything from ladders to entire building structures." Who is the other artist named in this article? I will give you a clue: no other artist is named. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, just to be clear I'm Becky Northey, I'm Peter Cook life partner and co-founder with him of Pooktre. Now that's out of the way, Please note three things about this article:

1. Russ uses an s with the term tree shaper which means more than one.

2. I know for a fact that Peter Cook and myself have never grown a ladder tree.

2.1. But Axel Erlandson is world famous for having done so. Pictures have appeared all over the web and in multiple published media.

2.2 No-one else to date has grown a tree into a ladder. I know for a fact that nowhere on our web site Pooktre do we claim to have grown a ladder, entire building structures or even part of building structures. Our site is one of the references given in the article.

3. I know for a fact the Peter Cook and myself have not grown entire building structures and the linked image in the article is not ours. All our images bar the few I given here are water marked with dates and Pooktre, a fact that I don't think Russ would have missed on our web site. I also follow this up on other web sites.

3.1 The image is of a willow planting in Germany called Auerworld Palace, grown by collaboration of 300 volunteers from all over Europe. There are quite a lot of copies of this image floating about and it is also on YouTube. Growing buildings out of trees is huge in Germany.

Basically Russ added an s to tree shaper and has given examples of other artists work. To me that would mean Russ is writing about the field in general. And is talking about more than just one artist's work even if the others' are not named. Blackash have a chat 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to showcase artists' work. Look at sculpture. Not every sculptor, style or genre is mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I only bothered to comment on this as I was asked. Whether Russ is only writing about one artist or about the art form in general or a mix of both, isn't that relevant to ?oygul's question?

I wasn't thinking on using this reference as means to write about individual artists. I thought it would be ok as a reference for the living bridges at Tree shaping. Do you think this article would be reliable in that context? Blackash have a chat 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo please don't shout at me, I did state in my comment that Russ Baker only names one artist as part of my disagreement. Why did you copy and paste the same text twice? ?oygul (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the article contains the same text twice: that's all the text in the article on tree shaping. The fact that the article was so poorly edited that it itself contains duplicated text (you might have noticed?) indicates the poor quality of this source: it isn't sub-edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just took it to be similar to how wiki has a lead summary, but he didn't bother to paraphrase. ?oygul (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noting your possible COI Backlash, that is excellent editorial conduct. Thank you for your argued points. Russ's article is shorter than this discussion, and only mentions tree shaping in two paragraphs; he doesn't name other artists. Most importantly, as I mentioned first, Russ lacks the expertise to diagnose this, being a political journalist in a minor online newspaper. Significantly, as previously mentioned: "Russ Baker is not a fine art historian, fine art critic, or fine art taxonomist. Baker is not reliable to support the use of Tree shaping as a title." A different, more extensive article in the appropriately edited section of a newspaper, that is willing to go on record naming other artists practices as tree shaping could be reliable. Russ's piece isn't. I understand the frustration of the practicioners of a small and new form of fine art media looking for clarity and recognition. Perhaps you could suggest a major exhibition to a Museum of Contemporary Art, for example, that would clarify the issue. This kind of fine arts curator would be a reliable expert author; and their museum catalogue published by such a large credible official museum would be a reliable publication outlet. I'm sure that they would properly contextualise the variety of artists and styles of manipulating plants for artistic purposes and provide proper context and clarity to resolve the issue. But Russ's piece doesn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have said, tree shaping has no refs Talk:Tree shaping there are 42 more refs to check refs given for supporting the use of the descriptive phase, tree shaping.I decided to go through the refs from the most recent. this is only the 3rd to be checked. Of the other two one good one bad, My question isn't about the diagnoses of the meaning or use of the term tree shaping. It is about tree shaping being used as a descriptive phrase. I think Russ Baker changed from specifics to general when he gives a description of what tree shaping is and some examples.

Could we please have some more opinions on this question. Is the above ref an example of the term tree shaping being used to describe this practice.?oygul (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm expanding the article for

The statement in question is that Cucumber, a drama about gay middle aged men, is the same thing as his old project MGM, a drama about gay middle aged men. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been challenged to "find a reliable source" for the remarks made by Pope John Paul II in Los Angeles on 16 September 1987 - as if the link to the text on the Holy See's website were not enough. I can think of no source more reliable than that. So, is this source a reliable one for "the Pope's quote" given here? I think the objector, whom I have informed of my enquiry here, objects to citing this source on the grounds that it is a primary source. But surely there could be no better source for the text of the Pope's talk. Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the interpretation of a four section twenty two paragraph epistle; and, the notability of the epistle as representing something meaningful about Catholicism and abortion. As we aren't the encyclopaedia of the Magisterium, or dissenters, or the hoi polloi, or the militant atheists, or of any particular group we rely on independent secondary sources, preferably scholarly, to WEIGHT different opinions and to interpret primary sources. Your use is unreliable as by picking out a particular paragraph you've acted as a Papologist, and not as an encyclopaedia editor. Find a scholarly text on the Catholic church and abortion (there would be quite a few), and follow the attention and weight of that scholar (or better: those scholars) on how the Church deals with dissent over abortion. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was thinking only of the challenge to find a reliable source "for the Pope's quote". The heading gives the false impression that the paragraph is about the Church in general. The heading should be "View of Pope John Paul II on such dissent", instead of "Church views on ..." With that change of heading, would the cited source be a reliable source "for the Pope's quote"? That paragraph is the only part of the talk that speaks of dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion, which is the topic in that part of the Wikipedia article. With the corrected heading, it is only indicating what this one particular Pope said, it is not presenting an exposition of the Magisterium nor is it weighing opinions of different authorities. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be, if it was coupled with a reliable secondary source WEIGHTed that the opinion of the Pope, or of John Paul II, was significant to Catholicism and Abortion. Even then, it would still be ideal if the source singled out this particular speech of John Paul II's as being representative. And you'd need to cite that source in the paragraph. And even then, wouldn't it be better to write that paragraph out of the secondary source? A scholar search on Pope abortion catholic turns up:

• Cultural Differences in the Abortion Discourse of the Catholic Church: Evidence from Four Countries* M Dillon - Sociology of religion, 1996 - socrel.oxfordjournals.org
• Pope John Paul II and Catholic Opinion Toward the Death Penalty and Abortion* K Mulligan - Social Science Quarterly, 2006 - Wiley Online Library Fifelfoo (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo: that's pretty much what I said. We don't reprint primary sources, because it's an OR issue and because our job is to reflect reliable secondary sources rather than publicizing anyone's views as if we were their personal press release agency. Changing the heading is nice but it doesn't really have much to do with the objection to the inclusion of this lengthy (and largely irrelevant, which is why I keep trimming it) primary-sourced quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berlinner" - one could quote that from a primary source (we have the footage of him saying it), but it was also requoted round the world with the gloss "Kennedy displays his support for Berlin". There's nothing wrong with a quote, but one needs the gloss as well - the world didn't requote the pope's speech, it summarised and interpreted it, and it's these summaries and interpretations that need to be got at. Folks can be directed to where they can go read the speech - that's what footnotes are for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"We don't reprint primary sources, because it's an OR issue"? So all the many direct quotations from books and documents now given in Wikipedia articles must be moved down to footnotes and replaced in the body of the articles by glosses and interpretations of what the authors wrote? Better is what Fifelfoo says (and perhaps Elen): quote the primary source so as to have the exact words used, and accompany it with a gloss. The world does quote not only Kennedy's short "Ich bin ein Berliner" phrase (hopefully in correct German) but also longer texts, and accompanies them with second-party glosses, comments and interpretations. There is really no need to change, for example,

Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech in Balatonőszöd in May 2006? Esoglou (talk

) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those examples are dreadful articles. An article on a speech should be like an article on a book. What makes the speech notable? When was the speech given, where, to what audience? What was the context? Short summary of the content, which is the only bit that can be sourced to the speech itself. Then a longer section on responses, significance, implications, aftermath. We mustn't give long verbatim excerpts but instead link to the text on Wikiquote. You're right that there are far too many long quotes littering Wikipedia, and yes, gradually they should be dealt with by appropriate combinations of shortening, moving into footnotes, uploading to Wikiquote. About this specific quotation from Pope John Paul, I believe there was commentary about it in the Catholic press, which should be useful for you, and yes, you can then include a link to the statement itself. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're acting as if you have provided a reliable secondary source and limited your primary-source quotation to the relevant parts, but that isn't true; you've repeatedly tried to stick a five-line primary-sourced quote from the pope in the article, along with many other primary-source-only quotes and comments and other inappropriate sources/original research, in the service of making the article conform to your political views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmeudith: I disagree that recognition from the "Catholic press" is sufficient. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just Catholics, and using niche sources whose goal is to promote an agenda will obviously skew articles away from

due weight. The comments should have received coverage in mainstream or scholarly sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought a commentary from the Catholic press was quite in order provided it was attributed as such. The due weight argument is a bit iffy here also, if we start applying due weight by numbers around the world to catholic things I rather think a lot more things should have a catholic angle! Perhaps we should just ignore that aspect.

Dmcq (talk

) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Roscelese, I didn't say that commentary in the Catholic press would be "sufficient"; I said it would be useful. The Catholic Herald, for example, is mainstream, but since it has a particular perspective weight must be considered. Searching for such articles will be useful because other sources will probably be thrown up in the process. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article, ‘Better ways of fighting inflation, ‘ ran on the wall street journal on the 22nd of October 2011. It was written by Jack Hough. In the article, he sought to explain the ways in which investors were trying to cushion from the effect of inflation. Though there was no threat from inflation basing on the price stabilization of commodities, he noted that the investors were insecure about their investments and were as such seen to move into purchase of the inflation protected securities. Hough referred to a recent auction, in which the 30 year Treasury inflation Protected bonds received a heavy bidding, which had not been witnessed in a period of over a decade. Because of the increased demand of the securities, the outcome was the reduction in the yield which saw the prices fall below 1% which was a record low.

Analysis The move by the investors was due to misinformation. Considering the incentives offered by Treasury inflation protected securities, the investors lost focus in their profit seeking. The complication is that the bonds rate of inflation is adjusted against a theoretical figure, consumer price index for all urban consumers, which is derived from hundreds of goods and services. Since consumption varies between individuals, the index on its own is not an accurate figure. At the same time, many investors in the United States are already enrolled in the social security scheme which accords retirees CPI-U indexed payments. This is already an inflation-indexed security. The investors also failed to consider the fact that if inflation reduced rather than rise, minimal returns would be experienced from the TIPS investment. This could have been as a result of poor research into the inflation trend (Smart, 2008). As a matter of fact, the inflation scenario was scaring and could have driven financial analysts to quiet corners. The investors were, therefore, looking at the immediate solutions and.

FIGHTING INFLATION Not at the long term scenario. By investing in the TIPS, they could only get slim returns and forego excellent incentives in case the stock prices went up. TIPS have a constant rate of payment of premiums and the investor is taxed throughout the life of the bond. The payoff, however, is due to the uncertainty of the market. If the inflation rate increases, the investor does not lose on the principal investment. It has no risk rating. Though an advantage, it holds the investors capital, which could have been invested, in more dynamic markets. If the rate of inflation reduced, the returns for the bond would still remain low (Stoker, 2010).

Conclusion According to analysts, the best way to cushion against inflation while looking at profitable prospects is to spread investments over a wide base. Investors could get incentives by buying into commodities like real estate and energy. The stock prices for energy and land are always on the uptrend: an investor can cut an excellent deal by investing in such stocks. Another probable option is investing in Master Limited Partnerships (Smart, 2008). These have an added advantage of passing the increasing costs to consumers. Adventurous investors should think of creative ventures to pursue instead of trying to match up with the rate of inflation. This way, they make money in the most unlikely of situations. To facilitate their ventures investors need to be well informed od the current market situation and expected projections. This can only be achieved through the use of experts who can predict likely gainers and losers. Portfolio investments would also go a long way in protecting the investor’s interests (Stoker, 2010).

References Hough, J. (2011, October 22). The wall street Journal. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from online. Wsj.com Smart, W. L. (2008). Introduction to corporate Finance. Ohio: Cengagc Learning. Stoker, R. (2010). Master Limited Partnerships: High Yield Ever Growing Oil “Stocks” income Investing for a Secure, Worry Free and Comfortable Retirement. New York Richard Stoker.

Er... what? This is the noticeboard for discussing whether sources are usable as references for statements in our articles. Is the above supposed to be a statement, a reference? In what article? --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page for this article, there is currently a discussion about whether the film's credits are a reliable source for the filming locations. I have argued that it would be a primary source, and that we would still need a reliable third-party source to back it up. I would like to hear some other editor's opinions. ---

23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We can use primary sources for non-controversial information, and I think the application of the cats in this case is not really controversial, but I may be missing something. Seems to me that the information is sourceable, see [23]. Also, it's good form to post a note on the talk page when you bring an issue to a noticeboard to let other editors know about it.... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The film credits would normally be considered reliable for the sort of thing usually contained within film credits - there are some consequences to the distributors if the credits are wrong. As to location, they may not be comprehensive, and may need to be supplemented with other sources, which may also be primary sources, or may be secondary sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here is exactly what the credits state: "Filmed at the Warner Hollywood Studios, West Hollywood, California and on location in Nashville, Tennessee and Blowing Rock, North Carolina". This is what I paraphrased when I added this information to the article; no more, no less. RepublicanJacobite insists that the film as a primary source and must not be used, but I have failed to find where in Wikipedia policy this is stated, so I disagree. --78.149.107.127 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I should say that the information probably can be sourced elsewhere, but that is not grounds for dismissing the information sourced from the film as unreliable. --78.149.107.127 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:USEPRIMARY confirm that works of fiction are acceptable sources about themselves, and that non-interpretative summaries don't count as original research. Ergative rlt (talk

) 21:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. ---

TheFortyFive

17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

James M. Johnson Unreferenced.

as title states, Person is a Associate justice to Washington State Supreme court.

Someone overwrote the previous referenced information with a copy-paste of http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=jmJohnson. Reverted. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Letter to the Editor and NYTimes quote on One Taste

This is a question about a source used in context. This diff is a series of edits by Billpress, a former member of One Taste quoted in a NYTimes article. (The edits are just on line 56. Ignore line 48 which are intermediary edits to another section.) Billpress believes the Times misquoted him, and he has recently edited OneTaste to show his actual views of the organization. These edits are sourced to his Letter to the Editor to the NYTimes which is reproduced here on his blog. It seems that a letter to the editor can be a reliable source if the paper publishes it, and if the writer is the topic of the article. But here it refers to the writer's views about a third party / organization. It also seems that there should be a way, for an individual who is named in an article and who shows up in good faith to correct the record, for them to have some recourse. But I don't know how. More detail and proposed solutions are at User_talk:Billpress

--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a tentative comment (there may for all I know have been previous discussion of similar cases). A newspaper such as the NYT would make its own judgment about such letters: they would judge that there was some reason to publish a correction, and they would judge that statements in the letter concerning third parties posed no legal problem. What I'm saying is that the letter should essentially be treated as any other signed contribution. How we treat it would then be a matter of weight (and BLP). I think if I were writing this I would tell it as it happened: give the paper's/reporter's claim first and then the correction, in both cases with direct quotes of three or four key words. I would say "correction" and I would not say "misquote" because, though "misquote" may be justifiable, it is a direct reflection on the reporter/writer, whose professional work is not relevant to our page. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! What you've said really helps us move forward. It raises two questions: 1) Is their also an

WP:OR component here? If the blog post is being used as a substitute for the published Letter because that's no longer available on NYTimes.com, then it seems the link should only consist of the original document, i.e. not include on the same page the letter writer's story about it. 2)does there need to be any vetting that cpanel77.gzo.com is in fact presenting an accurate copy of the NYTimes Letter?--Voila-pourquoi (talk

) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Published sources don't have to be available on line. It is important to cite the letter from the NYT, with original publication details, because that is the text that the NYT agreed to publish (and no doubt checked). The original letter-writer, being active in all this, could no doubt send a scan to other editors who are in doubt.

I don't see an OR element in this. Others will want to comment -- also on the question of additionally citing the blog (as a handy on-line source for the letter text). The question of whether it is a reliable copy does arise, and such questions have certainly been discussed here recently. Andrew Dalby 11:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So it sounds like a solution would be:

• include both the NYTimes article quote and the quote from the Letter to the Editor
  
• keep the quotes succinct (3 or 4 words might be tight, but under 10)
  
• avoid characterizations like the word “misquoted”
  
• the Ref for the letter should cite the NYTimes issue that published it, not the blog. However the blog may be used for the URL portion of that Ref.
  

Does that sound right?
--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred someone else to comment on how we refer to the blog copy of the letter. Since no one else has, for what it's worth, my suggestion is not to put any link at "url=" (because there is no official online copy) but, after completing the "cite news" template, to add the blog link manually in the same footnote, with a text such as [ Available on Bill Press's blog]. This makes its status clear. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say! Andrew Dalby 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources offered to label a person as being "Bigot of the Year"

Resolved

At

WP:BLP/N

the discussion focussed on calling her a "bigot" but those who wished inclusion aver that the award is sufficiently notable and has RS sourcing that the name-calling is allowable (most outside views there were that "bigot" is quite a contentious claim, is clearly opinion, and likely should not be in any BLP). However, the claim that a source with sufficient circulation becomes "reliable" has been made, and I ask for additional opinions. And is there any circulation which automatically makes a source "reliable" for claims in a BLP?

The query is whether the editorial nature of the publication uses fact-checking, or whether it publishes rumour etc. without doing so (or uses only "tabloid" standards for fact checking). And are any of these sufficiently reliable for labelling Phillips as being "Bigot of the Year."

"Stonewall.org" as giver of the award is SPS on this as far as I can tell.

"Pinkpaper.co.uk": "Pink Paper" was, in fact, a "tabloid" before it went to the web for financial reasons and stopped publiscation. In fact it proudly states it covers "from politics to the latest celebrity gossip." [24] which pretty much erases it as a

WP:RS

.

"Divamag.co.uk": "Diva" makes no claim as to being a news magazine in any way: "DIVA aims to deliver the best information, inspiration and online shopping to lesbians everywhere! We aim to provide excellence in innovation, information and entertainment for all our customers, and to make them feel individually special, and connected to our wider community. We provide the highest-quality magazine, retail experience and web presence possible for gay women and are dedicated to creating and evolving a magazine and a community to be proud of." seems also not to indicate any attempt to be a reliable source. [25].

"Attitude.co.uk": "Attitude" is also questionable as an RS - " Teeming with style, irreverent wit and exclusive celebrity content," is absolutely a tabloid attitude [26].

Many thanks for any new input on these. Closest I could find archived was "Pink News" being rejected as RS, and some other "special interest" publications being uniformly rejected, but nothing on these specifically. Collect (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting test of our verification policy. My feeling is this. We often use bodies making awards, I mean positive awards, as sources. Nobel for Nobel Prize, Academy for Academy Award, etc. On that basis I think the fact is verifiable from Stonewall. Now comes the big but. This news is on the margins of notability. If it wasn't picked up by TV news or the newspapers, and given that it relates to a BLP, I think you have to err on the side of leaving it out. There might be other views here, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would cautiously agree with that approach. However, I think there's another angle which should not be waved aside too quickly. It may be the case that this was big news in the gay press in the UK, but not in the general press. Would that ordinarily mean that something gets at least a passing mention? --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily, yes. There must be thousands of topics for which we expect coverage in the gay press but not elsewhere: opening of a new gay venue, obituary of an LGBT activist, detailed reports of Pride celebrations, too many to think of. It's the BLP aspect that's of concern here, also Philips' notability isn't confined to LGBT communities. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess my unease is that BLP means we should write conservatively. But there's a fine line here between that and writing conservatively.--FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An option would be a discussion of her writings/viewpoints on homosexuality followed by "...for which she received the 'Bigot of the Year' award from the UK LGBT charity

_complex

19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is taken in the constructive way it's intended, but would it be sensible if the advice given here was more closely restricted to the subject matter of the noticeboard, ie the reliability of sources? If editors weigh in about ancillary issues of notability or concerns regarding

WP:FORUMSHOP until they get the opinion they seek. I'm not questioning, for instance, Itsmejudith's stance on notability, but it surely strays quite far from the purpose of this forum and would be more conveniently expressed in the appropriate place for the consensus discussion, the article's talkpage. Exok (talk

) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering Collect's heavy appeal on the grounds of labelling sources "tabloid," it should be pointed out that in the UK the term also refers to

The Daily Mail, which Phillips writes for. Nick Cooper (talk

) 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- try not to attack editors - in the case at hand, the publications specifically and absolutely meet

WP:UNDUE. Collect (talk

) 13:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do try not to scream "attack" on spurious grounds. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On pure reliability grounds, I would say both

_complex

01:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the strongest source is Diva (magazine). The OP didn't make clear that this is a printed-on-paper newsstand magazine widely available in high street news outlets. It doesn't claim to be a news magazine, it's an LGBT lifestyle magazine, but there's no reason to doubt it as a reliable source for an event that no-one disputes actually happened. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "sufficient circulation" implies "reliable source"? I fear I do not personally give that much weight as an argument. Collect (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue really isn't reliability. This page, the organization's own page about who received the award, is more than reliable to say that the award was given to Philips. The real issue is whether the page should include the information - and that should be resolved on the talk page or possibly the

_complex

13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) Which is where I started - until one editor insisted that that board found the sources to be "reliable sources" pre BLP/N <g> and forced me to ask here. The current edit he proposes is

"In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year"

which includes the entire "opinion" and nothing about the organization giving the "award" (if such it is). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC) There are otehr winners whos award has been discused by RS, I find it odd that we are now exclusing this award in her case.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Uneasy Males: The American Men's Movement

I'd like to get some opinions about whether this book would be considered a reliable source for information about the

Men's rights. On the downside, it was self-published with iUniverse, and I can find no published reviews of any sort. On the plus side the book's author Edward Lee Gambill had a PhD and was a history professor at St. Cloud State University.[36]. The only other publication, that I can find was a book on the American Civil War period. The Men's movement book is heavily footnoted and seems pretty scholarly, but I'd rather check with others about its suitability before starting to cite it. --Slp1 (talk

) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's self-published and the author is not a recognised expert in the field, then the book is only reliable for statements the author makes about himself.--FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It rather depends what people understand by "in the field", I think. He was a historian by training and trade, and had published a book in the history "field". The book is basically a history of the men's movement, so I'm interested in hearing whether people think that "the field" refers to the topic (ie men's rights) or the discipline (ie history). --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to sign the book off as normal RS history, for the reasons already mentioned. No reviews found for a 2005 book. What a pity he didn't get it professionally published. Looking inside, it seems to have a calm documentary tone and plenty of references. I think, use with caution, don't use for controversial statements and attribute all statements. If it's challenged, look for other sources that deal with the same area. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

if anyone speaks Turkish

I'd like an opinion on http://www.e-tarih.org/biyografi.php?b=413&isim=Tiryaki. Google Translate isn't doing very well with it. I am getting the impression that it's a sort of digital juvenile history book. If it looks respectable, I could use a quick summary of any actual facts it might contain. If possible. I'm finding other sources though so this is not anything anybody should spend a lot of time on. The main reason I am asking is that the article I am working on has an extended unattributed quote, supposedly exactly what the man said back in 1601. I *think* it came from here. If so it's probably a homebrew translation as well, which is another problem, but if this is basically a story book, it will simplify decision-making as I won't have to figure out whether the quote actually matters. Just making sure I'm not doing anyone's edits an injustice ;) Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific astrology sourcing

Since my thread on general astrology sourcing didn't have a very positive result, I am back with some much more specific questions. In Tetrabiblos, are any or all of the four papers by Deborah Houlding currently cited RS for the article? As far as I can see, 1993 is an introductory article on Ptolemy published in Traditional Astrologer. 2006 seems to be a 1676 text copied by Houlding and annotated by her with an introduction, published on her website Skyscript. 2007 is a paper at a conference attended by both academics and practising astrologers, appearing as a paper in Culture and Cosmos. 2010 is an extended version of the 2007 paper on her website. If RS, are they used appropriately in the article? Is there any unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism? I won't comment further in this thread by the way, unless I'm asked to clarify or give further info. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment appears to be part of a ongoing general campaign to question all sources where the author has specialised in the history of astrology including Dr Nicholas Campion and Dr Patrick Curry and others as a reason to remove quality content. Deborah Houlding is one of the foremost experts in the history of astrology and in particular the details of traditional practice of astrology. As you already know, her work was peer-reviewed by experts in the field (Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum) and its reliability has been commented on by independent and influential academic sources. See here, where Stephan Heilen – in the most authoritative account of Ptolemy’s work to-date (Ptolemy in Perspective, edited by Alexander Jones) refers to her contribution and how it influenced his own theories. He describes her work as “rigorous research” which was conducted with “painstaking accuracy”. This is obviously an excellent testimony which demonstrates that her work is treated seriously, discussed and deemed worthy of consideration by the other notable historians who work in this specialist area. Robert Currey talk 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Robertcurrey; Itsmejudith has specified a neutrally worded question, and deliberately drew our attention to Houlding publishing in Culture and Cosmos as a result of a conference with academics innit. Reliability in Wikipedia is on a claim by claim basis—I regularly oppose the use of Time, The Times, and the New York Times where they're inappropriately used, it isn't universal per author. But thank you for your superior knowledge of Houldings work and noting her work's reception, it'll help me to respond more fully below. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Page 51 and 84 of Heilen explicitly criticise Houlding's capacity for analysis. In particular on 84 he accuses Houlding of misquotation of another scholar. On page 78 he explicitly disagrees with Houlding's evaluation and reliance upon ancient sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing no indication in her article indicating that Houlding has any particular standing as a historian or an expert on ancient manuscripts. Can she even read Ancient Greek? I am sure that there are dozens (hundreds?) of legitimate experts on Ptolemy and his works, so why rely on Houlding? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• ITsmejudith - I am asking for a clarification. Why have you asked if she can be accused of "unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism?" Do you have any grounds at all to suspect her of that, or is this purely because, as an astrologer, you believe she must be guilty of fraudulent behaviour?

Hrafn, have you not read the post Robert Currey gave above? He gave an active link to a Google book page in the most scholarly publication available, where her work is discussed, commended and shown to be influential in modern scholarly research. The reliance is made to Houlding because of her known expertise in tracing the history of the transmission of the text, and presenting the details thoroughly and clearly. The link to the paper which covers the research (peer reviewed and published in an academic publication), is here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Zachariel, I believed that Itsmejudith was asking about the use of the source in wikipedia in relation to plagiarism, and will be responding on that basis below when I get in front of a library computer. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Positive citation of a single article in a single work does not establish reliability (particularly as it is not unequivocally positive -- it takes her to task for taking for granted the authenticity of a manuscript subject to widespread doubt). I'm finding little indication on Google Scholar that Houlding is widely published in the academic literature on the subject, let alone that she's widely cited. Currey made a large number of fairly strong assertions, but provided very little breadth of substantiation to support them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to clarify my original question. I don't suspect Houlding of plagiarising anyone. I suspect we may be plagiarising Houlding by not sufficiently paraphrasing her work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Her reliability is established in the first instance by the fact that own research, into a highly specialist area - was peer-reviewed and published in an academic source. The fact that it was commented on, and commended by another scholar working in the same area, establishes its credibility independently (unless we query the authority of Heilen's opinion too). And it was acknowledged as being rigorous and put together with painstaking accuracy. It is perfectly normal for scholars to refer to the work of others, and state where their views agree and where they differ. She is quoted at least 12 times in that scholarly work, (probably more, I can only count the ones on the previewed pages). Why should Wikipedia need more than this?

Itsmejudith asks us all to consider this to see if Houlding can be accused of "unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism?". The answer is no. I would still like to know why Itsmejudith should raise that question in the first place. Are there any grounds at all for this? If not, it is just a bad faith assumption, and part of the continuation of anti-astrology scare-mongering that has become far too apparent over the last few days -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, this only establishes reasonable reliability for her 2007 paper (which, as far as I can see is only cited once in Tetrabiblos), not for the rest of her work. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be used on WP, sources have to be reliable and independent, and for a scholarly topic such as the interpretation of an ancient primary document, they have to be recognized by the mainstream academic community. I can find no evidence that Houlding has any scholarly credentials. Her article on WP doesn't mention any Deborah Houlding.

The only indication that she has ever been taken seriously as a scholar is the paper in "Culture and Cosmos". The journal is published by the Sophia Centre at the University of Wales Trinity St. David. It claims to be peer-reviewed, but it does not post its peer-review policy on its website [[37]].

However, there are grave doubts about whether it counts as an independent source. The editor-in-chief of the journal is Nick Campion, who has close ties to the author through the not-independent Astrological Association of Great Britain, of which he is the former president. She had a paper published in a book edited by Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum, who have both received funding from the Sophia Trust (which funds Campion's Sophia Centre), as has the Warburg Centre to which they belong [[38]]. Stephen Heilen appears not to be disinterested either, as he appeared at a conference together with Houlding that was organized by Burnett and Greenbaum and funded by the Sophia Trust [[39]]. Sorry, but this looks like a mutual adoration society to me, and an obscure walled garden within the scholarly community.

As to the individual sources and their use in the article:

Houlding (1993) is published in a fringe journal, and cannot be considered a reliable source for WP. The source is used to support material on the significance and nature of the primary source. It is innadequate for that purpose.

Houlding (2006) is a reproduction of a 17th century Engish translation of an ancient primary source once falsely attributed to Ptolemy, and sometimes appended to his works. The paper is self-published by Houlding, and the material comes from Houlding's own commentary on the text. It is thus not reliable for the interpretation of the relationship between two ancient sources, for which serious scholarly sources are needed.

Houlding (2010), from Culture and Cosmos, has been described above. This source is used to support amterial on the history, provenance and transmission of various manuscripts, a topic that requires high-level academic training. Because of the fact that there is no evidence that Houlding has any academic standing at all, it is highly dubious that her work on the topic is reliable.

Furthermore, the relevance of the Broughton quote to the topic is tenuous, at best, and probably not nothworthy outside of the astrological community.

In short, Houlding appears to be an amateur historian with no formal training in researching historical and primary documents. I can find no evidence that Houlding's scholarship is recognized by anyone outside of a small, incestuous group of scholars who cannot be considered disinterested. As such, her works cannot be considered reliable for supporting scholarly material on WP. I agree that there are better sources for the article, and that there is no reaon to rely on Holding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To Dominus Vobisdu: I am still awaiting the removal of the malicious comments that you made about astrologers of good repute, in addition to the serious misrepresentation of my remarks that you made to justify your spurious arguments. The request was clearly made on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard this morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=464198523&oldid=464196771 I am trying to assume good faith, but instead of correcting yourself, you are continuing in unwarranted and unsubstantiated speculation. If the misrepresentation of my remarks is not corrected in all the places you have falsely reported them I will be seeking arbitration.Wendy Stacey (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are doing original research here.

talk

) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For info, Houlding 2010 is stated to be a version of Houlding 2007 "for online publication". Normally I would cite only the journal paper for copyright reasons, would those apply here? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The paper was posted online in 2010. It has a clear notice on it that it is authorised for where it has received online publication, so there are no copyright concnerns. The benefit of making refrence to this is so that the reader can read the paper in full and check the points made. The same approach is taken to the other links.

I am going to consider DV's comments. Something should be done about his implication that there is an unreliable and "incestuous group of scholars" which involves Campion, Burnet, Greenbaum, Heilen and the academic institutions involved in the publication of their work, from the University of Wales Trinity St. David, to the Warburg Institute, London. The suggestion that they are part of a mutual adoration society is more than OR. It is unfounded, nasty and ignorant. It needs to stop, now. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, DV has a right to hold a strong “anti-astrology/anti-astrologer” position. This has been made clear from his opinions and his history of editing in the past couple of months. I have not seen a single contribution that was constructive or neutral in this field and I don’t think he will disagree with my general characterisation of his editing campaign.

What is important is that such strong feelings without any apparent expertise in the subject may drive the wheels of the Skeptical Inquirer but it has not advanced constructive neutral editing on Wikipedia. It is quite wrong to try to discredit any author for the ‘crime’ of pursuing a subject: astrology in which they have a personal interest. It just so happens that Deborah Houlding is also an expert in the traditional practice in this field. Evidently, DV has done a lot of digging around to support his claim and all he has come up with is

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Just because they shared the same platform at a conference or book title, you can no more question the authority of Deborah Houlding than you can question the authority of Charles Burnett, Professor of the History of Islamic Influences in Europe, at the University of London [[40]]. Specialists have connections, work on the same projects, refer to each other in their books and present at the same conferences. Unless you have evidence, we cannot assume that they worked or appeared together because of some back-hand bribe as appears to be implied, but that Deborah Houlding was invited to present with and contribute to the Professor's book for her expertise. Robert Currey talk

18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So the Warburg Institute's being pulled into the black hole now ... Why, I used to use their library! Am I, too, part of this charmed circle? And they never even told me. Andrew Dalby 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Houlding is a professional astrologer. As I see it, she is not being cited as an expert in history or science, but rather to give testimony as to the astrological significance of the Tetrabiblos and the meaning and relevance in astrology for some of the statements made in the Tetrabiblos. The person you'd want to cite for propositions of this nature would not be a historian or a scientist, but an astrologer. Academic sources are

preferred but not required, and the people most seriously engaged with Ptolemy's text are currently astrologers, and Houlding has in fact presented papers on Ptolemy to historical conferences. Under normal sourcing guidelines, Deborah Houlding is a reliable source for the astrological significance of the Tetrabiblos. If you are of the sect that imagines that astrology is entirely incoherent and improvised and unworthy of notice, no amount of academic credentials will ever support any astrologer's statement on a proposition in astrology. This implies rules that apply to the subject of astrology that don't apply elsewhere, and I don't think this has any support in policy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just restating my original linked questions. Which, if any, of the four papers currently cited are RS, and are they correctly used at present? Are we careful enough not to plagiarise Houlding's work by using her wording rather than rewriting in our own words? I have posted on the talk page of the article about the use of one of those sources, but will withdraw from the whole area for a week or so after having corrected the reversion of my correction of

WP:MOSBOLDSYN. Itsmejudith (talk

) 22:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't add that material, the Houlding source that gets used the most is her paper on the "terms", which are part of the astrological system of essential dignity. This paper is used for a number of facts, including a textual history of Ptolemy's text, and discusses later astrologers' use of variant details of the table. Her paper is being used as a reference to the textual history, of which hers is the most recent. She is also being cited as a source for the fact of Ptolemy's deep interest to later astrologers. As an astrologer, she is a reliable source to that fact; as a textual historian, she is an amateur, but her work seems to be based on and updates the Robbins introduction, to be generally consistent with it, and this particular document was in fact presented as noted to a peer reviewed publication. None of the claims as to those matters are really controversial, and most are easily verifiable through the primary sources.
She's also cited briefly as one of the authorities for Ptolemy's biography.
Her website also contains a useful external link to an interactive presentation that illustrates how the hot/cold and moist/dry dualities are "logically" assigned to the several planets by Ptolemy based on their perceived distance from the Sun, the Earth, and the Primum Mobile. This is simply a utility link that accords with what Ptolemy said and astrological tradition as well.
Finally, her site is used as a reference for the Centiloquium, an astrological text that's almost certainly not by Ptolemy; her site hosts a seventeenth century English translation with astrological commentary. That text has its own article. Her introduction is quoted for the fact that the Centiloquium was associated with Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and often printed with it, but wasn't really by him.
I did not see any extensive quotation from any of these sources in our article. As a source, Houlding is reliable (and indeed, more reliable than any non-astrologer source could be, under normal rules of reliability) for matters such as the influence of Ptolemy on later astrology and the astrological motivations behind any text variants in the table of terms. She is at least acceptable on the textual history and life of Ptolemy; before I'd reject them I'd want to know if there are any facts cited to her that are contested. She is worthwhile as an external link showing the logic of Ptolemy's assignment of temperaments to the planets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Houlding's work has not been well received by other scholars, (Page 51 and 84 of Heilen, linked above, explicitly criticise Houlding's capacity for analysis. In particular on 84 he accuses Houlding of misquotation of another scholar. On page 78 he explicitly disagrees with Houlding's evaluation and reliance upon ancient sources.). Houlding's publication in Culture and Cosmos is a reliable publication per the review policy of the scholarly journal. Houlding's extension of the work is not reliable as Houlding has been sharply criticised in Heilen for poor research practices and the extended work is not peer reviewed. Houldings publications, "Houlding, Deborah, 2006. "Ptolemy's Centiloquium transcribed and annotated"" and "Houlding, Deborah, 2010. "Ptolemy's terms and conditions"; expanded edition" are self-published. I've not seen a relevant EXPERT argument made—I'd suggest that high honours in a non-sectarian professional association of astrologers; An MA by Research or PhD in cultural astronomy/cultural astrology from that Welsh university; Or multiple scholarly publications (I'm counting one right now) would be relevant. I am however willing to hear other EXPERT arguments not yet put. Houlding's publication in Traditional Astrologer I'm not going to esteem—Ulrich's doesn't hold a listing for it as a scholarly or professional journal. Houlding, 2007 in Culture and Cosmos is reliable as a scholarly article. The rest require an EXPERT argument, with the argument being demonstrable prior to the year of publication (ie: if you want Houlding 1993, you need to demonstrate
  WP:EXPERTise
  prior to 1994 or so). Remember: I am very interested in presentations of astrological EXPERTise and I'd view this the way I'd view engineering or medical expertise: I want to see open professional society recognition, particularly higher professional recognitions (compare GP to Surgeon to noted and awarded Surgeons), or a MA Research or PhD (specifically relevant) in the field, or a MA Coursework (specifically relevant) combined with publications in open (ie: non-sectarian) professional journals (as opposed to scholarly journals) which are demonstrably peak professional journals.
• As far as plagiarism goes, compare Wiki "the fact that the Tetrabiblos presents one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" and Houlding 1993 "Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology, - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'." That's close paraphrase out of the box (bold), plus misrepresentation of opinion as fact (ital). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk of plagiarism is inapposite. We cite Houlding, we acknowledge Houlding: that's the whole basis of this discussion. If we didn't cite Houlding, but borrowed her words without acknowledgment, that would be plagiarism. "Plagiarism" in this discussion is just another stick to beat Zac with.

As to the bits of text that have been labelled "plagiarism", I have seen two, one in the discussion above and one on the article talk page: both consist of less than a sentence. (Sorry if I have missed some larger infraction.) I saw another incident of this recently, so I know that rephrasing sentences that echo cited sources is the obsession of the month, but parts of sentences? Parts of properly acknowledged sentences? For what possible reason? Andrew Dalby 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that plagarism is not the issue here. As for Fifeloo's argument about expertise, this pertains to scholarly expertise only, and astrology is not a recognized field of scholarship, not taken seriously by anyone outside of the astrological community". Knowledge of astrology as an astrologer can not be equated with knowledge of astrology as a scholar. Their sham "professions organizations" and sham "journals" also are not recognized by the scholarly community as anything but a tasteless parody. Therefore, Houlding's claim of scholarly expertise is supported solely by a single peer-reviewed paper in Culture and Cosmos. As for that source, the original 2007 version can be used. The expanded 2011 version cannot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The original poster explicitly asked about appropriate use and plagiarism. Close paraphrase of a source is plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I admire Itsmejudith's work everywhere else on Wikipedia that I have encountered it nad have never had the slightest urge to disagree with her before, I think in asking about both plagiarism and reliability in that posting she was (a) asking something that's irrelevant to this board and (b) trying to attach her doubts about the Tetrabiblos editing to a current obsession among Wikipedians. If I'm really wrong, Judith, please, please say so and I will apologise for my error.

Fifelfoo, this really isn't relevant to this board but since you give a definition of plagiarism I must point out that it's incomplete. See the first para of plagiarism: "the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work". You left out the last bit. Andrew Dalby 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if it is appropriate to look at this issue more specifically on this board - perhaps in a new thread? Fifelfoo has pointed to a comment that he says might be constituting plagiarism, because it uses words that are close to the phrasing of its attributed source. Although the query is separate from the question of whether the source is reliable, I think it is relevant here since it concerns the reliable sourcing of comments. I am treating his comments seriously but I genuinely cannot see that there is any case for suggesting plagiarism in the example he made. That example can be easily fixed, but it is the policy that is being used that concerns me; because if there is really no case to answer here (as I believe), I don't want to have to change the wording of one comment and then go through the repeat of the exercise over and over. But if he is correct, then we won't need to have prolonged disputes because I will understand that a substantial rewrite may be necessary to avoid any concerns about plagiarism. So I would like to create a new thread that separates that issue from this one. If no one objects I'll do that. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this seems to need discussion. Where the best place to discuss it might be, I honestly don't know! Andrew Dalby 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fifelfoo, you have cherry picked from points of scholarly debate to present an unbalanced analysis of how Houlding's work was received by Heilen. You say that his text on p.51 and p.84 "explicitly criticise Houlding’s capacity for analysis". But it doesn’t. The note on p.84, concerning a comment he makes on p.63, is relating to a disagreement which he qualifies under conditions not used by Houlding "at least not in the chapter of the terms". On p.51 he reports on whether Ptolemy fabricated a detail in the manuscript (an argument he supports) and all he says is this:

"But all this does not prove that Ptolemy was lying. That may be the reason why different scholars hold different views. While Houlding (2007) takes the old manuscript’s authenticity for granted and does not even mention the wide-spread doubts of other scholars, Fetiguere is convinced that Ptolemy is only pretending".

That is not explicit criticism against "a capacity for analysis".

There are several references to Houlding in the text and numerous in the footnotes; on some points Heilen disagrees, in others he supports his arguments by acknowledgment to hers. Heilen refers to her as a scholar and would not be taking her work so seriously if he held it in the standing you suggest. Page 93 is excluded from the Google preview but on this page alone six of the 13 footnotes cite her work as his source, or recommend it for further reference. We don't need to speculative about this because he gives his own summary of the overall value of her work quite clearly in footnote 259, where he states:

"Houlding works from a practitioner’s perspective. Her research project came to my knowledge while I was preparing my own paper on the same topic for Caltech. The present article profited greatly from Houlding’s kind permission to read hers before it went to the press, especially with regard to the host of valuable information that she presents. As to the insights that she draws from it, my notes make it clear where I am indebted to her. Note, however, that the two articles are dissimilar in purpose and method, mine being chronologically arranged, strictly philological, and interested in the problem of the authenticity of the Ptolemaic Terms (while renouncing to the laborious discussion of each one of them)."

This is clear enough to show that your declarative statement "Houlding’s work was not well received", is inaccurate.

Can we move on, and simply accept that the same standards apply to this article as any other? On the talk page it has been suggested that we should consider the possibility that another (unused) footnote in one of her articles, which references another work - none of which is used in the article - might be subject to slight misinterpretation if we read her words in this way instead of that. There seems to be a desperate attempt to engage in non-article related private investigation, which is not appropriate and very difficult to relate to the motive of supposedly only having her professional interests in mind. -- Zac Δ ^talk!

DV - you have a sham argument. As shown above, the scholarly community clearly does consider such works as something other than "a tasteless parody". The only thing that cannot be taken seriously is your ridiculous argument that all the involved scholars, scholarly institutions, academic presses and Springer itself are acting in some kind of "incestuous plot". It is a waste of good time to even have to read your silly arguments-- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Zac, this is precisely how I deal with sources in other articles, as you would know if you read RS/N regularly. You're getting no more, and no less, than what unregistered professionals publishing into a field (history of science) where scholars publish receive from me normally. Given the wide variety of complete amateurs publishing in SPS presses in the professional field of contemporary astrology, I really do want to see clear cut examples of high professional standing before accepting two self-published works and one work from a press so small it doesn't have an Ulrich's entry. In fact, I'm being rather generous because I'm treating the assertion that astrologers form non-sectarian professional societies with good faith (and I have reason and suspicion to believe this is the case). Thank you for extensively quoting footnote 259—this goes towards establishing Houlding's credentials as an EXPERT pracitioner. It doesn't go towards EXPERT status as a historian of astrology as the rather cutting commentary in the other footnotes indicates. Do you have any details of Houlding's other professional achievements and recognition, as I don't really accept the word of a single historian of ideas being demonstrative of professional expertise as a practicioner. (I am asking these questions because I am assuming with all good faith that reliability can be demonstrated) Fifelfoo (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, but give me a day or two because I want to finish other tasks first and facing time pressures. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did manage to stay out of the discussion. Thank you all very much for your contributions. I think we have consensus that Houlding 2007 can be regarded as RS for astrology articles, probably exercising caution. Her other papers aren't RS, although the 2010 version of the 2007 paper is a convenient link. I wish I had asked about "close paraphrasing" instead of "plagiarism", but in the end the discussion seems to have been useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! Andrew Dalby 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)