Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 169

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 165

←

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

→

Archive 175

I have proposed three English-language publications as reliable sources for the statement that derivation of the word "Easter" from the name of a supposed Germanic goddess of dawn is not the only theory held by scholars:

1. a statement in Encyclopaedia Britannica article;
2. a statement in J. Gordon Melton, Religious Celebrations: An Encyclopedia of Holidays, Festivals, Solemn Observances, and Spiritual Commemorations (ABC-CLIO 2011 ISBN 978-1-59884205-0);
3. a statement in Michael Kunzler, The Church's Liturgy (LIT Verlag, Münster 2002 ISBN 978-38-2584854-5), p. 397 (the English version of a book that has been translated into other languages also).

On the grounds that "you need linguists discussing language. These scholars do not have the required background", User:Bloodofox has deleted the statement based on these sources that there is also a view among scholars that the word "Easter" came from an Old High German (mis)interpretation of the description of Easter Week as in albis. Bloodofox has qualified as "particularly bad and unreliable" the Encyclopaedia Britannica article.

There are also German-language sources that explicitly reject the goddess theory and mention the in albis theory and indeed a third theory that links the word "Easter" with a North Germanic word referring to baptism. Take Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Volume 6, p. 523; Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias, p. 47 (footnote); Ostern: Geschichte Eines Wortes (which opts for the third of the proposed theories); Brockhaus Enzyklopädie in zwanzig Bänden, Volume 14, p. 15; Das Kirchenjahr: Feste, Gedenk- und Feiertage in Geschichte und Gegenwart, p. 90; cf. the French-language study in Orbis, vol. 9, p. 434, summarizing a more detailed work in German. Bloodofox has objected to citations of German-language sources in the English-language Wikipedia and I accept that, if English-language sources are available, these should be used instead. So my question is: Do any of the three English-language sources that I cited count as reliable sources for the existence among scholars of the in albis theory of the origin of the word "Easter"?

By the way, the German-language sources support the statement by the first two of the English-language sources that I have cited that the goddess theory is no longer the majority view among scholars. Out of deference to Bloodofox I chose to be silent about this matter. Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica article author is Hans Hillerbrand ([1]), the Religious Celebrations author is J. Gordon Melton, and The Church's Liturgy is by Michael Kunzler. None of these English-language sources are appropriate because none of the English scholars you've highlighted appear to have a historical linguistics background; they're primarily theologians or "religious scholars" with a strong focus on Christianity. None of them discuss their methodology for their conclusions. Academic publications by philologists are what we've been and must be using; one can't comment on historical linguistics without a background in it. It's a complicated and difficult topic. Sure, with due weight, the in albis theory should be mentioned as it sees some currency in "theological" circles that have a particular problem with the idea of a Christian holiday employing a heathen name (probably in response to Hislopian The Two Babylons-like criticism of elements of Christianity) but it's basically a fringe theory at this point that goes to complicated extremes to get around Bede's quite explicit statements, the comparative evidence, and the archaeological record, and saddles Bede with a motive that we don't have. The Dawn Goddess evidence is pretty strong and it's widely recognized in Indo-European studies; I can produce hills worth of papers discussing it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I will not imitate by saddling the goddess theorists with motives. It would be off-topic to discuss their theory, in spite of the fact that, out of the three linguistically based theories, it alone is propounded in the article we are discussing,

primary research papers, are reliable sources for the existence among scholars of yet another theory. Esoglou (talk

) 19:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bloodoffox may certainly produce sources to the contrary, and those contrary criticisms should be included in any discussion of the "in albis" theory but suppression of reliably sourced argument violates

WP:RS/AC requires us to have sources specifically making a meta-analysis like that. For something like this, where basically all of the theories are conjecture (although some more reliable conjecture than others) it is probably safest just to iterate over all the theories, and the arguments for/against. Gaijin42 (talk

) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I take this comment, which I think may have been composed before I posted my preceding comment, as saying that the three cited sources in English are reliable sources for the existence of the in albis theory at a scholarly level. I have, of course, no objection to inclusion of contrary reliably sourced arguments, if Bloodofox or anyone else wishes to add them to the (future) mention of the in albis theory. And reliably sourced arguments against the goddess theory can be added too. Later, I may add a mention of the "baptism" theory based on one or two German sources, since I have not come across reliable English sources for that quite recent theory. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we be quoting fruit farmers as authorities in articles about space travel? We're discussing an etymology here. As a result, non-linguist sources are simply not appropriate. J. P. Mallory and Calvin Watkins are leaders in their field—the sources cited are currently general audience works by historical linguists. Everyone from whatever discipline who chimes in about an etymology isn't a valid source. Linguists are who you need to be looking for, not non-linguists making judgment calls in fields in which they have no background in. Seriously, I can dump probably hundreds and hundreds of sources on the Indo-European dawn goddess reflexes that include mention of Ēostre since the Victorian era. To respond with some non-linguists who are "theologians" dismissing this is inappropriate and misleading to the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary says that the Eostre connection is "alternative" and "less likely" than the given etymology, and says that the goddess explanation "is not confirmed by any other source" but Bede. "Easter, n.1". OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59097?rskey=cgi4HY&result=1 (accessed April 21, 2014). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, I'm afraid that you've completely misread the entry. It goes directly to the Indo-European dawn cognates and doesn't even mention the in albis business or any further alternatives, dismissing them as "less likely alternatives" to be dug up in a list of cited sources "below" (i.e. "D. H. Green Lang. & Hist. Early Germanic World (1998) 351–3, J. Udolph & K. Schäferdieck in J. Hoops's Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (ed. 2, 2003) XXII. 331–8"), and then explicitly defends Bede's identification ("it seems unlikely that Bede would invent a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one"). Here it is:

Etymology: Cognate with Old Dutch ōster- (in ōstermānōth April, lit. ‘Easter-month’), Old Saxon ōstar- (in ōstarfrisking paschal lamb; Middle Low German ōsteren , ōstern , plural), Old High German ōstara (usually in plural ōstarūn ; Middle High German ōster (usually in plural ōstern ), German Ostern , singular and (now chiefly regional) plural), probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’). For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below. It is noteworthy that among the Germanic languages the word (as the name for Easter) is restricted to English and German; in other Germanic languages, as indeed in most European languages, the usual word for Easter is derived from the corresponding word for the Jewish Passover; compare pasch n.

Bede ( De Temporum Ratione 15. 9: see quot. below) derives the word < Eostre (a Northumbrian spelling; also Eastre in a variant reading), according to him, the name of a goddess whose festival was celebrated by the pagan Anglo-Saxons around the time of the vernal equinox (presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above). This explanation is not confirmed by any other source, and the goddess has been suspected by some scholars to be an invention of Bede's. However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one. For further discussion and alternative derivations see D. H. Green Lang. & Hist. Early Germanic World (1998) 351–3, J. Udolph & K. Schäferdieck in J. Hoops's Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (ed. 2, 2003) XXII. 331–8, and for a parallel development compare yule n. Bede's etymology comes in a passage explaining the origin of the Old English names of the months:

a735 Bede De Temporum Ratione xv, Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur, et cui in illo festa celebrabant, nomen habuit, a cujus nomine nunc paschale tempus cognominant, consueto antiquae observationis vocabulo gaudia novae solemnitatis vocantes.

Compare Old English Ēastermōnað April, cognate with or formed similarly to Old Dutch ōstermānōth (in a translation from German), Old High German ōstarmānōd (Middle High German ōstermānōt , German Ostermonat , now archaic) < the Germanic base of Easter n.1 + the Germanic base of month n.1

And there you have it—just about exactly what I've been saying. Where it differed is that the entry does not make any mention of the unearthed matronae Austriahenea, personal names, and toponyms that seem to further support Bede's theonym (see Shaw's recent work on the topic). In addition, Bede wasn't some sort of early linguist, either. It would be an incredible coincidence for him to have produced a cognate form of this goddess name and then just put it in there, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no explicit defense or even implicit defense of Bede's identification. The line, "However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one" of course only says exactly what it says, no more. It is a response to the other view: "the goddess has been suspected by some scholars to be an invention of Bede's". The fact that the entry questions the hypothesis that Bede made up the goddess, does not mean that the entry accepts Bede's etymology. That would be a fallacy called an

inverse error (e.g., if Bede invented the goddess, then his etymology is wrong; Bede didn't invent the goddess, therefore his etymology is not wrong). Bede's etymology of < Eostre "dawn goddess" is not included in the accepted etymology. The Eostre "dawn goddess" etymology of Bede is mentioned along with the other "alternative" etymologies which are "less likely". I didn't anything about the other etymologies. How have I misread the entry? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions

) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Both the endorsement of Bede's statement as the most accepted etymology and the derivation from the I-E dawn goddess are in the opening paragraph: "Cognate with–..., probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’). For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below." Note the explicit statement that the alternative etymologies are "less likely". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It says that aurora, ἕως etc. are cognates. That's fine. Not every cognate is an etymon. Unless it is specifically described as an etymon, then there's no reason to suppose that the editor is calling a cognate an etymon. The etymology for Easter, n.¹ given by the OED is this: All of the α and β forms < the same Germanic base as east adv. That's the complete derivation that they give as "probably". Eostre does not occur as a form at all in that derivation, nor does any mention of a word with the sense 'dawn goddess'. They do go on to consider Bede's derivation from Eostre in the sense of 'dawn goddess'. That's fine too. They don't include that derivation as part of their derivation given above, which ended with derivation from that "Germanic base". At the relevant "east" entry the OED describes this Germanic base: "The Germanic base ultimately shows a suffixed form of an Indo-European base with the probable meaning ‘to become light (in the morning)’" They there too mention that it is cognate with the Latin and the Greek 'dawn's etc. So the word is assuredly cognate with names for dawn goddesses. Being cognate with does not mean being derived from. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethenekos, you're still misreading this etymological entry; please take a step back and re-read it. The only etymology provided is the 'dawn goddess'/'dawn' etymology; read the first paragraph again. See that discussion about Aurora, Eos, and Ushas, the cognate Indo-European dawn goddesses in the first paragraph? This is regarding Ēostre as cognate and why she is considered to be a reflex of the commonly attested Proto-Indo-European Dawn Goddess. Of course, Indo-European studies not having existed at the time, Bede doesn't say this, he just provides her name and her association with the time period (spring). Bede wasn't some sort of enigmatic medieval linguist. All other attempted etymologies, which would include the in albis etymology, are thereafter referred to as "unlikely". The entry also reports that there have been some doubts in the past (not uncommon), but then argues in favor of Bede's identification: "However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one". Bede does not provide any etymology; he just says Ēostre was once recognized with feasts during a month named after her but that these observations had died out in his time (albeit portions of Anglo-Saxon England were still heathen during the time, but that's another thread). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "Bede does not provide any etymology". The OED explicitly disagrees with you: "Bede (De Temporum Ratione 15. 9: see quot. below) derives the word < Eostre (a Northumbrian spelling; also Eastre in a variant reading), according to him, the name of a goddess". That is explicitly an etymology, the OED only uses "<" in such a way when they are reporting an etymology. The accepted etymology by the OED is what is listed above with all of α and β forms "< the same Germanic base as east adv." In that etymology, there is no mention of any god or goddess, not even with the cognates. The fact that there are non-etymon cognates which were also words for goddesses, does not make goddesses part of the etymology, because cognates which aren't etymons aren't etymons. Again, the fact that the OED editors agree that Bede did not make up the goddess, does not mean that they agree with Bede's etymology. That's just a run-of-the-mill inverse error. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but you seriously need to sit back and absorb that entry. It's exactly what I've been saying. Read the etymology they provide again. I don't mean to offend you, but look: "presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above"; Auora, Eos, Ushas, etc, are also dawn goddesses. This is implicit. No, Bede doesn't attempt even a folk etymology; questionable as the placement of the bracket is, no one said he did. He just says she was a goddess, there were feasts, and the month was named after her. That's it (see entry quote; Wallis translation of the Latin: "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance"). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bracket; OED editors call it a "from sign" (OED editors type it in their markup language with "&from."), but it displays as a less-than sign to readers. In this usage it always indicates an etymology. To derive a word < another word in an OED entry is to give an etymology. They say "Bede derives the word < Eostre". That's the OED's statement, not mine. If you feel that that is not indicating an etymology in this case, I would love to hear how you parse the sentence. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bracket, greater-than-or-less-than symbol, from sign, or simply > <; whatever. Call it what you will—I spend my days using them. I'm aware, thanks. Anyway, find a derivation in that quote and get back to me, meanwhile you're wasting your time and mine with pointlessly discussing why ever they put it there. Obviously Bede didn't provide any kind of etymology, and discussing a phantom etymology by Bede over the placement of < is fruitless. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The symbol has a specific meaning within the OED, to understand the symbol as something other than a "from" sign would be to misunderstand what the OED is saying. You can deny that that's what the symbol means by premising that the OED "obviously" could not mean that, but that's just original research. The OED would not be the first to say that Bede provided just such an etymology: "Bede derives the name of Easter from the Goddess Eostre" and "Spelman approves of Bede's etymology, from the goddess Eostre" (Hampson, Medii ævi Kalendarium pp. 104 & 105 [2]). I would invite you to explain what the sign means if not "from". If indeed you feel that the sign is a bracket, you must be saying that the entry has a typo because there is no closing bracket. Was the bracket the typo, or where was the closing bracket supposed to be placed, do you think? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course this is common linguistic markup but, and I certainly mean no offense, a thread about what OED means here is plainly pointless. Sure, it's not original research to ask "wtf is OED on about here", but it's irrelevant to the question. We're supposed to be using our brains to sort out sometimes contradictory sources to build articles while, of course, not producing theories of our own. Is it a typo? It has to either be a typo or some kind of mistake; as we see, Bede provides no etymology and it's as simple as that, as plain as the sky is blue. What's important to us here is the etymology OED provides and I appreciate you bringing the entry up in the discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the OED says: "Bede's etymology comes in a passage explaining the origin of the Old English names of the months:" and then gives the relevant quote from De Temporum Ratione xv. The OED clearly believes that Bede gave an etymology. And they are not the first to have this interpretation. Also, reading that Latin myself, I see no great problem with their interpretation: It's perfectly possible that Bede is saying that the month's named was derived from Eostre, 'the goddess'. That's clearly how the OED has interpreted the Latin, anyway.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has gone off track. The question asked was not about OED. The question was about the reliability for the existence of the in albis theory of the origin of the word "Easter" of the articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and another encyclopedia and in Kunzler's book in English. Gaijin42 says they are reliable for that statement and that suppressing them is a violation of

) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that they're probably not reliable. Why not cite the Green source which mentions it (or thereabouts, anyway). I can give you scans of the Green source, but you might be able to read it on Google Books: [3]. It's just pp. 351–353. When you read that, you can see that OED's "probably" derivation and other considerations pretty much just follows Green's argument, but without giving the root reconstruction that Green gives. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This again may be going off topic. On page 353 (I don't have access to page 352) Green seems to reject the Knobloch theory (the in albis theory), the one that, according not only to the two cited English encyclopedias but also German sources such as the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, is the majority view among scholars: "Knoblochs Vorschlag hat bisher die meiste Zustimmung erfahren" (Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support). But we are not discussing which of the existing theories is the one and only correct one. That is not for us Wikipedia editors to decide. If any of us attempts to do so, that editor is, as Gaijin42 said, indulging in

original research

. We can only report what reliable sources say. Green is indeed one of many who say that the in albis theory does exist among scholars. Green can therefore be added to any others who are cited for the existence of that theory. Perhaps Bloodofox can cite some source that says the in albis theory does not exist at scholarly level. Until now he has only given his own personal opinion (original research). And that is no basis for suppressing mention of it. Indeed, he has only given his own personal opinion on the value of the theory, not on its existence among scholars.

Would you on further reflection come down on one side or other of the question about the reliability of the three cited sources for the existence among scholars of the in albis theory? Your "guess that they're probably not" is not a declaration for or against. If even certain newspaper articles can be reliable sources for the existence of a scientific theory (whatever about the validity of the theory), surely these are reliable sources for the existence of the in albis theory. If you decide they are reliable sources for this purpose, there will be unanimity (I exclude Bloodofox and myself) in favour. If you decide against them, then there will be one view for them (Gaijin42) and one against (Atethnekos). At present there is only one for and none against. If they are reliable, other sources too can be added to them. If they are not, we must cite other sources, whether in English or in other languages, for what to me seems obvious, namely, that there are serious scholars who hold the in albis theory. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, we don't cite fruit farmers as authorities on space travel. We cite authorities in their fields; none of the three English language sources presented (Hans Hillerbrand, J. Gordon Melton, and Michael Kunzler) have any apparent background in historical linguistics. By far the majority of modern go-to entries written by historical linguists' do not pay any attention to the in albis theory at all, as has been repeatedly illustrated here, and this includes general audience works such as the Oxford English Dictionary cited above, Barnhart's Concise Dictionary of Etymology, Watkins's Indo-European Roots, and various works by some of the most highly regarded Indo-Europeanists such as J. P. Mallory (editor of The Journal of Indo-European Studies). I can provides hundreds of more sources that ignore the in albis business and go straight to what is clearly most common; the dawn goddess reflex etymology. Again, we can mention it, but this stuff about it being "most common" is total nonsense from inappropriate sources. It's not original research to observe academic consensus among scholars in the actual field that we're discussing. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no justification for us to remove mention of minority theories just because we can not find them in English. The publications mentioned in German are strong linguistic authorities, and it would be wrong to ignore them. That is very clear in WP policies, and that should resolve the question as I understand it. Mind you, the fact that we can and should mention secondary theories leaves open the question of what weight to give them, but that is not the question at issue as I understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly said that the in albis theory needs to be covered in context (keeping in mind

WP:UNDUE), just by linguistic authorities, and not by non-linguists making dubious claims. :bloodofox: (talk

) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you really are prepared to allow the existence of the in albis theory to be mentioned, what would you (sourcedly) change in the text that you deleted totally: "A different view of the origin of the word is given in the latest edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Qualifying as dubious the presumption underlying the goddess theory of the origin of the word "Easter", namely, that Christians appropriated pagan names for their highest festivals, it supports the view that Old High German eostarum, from which the English and German names of the feast came, "derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba ('dawn')." This is the view also of J. Gordon Melton, who sees as parallel the development of the English word "Lent" from that which denoted spring. The same view is expressed by Michael Kunzler." To that we can add: "and is noted by D.H. Green".

Don't forget that you cannot just impose your own idea of what is "undue". If you are not satisfied with qualifying the in albis theory as "a different view" (as in the text you deleted) and want to present it as "a fringe view" or "a minority view" or whatever else you desire, you must support that proposed presentation by something other than your own personal judgement. There are several sources that say that the in albis theory is the majority view among scholars. You must find similar sources that say that, of the existing theories, it is the goddess view that has most support. Esoglou (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, the problem is source quality, as we're discussing above; Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are non-linguists discussing historical linguistics—they are not scholars in the appropriate field. Once again, we do not cite fruit farmers on the topic of space travel. It's obviously not widely supported among linguists handling this material, as repeatedly illustrated; major figures in the field producing entries for both academic and general audience works that totally ignore this theory should make this clear enough. For what it's worth, general encyclopedias are frequently poor sources for what they represent; imagine if we attempted to source Norse mythology with some of the nonsense found in, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That "it's obviously not widely supported among linguists handling this material" and that nobody else is capable of forming a judgement is your personal view, supported, so far, by no cited source. Only by original research synthesis can one say an exposition of one explanation of a phenomenon is necessarily a denial of the existence of other explanations or a dismissal of them. Don't forget the sourced statements that "Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support". Those statements cannot be ignored at a Wikipedia editor's convenience. And perhaps I should add that you don't have to be a linguist to tell what is the majority view. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit aggressive about this and there's no need for that, so please step back. Again, you're deferring to non-linguistics on a matter of historical linguistics, a major problem that you don't seem to want to address. I'm citing historical linguists here, in fact some of the biggest names in the field, and they frequently outright just ignore this supposedly "dominant" in albis theory that you're treating as authoritative by way of the methodology-free opinions of three non-linguists:

• J. Gordon Melton, a "religious studies scholar"/ordained minister (no apparent linguistics background)
• Michael Kunzler "liturgical studies" scholar/deacon (no apparent linguistics background)
• Hans Hillerbrand ("religious studies", contributor to websites such as christiancentury.org [4]—also no apparent linguistics background)

These individuals are by no means reliable sources on the topic of historical linguistics. Outside of their lack of appropriate expertise, they may also harbor a vested interest in a "heathen-free" etymology for reasons I've discussed about (reaction to Alexander Hislop?, etc.); whatever the case, they've clearly all got a particularly explicit pro-Christian approach to this material and are out of step with sources cited throughout this discussion, such as the Oxford English Dictionary entry. When we build articles, we don't just take for granted the first thing that comes along; frequently our sources may disagree and there are plenty of junk sources out there. These aren't reliable for the topic. Stick to linguists when handling linguistics, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if asking what is the majority view sounds aggressive. But I will repeat it: What is the majority view on this question? Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the majority on what question? I don't follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the majority view on the origin of the words "Easter" and "Ostern"? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Most historical linguistics sources and authorities refer directly to the 'dawn'/'dawn goddess' etymology and make no mention of alternatives. It's exceedingly common, as I've shown. Here is, for example, a quote from Jean Haudry's "A Cosmic Religion of the Indo-Europeans"; “A great deal of ingenuity has been employed to dispose of the decisive evidence of Bede …nevertheless, our former observations prove that the concept of a ‘dawn of the year’ is sound" [5]. Like I said, there are no shortage of sources such as these, probably thousands reaching back to the Victorian era. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we must keep to what reliable sources say, not build up our own arguments.

You are aware, aren't you, that the dawn etymology (but not a supposed goddess) is an essential part of the in albis theory? Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's should be clear as, well, the dawn (see what I did there), that Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are inappropriate/unrealiable sources that have no place in this discussion. If you want to get into detail about the in albis idea, we should do it elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As clear as day, not just as the dawn, is the explicit statement by several sources that the majority view is that the word "Easter" originated in a confusion of in albis with the dawn, as a result of which a Germanic word for the dawn was attached to the feast. This clear statement needs no argumentative synthesis such as is needed by claims that the majority view is something else. Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm excusing myself from this particular thread. I won't be acknowledging these three as authorities or reliable sources on this topic. As I've stated several times, none of them appear to have a linguistics background and all three may have some vested interest in this conclusion. Find some reliable sources and we can talk about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That won't do as an excuse. What I quoted to you and told you not to forget, "Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support", doesn't come from what you call "these three". Besides, you don't have to be a historical linguist to know how to count. The Knobloch or in albis theory is stated to be the majority view, without any need for argumentative synthesis about linguistic backgrounds. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What quote are you talking about? All you keep referring to are those three terrible sources before. Please stop bogging this conversation down with poor sources and stick to the linguists. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[Here it is again. It is not from "those three terrible sources". Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a much better source than the others and is far more valuable than the other useless three. However, it's also from 2004, in German (post-war German philological circles on this matter can be quite different than their Anglosphere counterparts), and since then Shaw's Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons has been published (2011). Shaw has a whole section on this topic, as a recall, although he bizarrely doesn't get much into the Indo-European material that dominates much of the discussion on this topic (a lot of these entries are in fact incorrect/out of date because they don't mention toponyms, personal names, and the matronae Austriahenea, as I recall Shaw points out). It would be useful to go through this; while I don't know how much his final conclusion has gained in terms of support (Shaw comes to a unique, in my opinion odd, conclusion), we need more coverage of it on the Eostre article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you can find some source that says the majority view in 2014 is different? Or are we still left with argumentative synthesis? Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

An obscure German source that flies in the face of what we're seeing in the English sources just means that we have to reconcile what we have. It's part of article building; we don't synthesize, but we do report, and it doesn't always add up cleanly or simply. It's a big issue that the in albis theory is utterly ignored or rejected in what we're actually seeing here, from Watkins, to Mallory, to the OED entry, and to the several others we've seen here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bloodofox, can I ask you to please confirm your position more clearly? In all your responses about the sources being non-linguists you are only talking about the English publications, but is this because of your opposition to German language sources, or are you saying these are also not strong sources for historical linguistics? Also, what is your concern about using Green? Surely that is a very good English source for historical linguistics? Please keep in mind that we do not need a source to agree with a theory in order to be sure that a theory is at least notable and discussed as a possibility in the specialist literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While English language sources are preferable (and easily obtainable ones at that), I don't have a problem with using non-English sources (I frequently do). The German material I haven't much looked at, to be honest. I've said a few times here that we should mention the in albis notion, but the major issue is the idea of using Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand as sources for anything to do with linguistics at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Got a link to the green article, btw? I can't seem to find it in this wall of text. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[6]. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing a page in the preview of Green's review, but Green appears to defend Bede's identification fairly strongly. So is the question whether we should be citing the in albis theory with Green? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if I've got this straight, essentially everyone agrees that the etymology of Easter most likely goes back to the Indo-European word for 'dawn' (and the dawn goddess) as reflected in Vedic, Greek and Latin. Knobloch's theory relies on this for his 'in albis' idea to go through. So, let's not frame Knobloch's idea as some sort of goddess-free theory, since there is still a connection with Aurora, Eos and Ushas. Plenty of goddesses for everyone. Haukur (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You may make a goddess connection with the dawn etymology in the in albis hypothesis. As far as I understand, Knobloch didn't. The view that the word "Easter" originated in a confusion of in albis with the dawn, as a result of which a Germanic word for the dawn was attached to the feast, does not require putting a goddess into the mix. Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Green traces it back to PI *ausrō, but he does not give a sense for this. The OED does not give a reconstruction to the ultimate PI but they give it a sense ‘to become light (in the morning)’. They don't give a sense for it with '...goddess...'. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how you've come to the conclusion that the OED is ignoring the fact that all three cognates are personified as goddesses. One can't discuss Aurora, Eos, or Ushas without noting their personification as goddesses, especially in relation to Ēostre, and the OED doesn't attempt to; the entry says—"presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above"; the connection to cognate dawn goddesses is explicitly invoked and cannot be ignored in the provided etymology. Green appears to also defend Bede's ID, but I can't get a full preview. What's so important about Green, anyway? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they're ignoring that. All three cognates are personified as goddesses, and Eostre too 'presumably'. Great for those cognates. Unless the OED further states that the etymon for the cognates also has that sense, then that is just reading into what they are saying. Maybe there is a whole consensus of linguists who agree that since each of those cognates has that sense, then so does their etymon. Great—so then the judgement of those scholars would be just that. But that's their judgement, not the OED's.

Depends what you means by Bede's ID. Green puts the question of the goddess to the side: "Whether or not we accept this as evidence for a pagan goddess, Bede's testimony can be extended to Germany on the assumption that at least a pre-Christian festival was known by this name in those parts where the OE word was adopted." (p. 352). And that's the only thing Green says about the goddess. So Green agrees with Bede insofar as Bede says that Easter (in form Eostur in compound) was originally the name for a pagan festival, but he does not weigh in on the further claim that the festival was named after a goddess. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; no judgement from Green on that further question. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have ceased. I think this section can be closed. Leaving aside Bloodofox and myself, only one editor has declared that the three cited works in English are reliable for the statements for which they were cited, and none has declared that they are not reliable. Not a very decisive result. But there is agreement that sources in languages other than English can be used. (In practice, that means works in German, since the question is one about English and German.) There is agreement also that more than one view may be presented. I am therefore adding to the article Names of Easter some information, which I trust will not be deleted out of hand, on theories that have emerged only in the last few decades, long after the Victorian era. I hope that some of the editors who joined the discussion here will be good enough to view what I have written and improve it. Esoglou (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a little soon: a handful of hours without discussion doesn't necessarily mean the discussion has ceased. It's still morning in the US. Applying the unreliable sources will be reverted; again, I ask you to stick to linguists when dealing with linguistics. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you want to and if others have the stomach for it, go ahead. I won't even dispute your to me strange idea that you have to be a linguist to see which theory is most prevalent. Esoglou (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I picked up this one which Shaw was responding to: Page, R.I. "Anglo-Saxon paganism: the evidence of Bede" in Hofstra, Houwen & MacDonald (eds.), Pagans and Christians (Gronigen: Egbert Forsten, 1995).

Page says, "Over the years several of Bede's etymologies for the month names have been queried, so there is nothing very challenging about the way I shall look at them." For April, Page reports Bede's etymology as "April, eosturmonath called after the goddess Eostre whose feast they celebrated at the time". Page says: "Eostre too has long been shrewdly called into question. Again there is no confirmation of it as the name of a pagan goddess." He cites Knobloch's 1959 and says: "Thus, I suppose, he thinks the month-name eosturmonath derived from the feast-name, Easter. A goddess has no place in this naming; and Eostre is an etymological fancy on Bede's part. Whether you accept these detailed arguments or not, they do show we must be cautious about accepting Bede's Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess Eostre." (pp. 124–125). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We've still got a ton of entries on the topic from linguist that totally ignore Knobloch's etymology and go directly to the 'dawn goddess' etymology without even mentioning alternatives—and this quite a lot—plus quite a few criticisms of it. Further, it's unclear that Knobloch was aware of the 1958 discovery Shadow mentions before putting together his in albis theory was published in 1959); these are matronae (probably glossing some form of idisi—Germanic goddesses) with names apparently containing the same root as Ēostre. As if the comparative material wasn't strong enough (the dawn goddess is probably the single best attested deity of PIE religion), this is another huge problem for the in albis theory. Shaw notes that most of the discussion regarding this was pre-discovery of these inscriptions doesn't take this evidence into consideration. However, Shaw comes to a curious conclusion by the end where he theorizes that Ēostre was some sort of local goddess, as I recall. I need to go get the book again. Audrey Meaney's Bede and Anglo-Saxon Paganism ([7]) also contains a full-on defense. One thing I am noting here is the discrepancy between medievalists and Indo-Europeanists on the topic. Indo-Europeanists seem to just see it as another reflex, whereas medievalists seem to be mainly focused on the internal record. I'll need to look at more entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried visiting www.publicpolicypolling.com to verify some refs, and I get an 'unknown domain' error. Because of that, I can't even check to see if there are archives. The problem is that without the margin of error, which was not copied to WP, the polling results we have mean little, so I've been removing some of our claims pending verification. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Their old website[8] is still up, saying they've moved. Can't find anything in the news about them going out of business. What's up? — kwami (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. They tweeted yesterday that their site was down due to problems with Typepad, which I think should be fixed now. (This also probably isn't quite the right noticeboard for this question, though no obvious better location comes to mind.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor has used the source [9] as a reference for the date of birth of actress Gwendoline Christie. It seems to be a database of some sort, but I can't tell how reliable it is (official records?). Opinions?  Sandstein  10:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be published by DC Thomson, which is a reputable publisher. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, but its use involves

synthesis. That's because there may be any number of people named Gwendoline Tracey. To conclude that this one is the same person as Gwendoline Christie requires further research in other records and a synthesis of the findings from them. Ergo, this source should not be used. 70.235.84.89 (talk

) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lawfareblog

Source: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/ Lawfare is Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With http://www.brookings.edu/

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine. This constitutional oversight puts the interim government in legal limbo as the bills that are currently being signed into law by acting President Turchynov are not carrying any constitutional authorization. This problem of legitimacy also undermines Kiev’s dealings with foreign governments, as the government appointed by Turchynov does not represent the de jure official government of the Ukraine. As such, foreign governments who are willfully recognizing and thereby trying to confer international legitimacy upon the interim government in Kiev, are indeed breaking international law by violating (1) the sovereignty of the Ukraine and the law of the land (constitution), (2) the principle of non-interference, (3) and the practice of non-government recognition.

Other sources supporting the argument:

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html

However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.

However the user Львівське sees the source as unreliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government#Government_lacks_legitimacy --Wrant (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody give me an input, thank you! --Wrant (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the online magazine of a non-profit published in conjuntion and partnership with Brookings. You can't get much more establishment mainstream than Brookings. Looking deeper, their masthead shows a larger and robust editorial staff and contributors. I don't know what the question is. It seems profoundly boring and academic, a reliable source as far as I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. It's hard to argue with the reliability of this source for statements about law, for reasons well articulated by Capitalismojo.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The report here lists several articles which were created by the same editor. Each of these articles contains references from the user in the reference list, by the author "P. Mills" or "Peter Mills" or "Petey Mills". There are maybe two - five papers (one published via IEEE and one in Cryosphere today). The extend of peer-review is not entirely clear to me. All the additions are highly technical and often not easy to determine if correct. Though, besides the potential issue of COI with the heavy self referencing i need input from experts about the relevance, and importance of these additions. If you need more exact cites or info, please ask away. Thanks.

) 18:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A list of the papers concerned would be a good starting point. I looked at one from IEEE and it looked perfectly scholarly, but pretty minor, so I suspect what's happening is that someone who is doing relevant scientific work is also overusing it on Wikipedia. You say you want input from experts. Here you'll find people interested in sourcing, and while I hope you get useful input, it might also be useful to tag articles for expert attention and/or post at relevant WikiProjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The same source is also used in the article about Wu Qing (athlete), the athlete mistakenly presented with the silver medal, then given the gold. Uncertainty and protest over the Women's F35/F36 discus medals continued for several days. The Conversation article is the only one I've found that reports the whole situation reasonably clearly from start to finish. Sportygeek (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Study papers, which require assessment:

• Following the Vapour Trail: a Study of Chaotic Mixing of Water Vapour in the Upper Troposphere 2004
• Sea ice emissivity modelling at L-band and application to Pol-Ice 2007 campaign field data 2007
• L-Band Radiometry for Sea-Ice Applications 2009 (no page given)
• "Retrieving sea ice concentration from SMOS 2010
• Efficient statistical classification of satellite measurements 2011
• Principal component proxy tracer analysis 2012
• Principal component analysis of satellite passive microwave data over sea ice 2012
• Microwave emissivity of freshwater ice, Part II: Modelling the Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes 2012
  

My impression is, that these papers are either not really the best references and all content appears to be written in a highly technical jargon, which makes it even harder to assess. Often theses papers are cited to state math functions, or explaining methods or algorithms, but without stating that the data are proposals or from thesis. So it is unclear how relevant these papers really are.

) 00:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Master's thesis, definitely not reliable. The two Arxiv papers also not reliable. The others do seem like normal peer-reviewed scientific papers; one is by independent authors. Reliable, but only in the very specialised areas they actually cover, and also should be read alongside other research. The hosting of the full text of two of these papers at the sourceforge.net site may also be a breach of copyright. Full academic references should be given. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Butterfly, Rainbow, and Glitter.... Till now the worldwide sales pending until I found this [10] Thanks very much fidelovkurt 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a few historical articles about dynasties in East Asia titled as "tributary states." In addition to being mentioned largely in the article, is it necessary and accurate to mention that on the description bars? Or is this misleading? Camouflaging the states as political reliant/tributary states. Academics and historical literatures, however, have described these states politically independent and the tributary relations as a form of diplomacy.

What do you guys think?

I could not help but to chime in. I do not think so because it is mentioned in the article. I would think that both things ("Academics and historical literatures" and the comments about the tributary status) should be mentioned in he article and the correct sources cited. I think that should do. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Finding sources about villages and small settlements can be a challenge. I've just discovered the above project, but am unsure how to regard it. Is it purely primary? Can it be used in any way as a starting point for information? The BBC state that the project was undertaken by schools and community groups etc, but I can't find mention of any quality assessment or screening of the information provided. Here is an example of an entry, which tantalisingly mentions a "smugglers route" and a "secret passage", but I can't help thinking that some information could well have been invented. Comments welcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My gut feeling was not to regard it as reliable - but the involvement of the BBC muddied the waters a bit. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In The Irrawaddy article [11], the magazine stated that "The UK publication(IHS Jane’s Defence), which specializes in military and defense industry issues, also cited blogs that claimed the Burma Army suffered a staggering death toll of 5,000 casualties during the conflict". In this case, I don't want to discuss the reliability of The Irrawaddy and Jane's Intelligence Review and I just want know if it is reliable of death toll because the Irrawaddy and Jane cited unnamed blogs.

Another thing I want to know is Kachin News [12] and Shan Herald [13] can be considered as reliable sources in the article Kachin conflict because Kachin News don't have contact address and printed newspapers, and because of the objectives and activities of Shan Herald. [14] Laurence Watcher (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd need to go back to the article in Jane's to see how they present those figures. Jane's may have endorsed the figures as being accurate, presented them as estimates from probably-reliable blogs (most likely, I suspect), or been sceptical. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Nick is right! In my opinion, it is better to use Jane's report stating that there were 5000 casualties than saying there were 400 casualties in Myanmar Army without any reference. According to my understanding, it is the security reasons not mentioning any address in Kachin News website. Criticizing the Burmese government was easier said than done a couple years ago.

I can't find any source of Burmese army death toll in Jane's website so far. I agree with you if you cite Jane's report. But I cannot accept Kachin News as a reliable source. It is acceptable for aircraft losses which is well sourced. Can you use such sources regarding death toll. Thank you. Laurence Watcher (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Kachin News is not that reliable. Therefore, I edited the number of casualties from KIA as 'unknown'. Since the Myanmar government never releases information about death toll, it is hard to find a reliable source.

In addition to being used as source for the main text in State terrorism, several of the famous linguist's books are recommended for "Further Reading", which looks a lot like one-sided political spam to me (especially because there is already an entire article dedicated to the United States and state terrorism). When I challenged Chomsky's credentials on terrorism, User:Vanamonde93 responded by noting that Chomsky's political opinions have been published and widely read, while another user chimed in to say that he liked Chomsky. Do Chomsky's academic credentials give him prestige even in this area?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky's more a political theorist than he is a linguist. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

However, Chomsky's field of expertise is in linguistics, not political theory. He's not an expert in terrorism, and I have to agree with the OP that loading up a bunch of Chomsky links in the "further reading" section is not an NPOV presentation. Whether one likes Chomsky or not is not relevant to the issue. Horologium (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

His published books clearly qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. His work in the field of politics has been published by numerous publishers, including university press, so I would say he pretty solidly qualifies as an expert there. The specific publisher that seems to be under question here,

WP:V is concerned. Siawase (talk

) 12:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky does tend at times to clearly present opinion which is not generally accepted by experts in the field of terrorism. Safe course, as always, is to cite opinion as opinion in the article. Where other expert opinions appear to have greater weight in the field, the positions with greater weight should be noted. That said, using such a source in "further reading" is likely not the best use of such a category, especially if undue weight is thus given to his opinions. Either cite him in the article, or avoid it altogether. Collect (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to passers-by: There has been a discussion at Talk:State_terrorism#Chomsky_and_South_End_Press regarding Chomsky. That said, this seems to be a mountain/mole-hill – due/undue question and not a RSN issue. At present the main text cite gives his definition, and Chomsky is RS in that regard. There is no further expansion of his views in the text. One further reading item is clearly on the subject and the other is less related. (So my suggestion regard the FR items is to select one.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky is considered to be, along with his co-author Edward S. Herman, the world's foremost writer on the United States and state terrorism. (Blakeley, Ruth. State terrorism and neoliberalism: the North in the South, Taylor & Francis, 2009, p. 20-21.) He has published papers on terrorism in the academic press. Furthermore, expert status is not required for a source to be rs. Reliability relates to facts. Are the facts presented in Chomsky's books likely to be accurate, or does he show reckless disregard for facts? That issue is entirely separate from weight, which is about how accepted his views are.

Incidentally, the article is about "state terrorism", not "terrorism", i.e., terrorism openly carried out by states, while terrorism generally refers to actions carried out by non-state actors.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• [15]
• [16]

The article they are being used on is

) 08:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hymnary definitely is in my view because under the notes section, it cites a number of printed works as where it got it's info from. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the first one appears to be RS. Took a while to find the needed information but it appears to have editorial oversight (an editorial staff) and a reputation for fact checking and has incorporated other RS into the site.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the second one, it appears to be authored by an academic. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it isn't. At least not that I can find as the article used from the site is the copyright of Richard Niell Donovan [17]. Also if you read the link you left you will see that while it can be said that that author (again not the one who authored the actual article being used) can certainly be defined as an academic, he is also not an expert in the field and makes that clear: "Dick is not a Biblical scholar, but he does love the scriptures. His gift seems to be the ability to explain things clearly. He studies reputable commentaries and lifts out points of particular interest to preachers. Only then does he develop SermonWriter materials.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking through what appears to be an attack article, I'm struck by the statement:

The foundation seeks to gain a place at the table amongst the “medical experts” whenever there is a public debate on health issues relating to wind farms.

Those quote marks make me wonder whether there is some editorialising going on. The statement is supported by the reference: "The Ballarat Independent" Who is the Waubra Foundation Really? http://theballaratindependent.com.au/news/article/who-is-the-waubra-foundation-really 25 July 2011. Retrieved 31 March 2014

The Ballarat Independent appears to be a shared political blog full of opinion pieces rather than news. There is no physical newspaper. The website's wording is

The Waubra Foundation … gaining a place at the table amongst the “medical experts” whenever there is a public debate on health issues relating to wind farms.

There's a prima facie case of plagiarism, obviously. Looking at the article's other sources, some are reliable, some not so. There appears to be quite a few primary sources used, for example.

I think the whole article could use some serious work to conform with standards, but for now I'll just ask for opinions on the reliablity of the "Ballarat Independent". --Pete (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It hardly needs asking, I suspect, but can someone confirm my opinion that we shouldn't be using WikiTree as a source - e.g. this page [18] for our article on Frank Crocker, as recently featured on DYK? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, wikitree is entirely user generated content. There aren't even any sources that I can see that you could use here.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

http://theconversation.com/discus-farce-prompts-points-pow-wow-at-paralympics-9284

Not sure if this is a reliable source; it seems to use scholars, but it still has traits of a user-generated content farm. Could we go over this just to be sure? On the page itself, it was used in conjunction with more definitively reliable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a RS: the author is a university professor writing within his field of expertise. Most authors published by The Conversation are academic experts or experienced journalists, and all content is professionally edited. Some contributors are students and other non-experts, but their submissions are also professionally edited before being accepted or published and can be assumed to be accurate (though probably not great sources for Wikipedia articles). Calling the site a "user-generated content farm" is completely wrong. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

With contributors like Ken Henry and Michelle Grattan, it's a reliable source. And well worth reading. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please check this edit: [19]. It inserted a text starting with "The above entry is entirely erroneous and was categorically disproven by Samuel Pearce May in his definitive 1890 genealogical work," into the article. It was added in 2012 by an IP user. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The inserted text is pretty much correct. The current standard source to consult on Great Migration immigrants is Anderson, Robert Charles, George F. Sanborn, Jr., Melinde Lutz Sanborn, The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England 1634-1635, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 2001. The entry for Richard Sears confirms that the English pedigree for Richard Sears set forth in the middle of the 19th century was disproven by Samuel Pearce May in 1886, and that he published an account of the family in 1890. The Great Migration entry further states that his origin is unknown, and that his wife was Dorothy Jones, daughter of George and Agnes Jones of Dinder, Somerset. My only quibble would be that we can't really call an 1890 genealogical treatise definitive; for example, Donald Lines Jacobus published a brief account of the family of Richard Sears in 1948. I will try to update the article so it's in accord with current knowledge. - Nunh-huh 02:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now edited the article to standard form (from its previous point/counterpoint arrangement). Of interest: the earliest versions of this article got it right, and somewhere in the interim the bogus claims of ancestry were introduced. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is a dispute between me and another editor on these two blog posts (one, two) and their usage as sources in Speyer wine bottle. I feel that usually personal blogs should not be used at RS, but the editor who added them disagrees and they're quite upset about it , see discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Speyer wine bottle. Can someone chime in and help us settle amicably this issue? Thanks a lot.--cyclopia^speak! 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly not, unless it can be shown that the authors of the blogs are world renown wine experts or something. but they did contain a links to content that could be http://www.thelocal.de/20111209/39405 http://www.museum.speyer.de/Deutsch/Sammlungsausstellungen/Weinmuseum.htm Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, though they can be used as a means to find genuine RS sources by the same author or by other researchers mention in the blog posts, if any exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, this is what I thought as well. To be fair, the first post seems to be by a professional archaeologist -does it change anything?--cyclopia^speak! 08:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A huge amount of statistical data has been added to the snooker articles using these two sources:

• CueTracker (about the author)
• Snooker Info

These sites are being used to sourced stuff like the number of century breaks and prize money earnings (see the infoboxes at

) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, fan sites are not acceptable. Many fan sites will look very slick and seem like a reliably published site, but these do not appear to have any real links to anything official and seem pretty straight forward as someone (anyone) who created a web site about their favorite subject.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and commenting. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I use this media watchdog organization as a source in the "response" section of this page? Thanks.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an editorial column and as such represents the opinion of the author, and his notability in the area might be questioned. The "response" section is full of "list of celebrities" and such detritus which ought to be removed as weakening its value to readers.

A group of celebrities including Sean Penn, Cher, Susan Sarandon, Jennifer Hudson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Charlize Theron, Woody Harrelson, Cameron Diaz, Alicia Silverstone, Emily Deschanel, Olivia Munn, Ellen DeGeneres, Oliver Stone, Jennifer Aniston, and William Shatner have called on the United States to not sign the TPP until Japan bans the slaughter of dolphins in Taiji as documented in the Academy Award-winning documentary The Cove.[87][88][89][90] The petition, which was conceived by Sea Shepherd Cove Guardian Simone Reyes, was also signed by Jesse Jackson, Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk.[89][91]

is of nil value. Collect (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how they're reliable for information on this topic. As it stands, they're barely good for what they do outside of their own attributed opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of choosing a source then arguing whether it meets rs, one should choose the most relevant, high quality sources and reflect what they say. When writing about a free trade agreement, a media watchdog is not an obvious source. TFD (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently working on the Scientology in Australia page, fixing dead links. Is this a suitable url for the following reference?

Crawford, Wayne (2 August 1982). "Scientology makes its move for an 'all-clear'". The Mercury. Hobart. p. 7.

I quite often come across copies of news articles in strange places, but I tend to ignore them as potentially suspect. Should I not be?

(The archive on the paper's website only goes back a few years. There's the Australian National Archive but that stops in 1954 for this paper.)

This is more a question about the suitability of the source of the reference rather then whether the reference is suitable. For completeness, the reference is supporting

On 25 February 1981, officials of Scientology urged repeal of the Victorian Psychological Practices Act, which was subsequently amended by the Psychologists Registration (Scientology) Act, 1982 to remove all references to Scientology.

Having said that, looking at the source and the quote, I'm not sure that it DOES support the statement. Which probably means I've picked a bad example for my question about copies of news articles on other sites.

Thanks for your help. —Otus scops (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends where the copy lives. Dedicated archive sites like

HighBeam and Internet Archive are generally considered reliable sources of copies. "Just some website" isn't. Since there is no guarantee that the copy is reliable, you shouldn't use it ... well, I'm tempted to say for anything at all, but certainly not for anything at all controversial. There is very little related to Scientology that is not controversial. So you definitely shouldn't use it here. --GRuban (talk

) 00:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Links are not necessary but are helpful to readers who want to know more. My concern is whether the site has permission to reprint the article. So I would not use it. TFD (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Mercury is definitely a WP:RS, and the REFERENCE can be used, but the link cannot(The Mercury only provides pay service access to Archives that old)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban, The Four Deuces, and Anonymous209.6:Thank you all - I shall leave it as-is and remain suspicious of news stories copied into strange places--Otus scops (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous user seems to have a problem with a multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint due to his own contradictory viewpoint. Please have a short look. Do we need page protection? - Hirabutor (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to use Sarostin as a source for what Hubey says? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

With "multi-referenced" I mean Hubey's statement in Hildegard Lewy's paper in the Cambridge book, that's why the contra-argument of the IP is somehow strange. Starostin is just a reference for the Old Turkic version of the word su -> sub/suv ("water"). - Hirabutor (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

l have just looked the ip's reverts. S/he explained the reasons for reverting. And it has nothing to do with "vandalism". As far as l see, the words "vandal" or "vandalism" are using as a kind of "ad hominem" in wikipedia. Lamedumal (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ln addition, in order to solve the problem you should search for sources from Hubey instead of writing here.Lamedumal (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that Hubey's statement is mentioned in Hildegard Lewy's paper in the Cambridge book? If I would begin to search for sources from Hubey, I would have to buy the Cambridge book. How much does something like that cost actually? - Hirabutor (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Hubey is mentioned at all in the Cambridge book? Giving you benefit of the doubt because you added this in other articles as well. 71.127.134.43 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I know it from here. Anyway, I leave it. - Hirabutor (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

l am not sure that your new sources are reliable. For instance, Biro and Jozsef. Both of them are Hungarians and as far as l remember, Jozsef claims that Sumerians also Hungarians. lt seems to me ethnocentric. And also who are they? Professor, archeoligist, etc? l did not find anything about them on the net. On the other hand, David Christian is a reliable source but i did not see anything about Subartus in the source. And another problematic is the source 4. The source says that Dhorme mentioned various names for Subartu such as Sabiroi. But you taked it as "Dhorme found/proposed a connection between Sabirs-a native Siberian people- and Subartu". lt is just your interpretation and not in the source. You can find better sources. Use libgen.info or something. Otherwise your additions might be deleted. That's my suggestion. Lamedumal (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Lamedumal and the IP here, we need more academic sources and reliable sources. Concerning Hubey, we need the exact name of his work, otherwise we can not put him into the article as a source. On the other hand, the website http://www.magtudin.org/ seem to be a trustful source. But I am not sure about Fred Hámori, I think he is even less reliable than Biro Jozsef. Who is Hámori? Does he have any doctoral title?--Kleropides (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted an edit of Hirabutor's at another article[20] - I've had the page open for some time to look at it and it was drawn to my attention. It uses someone's personal website to argue about genetics. It appears he doesn't understand or perhaps agree with our policy on sources.

talk

) 14:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831

It has come to my attention that one editor added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.

Let's recall the

guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside Wikipedia.

I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.

My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. DrLewisphd (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Glottolog is a 2ary/3ary source, and so is not likely to be ref'd in specialized lit. But as others have pointed out to you, it's run by a prestigious university and edited by a panel of well-respected linguists. For obscure topics like this, it's hard to find published evaluations of claims, and we use the principal editor of Glottolog, Hammarström, for evaluations of many classifications of obscure languages across WP. In this case, what I've heard by p.c. is that Rilly contains such methodological flaws that his conclusions are not supported, but the only published evaluation I'd been able to find up to now was by the author of a competing classification. That leaves open the question of COI. It's significant that someone with no stake in the issue has come to the same conclusion that she did (that Rilly translates words based on what's needed for his classification, and then bases his classification on those translations). — kwami (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, no "others" have pointed out to me before how "prestigious" the glottlog website is. You're the one doing it right now. You're the one who created the glottolog article on the 17 of Mars 2014 and you're the one plugging it in many wikipedia articles. I've never seen the glottolog website mentioned in any academic work related to Meroitic. We can't consider your personal communication as reliable source. In fact, even on a google book search, the glottolog website is rarely mentioned and never used as a reference as content source for anything, much less on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. The glottolog website is not a reliable source on Meroitic and constitute original research never referenced by any other sources beside Wikipedia. DrLewisphd (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

To add to Kwami's statement, the assessment of Rilly's work on Meroitic by Glottolog is recent. Glottolog was first announced in March 2012 [21]! Of course, there will be no mention of Glottolog in academic articles concerning Meroitic before March 2012. Claude Rilly has been the most prolific publisher concerning Meroitic throughout the 2000's until now. Kirsty Rowan has published 4 articles (all before 2012, the latest in 2011). Three articles are freely available to the public and 1 (2011) is available through a journal subscription/ order (the whole 393 page journal [Lingua Aegyptica_19]...cannot get just one article). Her doctoral thesis (2006), which according to Google Books is 778 pages, is not yet available. Rilly, by comparison, has numerous published articles and one book in English (2012). Again, there will be no mention of Glottolog's assessment of Meroitic for obvious reasons in all academic articles before March 2012. Glottolog is a reliable source, that is unquestionable. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the issue now resolved??? Can we now go forward with a compromise? No comment from either of you, kwami or DrLewisphd. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see a compromise proposed. Also, I don't why a 1ary source would necessarily mention a 2ary source, reliable or not. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because I was asking if we may begin the process towards a suitable compromise. About primary sources and secondary sources...well, in the case of works on Meroitic, not many are available to the public, but many are mentioned in a secondary sources with quotes. That can be highly useful to a primary source if the information sought is not available from the primary sources. In this case, there are not many primary sources to quote directly as access to many of them is quite limited, so one would resort to reliable secondary sources. Glottolog 2.2 IS a secondary source since they reviewed Rilly's work - if they were to publish their review work with NEW/ original content in addition to their critique of Rilly as E. Lipinski did in his review, technically, that would make them primary. We do not know if the editors of Glottolog 2.2, one or more of them, have plans to publish their review with such content beyond Glottolog. Also, if you have a personal communication...you should ask for permission to use it publically or a portion of it, if the answer is no...then that is that. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the glottolog website is a valid source in this context (or much context at all frankly), so I don't think it should be used at all on the Meroitic article in any way. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DrLewisphd, it is now your turn to present your case for why Glottolog is not reliable. You cannot just make claims and then do not substantiate them...prove why Glottolog should be rejected as a source of information on the topic. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I already did it at the beginning of this section and the argumentation was never addressed. Basically, the glottolog website is not used a source on Meroitic (or much else) by any source beside Wikipedia. So it's not a valid source on Meroitic and constitute

WP:NOR DrLewisphd (talk

) 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DrLewisphd, You were answered. See above in Kwami's statements and mine..."To add to Kwami's statement, the assessment of Rilly's work on Meroitic by Glottolog is recent. Glottolog was first announced in March 2012 [22]!" Of course, there will be no mention of Glottolog in academic articles concerning Meroitic before March 2012. Again, your argument is invalid on the grounds of Glottolog being only 2 years old. Nearly all Meroitic articles in press and otherwise have, at this point, been before 2012. Rilly's book (2012) was only published a few months after Glottolog was first announced. Again, expect no mention of Glottolog's assessment before March 26th of 2012. The editors of Glottolog are mostly well-known in linguistic circles...several have articles in press. Glottolog is maintained at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, a very reputable institution with many high-quality scholars. You will need to find a different argument (your current one is not valid), or you will need to compromise, or drop this altogether. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You admit the glottolog website is not a valid source and constitute original research. You can't use the glottolog website as a valid source on Meroitic or on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic because it's only 2 year old despite being a bad source and original research. That way any bad source and original research could be included. That's not part of any guideline. The glottolog website IS not a valid source on Meroitic and NEVER WAS. YOU and Kwami need to prove the glottolog website is a valid source on Meroitic, not that it's a new so everything goes, you just prove my point by saying this. At the moment, only Wikipedia use the glottolog website as a valid source on Meroitic. DrLewisphd (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Could any 'administrator' jump in this discussion because I don't know what else to do. Is the glottolog website a valid source or not on Meroitic (or on Rilly's assesment of Merotic)? DrLewisphd (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

DrLewisphd, as was said, you need to first of all discredit the PROFESSIONAL linguist editors of the Glottolog website maintained at the MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY in Leipzig. You need to present evidence that they are not qualified for reviewing Rilly's work. You will need to also prove that the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is not a reputable institution of higher learning. Once you do this, then it may be possible to say that they are not reliable. A simple Google search of their names would show you that they are rather legitimate and reliable sources. The recentness of the website IS OF NO CONCERN HERE. The concern is the credentials of the PROFESSIONAL linguist editors of Glottolog and the reputation of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. By your logic, nearly any source on any topic would be invalid! NEAR EVERY ACADEMIC SOURCE CITED ON WIKIPEDIA CAN BE CONSIDERED ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND A BAD SOURCE according to your logic. This is getting to be a pain and rather frankly I believe the issue should be dropped because you have no evidence to support anything you claim. What you do have is very flimsy and very easily falsifiable. Prove the professional linguist editors of Glottolog are not reliable sources and that they are not qualified for reviewing Rilly's Meroitic work and prove that the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is not a reputable institution, if you cannot...this is done, there is no point in this going any further. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Said simply, the editors of Glottolog website, or the website itself, are not a reliable source on Meroitic, they are not cited or considered a reliable source on Meroitic by anybody beside Wikipedia. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DrLewisphd, the onus is yours, prove it. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Said simply, repeating something doesn't make it so: That's magical thinking. A RS doesn't need to be cited elsewhere to make it a RS. — kwami (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am currently appealing a consensus reached on January 25, 2014 stating that "Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity.” That decision was based on inadequate or incorrect information alleging that Mr. Scaruffi was solely a self-published writer. Now it appears that Piero Scaruffi's work, including his musical criticisms, have been widely published by renowned sources. Historians, critics and musicians have cited both his website and his books in their own published works (including: SEE BELOW). His review of Country Boy Country Dog by "Blue" Gene Tyranny" is presented in its entirety in the All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music (as seen on page 1126), taken from his original review for i/e, issue 7. This implies that he is reputable within the field of musical criticism, as the editer's, Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra and Stephen Thomas Erlewine saw fit to include his critical analysis in their publication. Musicians have also featured his critical examinations of their work on their official website (For Example: Amy Denio, Constance Demby and Gayle Ellet)

Also, looking over his resume (seen here, or, at Stanford University), it appears that he has contributed essays, reviews and interview to SEE BELOW. Per

, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As the consensus heavily relied on the false assertions that Scaruffi had no authority in musical criticism, I see this as reason enough re-examine and reconsider the conclusion reached by the aforementioned consensus.

There is also the issue of a user who has misinterpreted the consensus decision on the music and album site and is censoring Mr. Scaruffi's opinion by removing mention of him on every page on Wikipedia.

). This behavior indicates a level of vindictiveness that is not conducive to the Wikipedia standard of free flowing information and respectful participation.--Soul Crusher (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (Actual Date: 08:27, 2 May 2014‎)

• Note: the present topic was created on this board on 2 May at 08:27 and not on 28 April at 05:07 as it is proved here in the history. With such a behaviour, it is hard to still
  wp:assumegoodfaith
  for this user.

The reason of this false date, created on purpose as this thread was added at the top of this page and not at the bottom of the page as it has to be for a new thread, must be that this user didn't manage to get what he wanted on another board. The

WP:SOAPBOXING. Woovee (talk

) 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Or it could have been a simple mistake. The sig has evidently been copy-pasted from a previous comment [23]. Putting in an incorrect date isn't going to have a major impact in the discussion.. Anyhoo. Яehevkor ✉ 16:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It can't be as it was completely reworded, with different sentences and certain new instances. Anyway, a consensus was unanimously reached yesterday on another board against his request. Does wiki accept that we post the same request over and over again on different boards? Wiki is not a battleground for advertising a blog. Woovee (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an error, nothing more. I have placed the correct date next to the incorrect date.--Soul Crusher (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This feels a lot like
  WP:FORUMSHOPing since they're currently an extensive discussion on this at the relevant Wikiproject, and it is being unanimously opposed by like 8+ editors. Sergecross73 msg me
  17:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was you who advised me to address this topic here. I concur, seeing as Piero Scaruffi's work reaches outside the realm of WP: WikiProject Albums. Also, there was some confusion expressed as to what can be regarded as a reliable source. To remedy this, I felt it appropriate to raise my concerns here and clear up any misunderstandings.--Soul Crusher (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggested you ask if those sources are reliable, not rehash you're whole PS tirade again. I cant tell quite what you're driving at, your post is so long and rambling. You really ought to be a bit more concise, or you'll find that people are going to get confused and/or not bother reading it all. This really just looks like your other argument rehashed. If you're really just doing what you're saying, you should just ask about the sources themselves, not your whole crusade in favor of PS. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to list these sources in a more presentable fashion:

• All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music - Edited by
  Hal Leonard Corporation in 2001. Publisher is recognized as a reliable source under WP:Reliable Sources. Scaruffi's review of Country Boy Country Dog by "Blue" Gene Tyranny", as it was originally published in i/e magazine
  , is presented in its entirety on page 1126.
• Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music - Written by American folklorist, historian, record producer
  W.K. McNeil and published through Routledge, Oct 18, 2013. Publisher is recognized as a reliable source under WP:Reliable Sources
  . Author cites Scaruffi's book The History of Rock Music on page 253 as a reference and for further reading.
• Music of the World War II Era - Written by professors William H. Young and Nancy K. Young and published through Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. Publisher is recognized as a reliable source under WP:Reliable Sources. On page 235, the authors assert that "Piero Scaruffi provides a good overview of rhythm n' blues in A Brief History of Rhythm and Blues" before citing his webpage.
• Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967 Written by Dominic Molon, published by Yale University Press in 2007. Cites "A Brief Summary of Japanese Rock Music" on page 133.
• Women Drummers: A History from Rock and Jazz to Blues and Country. Written by writer and musician Angela Smith, published by
  Scarecrow Press
  on April 10, 2014. Quotes Mr. Scaruffi's book A History of Rock and Dance Music on pg. 133 and credits him with "providing historical context" in Acknowledgments on pg. xii.
• There was also some confusion as to whether or not Option, Sound Choice, CD Review, i/e, Rockerilla, Blow Up and New Sounds meet WP:Reliable Sources.
• His resume (seen here, or, at Stanford University)--Soul Crusher (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, his resume is a bit misleading - when he says "author of 7 music books", it was found that

every single one was self-published. Not that we gauge reliability by resumes, but I thought I'd throw that out there... Sergecross73 msg me

16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this resume on Stanford University's site is not a

wp:reliable source: it looks like the bio Scaruffi himself has provided to the university, where he was a former member see here. Without proof that someone other than Scaruffi has written that, it can't be used in this discussion. Woovee (talk

) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Website called "Lost Islamic History" for a history article

Currently, myself and another user are working in my User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox on a topic which is significant to Middle Eastern history, the Abbasid Revolution. There is an article about it here on a site called "Lost Islamic History." According to the site's "about" page, the author is a BA holder in history who claims to have no agenda. He includes a works cited section for the article, but there does not appear to be an editorial board or oversight.
So I want to ask the community, would a site such as this be acceptable as a source? Is it reliable? Does it appear to be pushing an agenda? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not good for a history article, and that's not mainly due to whether it's pushing an agenda or not, but it isn't historical research, just a compilation of ideas from secondary sources. For a standard work covering much of the same ground, see Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much User:Itsmejudith, I'm going to make note of that book by Albert Hourani in my sandbox and check it out later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine [24]
2. Traditional Chinese medicine

3. TCM is considered a protoscience.

This edit has been repeatedly reverted by several different editors. They claim this (peer-reviewed!) journal may not be used, since it's a

) 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite it's slick packaging, it's just a open-source vanity press where authors pay to get their work published. I would say it's far from a reputable or widely respected journal, and would agree that labeling it as a fringe source is well justified. Second of all, whether TCM is regarded as protoscience is of little consequence. It's whether it's widely regarded as such within the scholarly community that matters, and this source does little to indicate that such is the case. You would require much better sources to show that the assertion that TCM is a protoscience is more than a fringe position in itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You apply double standards. On the TCM talk page, you're rallying to include the statement "TCM is a pseudoscience" using an editorial in Nature as a source. Far from asserting that TCM is widely regarded as a pseudoscience within the scholarly community, this editorial merely theorizes that the most obvious reason why so few effective medication have been distilled out of TCM would be that it is largely pseudoscience. Care to explain? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare this source to Nature, one of the flagship publications in the scientific community? Don't be ridiculous. Your question is off-topic and irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the source your are asking about is reliable for the purpose you wish to use it, and I have answered that no, it isn't, and have explained why. Appeals to motive are a failure to AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but you're not an uninvolved editor, and you're reasoning sounds biased. According to

) 07:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this source that doesn't mention the subject of the article ok?

The article is

talk

) 06:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Support previous. Cited sources are reliable and do not say that Clive Derby-Lewis gave name to police. Of course, he may have done, but the sources do not say so. This has been properly explained in edit summaries, yet the editor claims that removing his text, despite adequate rationales being provided, is vandalism. Patently, it is not. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I misread something TheFallenCrowd wrote on his talk page, he was talking about an AfD when he said he wrote most of it. He has however edited the article more than anyone else. As he refused to come here to discuss but again reinserted the material I have taken him to ANI.

talk

) 16:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree... the cited source does not support the statement. It says that Derby-Lewis provided information that lead to a breakthrough in the case, but does not specify what that information was or who "ratted out" who. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hoping I can ask advice about general source reliability in

(These are probably the least reliable looking sources, but there are others which look suspect to me too.)

There's also 4 links to Facebook.

And then there's this statement based on the user comments in reference:

Many didn't like the way Zelasko abruptly—and in many fans' eyes, awkwardly—cut Harwell off just 17 seconds into a pre-game interview, as Harwell was detailing the accomplishments of famous Tiger Al Kaline.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051028032742/http://www.bravesbeat.com/bravesjournal/bristol/archives/2005/09/first_round_gam_1.html

Apart from deleting major chunks of the article, what should I do? Sorry, I'm still new... --Otus scops (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the article and posted on the talk page--Otus scops (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs improvement... but simply leaving a blanket "this article needs more sources" tag leaves other editors wondering where to start. It would probably be more helpful to take a slow and systematic approach. Start at the beginning, and address the problems one by one... on a section by section basis (or even on a statement by statement basis)... so that people can focus on specific problems, and work constructively to fix them. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion on

WP:BOLD - my bad!)--Otus scops (talk

) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model, by Ley,Prause & Finn - should be banned

The paper under question - The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the “Pornography Addiction” model

First the obvious, this paper is not a review of the existing literature. Instead, it was published in the CURRENT CONTROVERSIES section, and it was not promoted as a fair review. The lead author was David Ley, who is the author of "The Myth of Sex Addiction". The editor was Charles Allen Moser, who has railed against sex and porn addiction in the past. Hypersexual disorder: Just more muddled thinking. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 227-229. Moser, C. (2010) Put simply this review is biased, and doesn't consider any contradictory studies.

The less obvious is that Ley et al. misrepresented the content most of the studies they did cite. In fact, many of the supposed supportive studies actually contradicted the claims in the text. Moreover, about 12 citations had absolutely nothing to do with the associated text. Everything is completely documented below.

This so called review should be banned from wikipedia as a source. Instead, original sources should be cited.

MY CRITIQUE OF THE The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model, by David Ley, Nicole Prause & Peter Finn (2014)

As I will explain below in laborious detail, the authors of this "objective" review:

1)defend their dismissal of addiction on the basis of studies that are as much as 25 years old, ignoring numerous recent, contradictory studies/reviews that reflect the current consensus of experts.

2) do not acknowledge (or analyze) dozens of brain studies on internet addicts. All show hard evidence that stimulation via the internet is addictive for some users and causes the same fundamental addiction-related brain changes seen in substance addicts. A current list appears at the end of this critique.

3) ignore the first ever brain-scan study performed on internet porn addicts/controls at Cambridge University (in press).

4) dismiss all published studies showing ill effects from porn use on the grounds that they are "merely" correlational, and then proceed to cite as support for their pet theories various correlational studies. We'll share many of the relevant studies Ley et al. found unworthy of mention.

5) cherry-pick random, misleading lines from within studies, failing to report the researchers' actual opposing conclusions.

6) cite numerous studies that are entirely irrelevant to the claims Ley et al. make.

Introduction

Ley et al. claim ‘Pornography addiction’ is one label that has been used specifically to describe the high-frequency viewing of sexual images. Just to clarify, as ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (3000+ top addiction doctors and researchers) and others have emphasized, all addiction is a primary disease (not a symptom of other pathologies as Ley et al. here imply). It's marked by specific addiction-related brain changes as well as well established behaviors that reflect those changes, such as continued use despite negative consequences.

While pornography addiction may involve high levels of viewing, studies show that length of time spent is not the key determinant of problematic porn use. Rather, it's degree of arousal and number of applications opened (the thirst for novelty). See 123 "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively." (2011)

Excerpts: Time spent on Internet sex sites (minutes per day) did not significantly contribute to explanation of variance in [addiction test] score. ... The finding ... may be interpreted in the light of previous studies on cue reactivity in individuals with substance dependency or behavioral addictions.

Another study also found cue reactivity (a measure of addiction), not frequency of use, was most relevant for problematic users: "Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013)

Excerpts: The results show that indicators of sexual arousal and craving to Internet pornographic cues predicted tendencies towards cybersex addiction in the first study. Moreover, it was shown that problematic cybersex users report greater sexual arousal and craving reactions resulting from pornographic cue presentation. ... The results support the gratification hypothesis, which assumes reinforcement, learning mechanisms, and craving to be relevant processes in the development and maintenance of cybersex addiction.

In other words, these studies don't support the idea that porn users are just folks with high libidos who can't get enough action in real life and have to make up for the shortfall with porn use. Rather, problematic porn users show hyper-reactivity to cues, just as other addicts do. Incidentally, the upcoming Cambridge University brain study on porn addicts found the same hyper-reactivity to cues, and no evidence of higher sexual desire in the addicts tested.

Ley et al. - state that scientists investigating high-frequency sexual behaviors rarely describe these behaviors as an addiction (37 % of articles) [2] First, Ley et al. are now talking about "sexual behaviors," in general, not studies that screened problematic porn users, so their percentages are irrelevant.

Citation 2 affirms that different studies use different nomenclature for various behavioral addictions. This is not unusual in the mental health field. For example, bi-polar disorder has been called by many names, but it is still the same disorder. Even the DSM-5 uses different ways to describe addictions. So what? The DSM's confounding terminology probably says more about the politics of the DSM board and work groups than about the physiological reality of addiction.

Naturally, these authors (as well as some others in the sexology field) openly reject sexual-behavior addiction, and sometimes all behavioral addictions, as "pseudoscience." Their position is evident to anyone familiar with the literature they churn out. Tobacco executives still reject nicotine addiction too. In fact, it's amazing that 37% of the studies reviewed used the term 'addiction', as sexology researchers (including Prause) who produce academic articles on the subject have taken great pains to avoid both 'addiction' and the screening of addicted subjects (which is required procedure in true addiction research).

Next our audacious authors claim that most scientists have overtly rejected the addiction model [3, 4]. This is untrue, and neither of their citations remotely supports the claim that "most" scientists have "overtly rejected" the addiction model for sexual behavior addictions. Nor does either citation relate to research by addiction neuroscientists, who have publicly concluded the opposite.

Eric Nestler PhD, head of Nestler Lab (Molecular Psychiatry) at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine writes about addiction:

It is likely that similar brain changes occur in other pathological conditions which involve the excessive consumption of natural rewards, conditions such as pathological over-eating, pathological gambling, sex addictions, and so on.

From ASAM's press release:

CHEVY CHASE, MD, August 15, 2011 – The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has released a new definition of addiction highlighting that addiction is a chronic brain disorder and not simply a behavioral problem involving too much alcohol, drugs, gambling or sex.

Citation 3 is from 2000. "Sexual disorders not otherwise specified: compulsive, addictive, or impulsive?" It basically says that the DSM should include diagnostic criteria for the disorder underlying the various labels:

Excerpt: Growing evidence supports the existence of a discrete syndrome characterized by recurrent and intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving patterns that fall outside the definition of paraphilia. We suggest that the DSM-IV category of sexual disorders be modified to include explicitly diagnostic criteria for a disorder characterized by hypersexual symptoms.

Citation 4 in no way rejects the notion of sex addiction. ("Should Hypersexual Disorder [HD] be Classified as an Addiction?") In fact, it says that "available data suggest that considering HD within an addiction framework maybe appropriate and helpful." (emphasis added) In short, the reality is the opposite of "overtly rejecting" the addiction model, the proposition for which Ley et al. cited these items.

Also consider this review, which Ley et al. apparently missed: "Sexual Addictions" (2010)

Excerpts: A number of clinical elements, such as the frequent preoccupation with this type of behavior, the time spent in sexual activities, the continuation of this behavior despite its negative consequences, the repeated and unsuccessful efforts made to reduce the behavior, are in favor of an addictive disorder. ... The phenomenology of excessive nonparaphilic sexual disorder favors its conceptualization as an addictive behavior, rather than an obsessive-compulsive, or an impulse control disorder.

Ley et al. then cite DSM-5, which has affirmed that pathological gambling is an addiction disorder in the wake of decades of solid science, but has not yet added internet addiction or internet porn addiction. This is not surprising as the dozens of brain studies on internet addictions are fewer and more recent than the majority of gambling studies--and the DSM-5 is notoriously slow and political rather than scientific.

Ley et al. use deceptive wording to imply that the DSM cited the following in support of its position, "To include [internet porn addiction] as an addiction would require published scientific research that does not exist at this time." However this statement was only made to Ley et al. via personal communication from Charles O'Brien chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders. It seems likely, however, that the DSM will eventually include sexual behavior addictions, because the research on all internet addictions is mounting and it lines up with the research on substance and gambling addictions. Said the same Charles O’Brien in 2013,

""The idea of a non-substance-related addiction may be new to some people, but those of us who are studying the mechanisms of addiction find strong evidence from animal and human research that addiction is a disorder of the brain reward system, and it doesn't matter whether the system is repeatedly activated by gambling or alcohol or another substance.""

Moreover, Dr. Richard Krueger, work group member who helped revise the sexual disorders section of the DSM-5, has little doubt porn addiction is real and will eventually garner enough attention to be recognized as a mental illness.

Recklessly disregarding both (1) the DSM's declaration that gambling is an addictive disorder (i.e., a behavioral addiction) and (2) years of conclusive addiction-neuroscience demonstrating that addictions, behavioral and chemical, are fundamentally one disorder, our anti-science authors next gratuitously dismiss all behavioral addictions (including gambling).

First, Ley, Prause & Finn dismiss food addiction ignoring extensive research on the subject and citing both 5, research funded by the sugar industry, specifically WorldSugar Research (sponsored in part by Coca-Cola), and 6 "Obesity and the brain: how convincing is the addiction model?" The latter actually makes a decent argument, but its authors cherry pick, and its conclusions need to be considered in light of the many contradictory studies, such as "Obesity and addiction: neurobiological overlaps" and "Common cellular and molecular mechanisms in obesity and drug addiction."

Next Ley et al. dismiss internet addiction citing 7, a study from 2001. However, almost all of the internet addiction studies have been done in the last 4 to 5 years. The more recent work eviscerates Ley et al.'s position that internet addiction isn't genuine. These ~60 brain studies are listed at the end of this critique.

Ley et al. next dismiss gambling addiction, citing 8, which is ancient history from 25 years ago. At the same time they ignore the many studies that demonstrate brain changes in gambling addicts akin to those in drug addicts' brains, as well as the position of the DSM itself. See "Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance use disorders: a focus on impulsivity and compulsivity" (2012) and "Neurobiology of gambling behaviors." Frankly, it is difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion that Ley et al. themselves are "pseudoscientists."

In support of their claim that "the emperor is not wearing any clothes," Ley et al. throw in a cite to a 1991 manifesto by the APA's president 9, which appears to have no relevance to anything at all.

Next, Ley et al. take offense at the word "pornography" in addiction studies, citing 11, a law review article that is not remotely related to addiction. They call for less biased language citing 12, an item that has nothing to do with porn-terminology guidelines.

Ley et al. then make the jaw-dropping claims that pornography use ""does not appear to be increasing despite increased availability, and VSS viewing in the USA has remained remarkably steady (near 22%) since 1973."" The only support for these mind-bending statements is citation 20, an analysis that relies primarily on years of replies to a single question in a government survey of adult women conducted by personal interview. The question, first asked in 1973, is "Have you seen an X-rated movie in the last year? (0=no; 1=yes)."

The researchers then compared percentages of all adult women who said "yes" to seeing an X-rated movie (which was only possible in a theater back then) with percentages of women who say they watch internet porn flicks today. They reach the staggering conclusion that average porn-watching in women of all ages hasn't changed much.

This is a classic apples-and-oranges sleight of hand. First, an X-rated film in the 70s (think "Last Tango In Paris") might not be X-rated today. More to the point the percentage of 1973-women watching the equivalent of today's hardcore porn would have been virtually 0%. In contrast, the rate of young women who watched an X-rated film in 2010 was 33%. In effect, that's an increase from zero to one-in-three, and up from one-in-five in 1993. Hardly stable.

Second, "X-rated film" watching says nothing about other forms of (potentially addictive) online erotic stimulation, which some of today's internet-erotica users over-consume, such as streaming video clips of hardcore porn, web cam use, today's compelling written erotica, endless novel stills or animated porn such as hentai.

Moreover, what do X-rated film-viewing stats have to do with pornography addiction? Would a poll asking who had a drink in the last year be relevant in a review about alcohol addiction?

If Ley et al. believe porn rates are salient to their analysis, why didn't they cite research that included men? Why didn't they isolate digital natives, who appear to be most at risk for internet porn overconsumption, based on the fact that they make up the overwhelming majority of online recovery forum membership? Why didn't they compare quantities of porn viewed? Why instead do they trot out this meaningless survey as sole support for their claim that porn viewing rates are 22% and stable? Consider some of the conflicting research that they ignored, how the stats might differ from porn use among emerging adults in 1973:

• Generation XXX: Pornography Acceptance and Use Among Emerging Adults (2008)

Excerpt: Nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) young men and nearly one third (31%) of young women reported using pornography.

• Prevalence and correlates of sexual behaviors among university students: a study in Hefei, China (2012)

Excerpt: Males reported more sexual fantasies (84.6%), solitary masturbation (70.3%), and using pornographic videos (86.3%). Note: porn is officially banned in China.

• Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults (2006).

Excerpt: In Denmark 97.8% of males and 79.5% of females watched pornography among 1002 people aged from 18–30 years old.

• X-Rated: Sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with U.S. early adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit media (2009)

Excerpt: Average age 13.5: Two-thirds (66%) of males and more than one-third (39%) of females had seen at least one form of sexually explicit media in the past year.

• Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material on the Internet (2006)

Excerpt: 71% of the male adolescents and 40% of the female adolescents had been exposed to some kind of online sexually explicit material in the 6 months prior to the interview.

• Pornography Consumption, Sexual Experiences, Lifestyles, and Self-rated Health Among Male Adolescents in Sweden (2013)

Excerpt: Almost all boys, 96% (n = 453), had watched pornography. Frequent users of pornography (everyday) (10%, n = 47) differed from average users (63%, n = 292) and nonfrequent users (27%, n = 126).

• Does Viewing Explain Doing? Assessing the Association Between Sexually Explicit Materials Use and Sexual Behaviors in a Large Sample of Dutch Adolescents and Young Adults (2013)

Excerpt: Online cross-sectional survey study of 4,600 young people, 15–25 years of age ... found that 88% of men and 45% of women had consumed SEM in the past 12 months.

Ley et al. next offer estimates of men and women reporting out of control sexual experiences. Empirical estimates from nationally representative samples are that 0.8 % of men and 0.6 % of women report out of control sexual behaviors that interfere with their daily lives [23].

This statement demonstrates Ley et al.'s complete lack of integrity. First, their estimates rest on citation 23, a study that is not about porn use. The researchers specifically stated that, "We had not asked about pornography." It was about sexual experiences, fantasies and urges. In other words, this study has no place in a "porn addiction" review, and all of the artful statistical chicanery that follows is meaningless.

That said, it's worth noting that Ley, Prause and Finn shamelessly cherry-picked from the (irrelevant) study's results. Nearly 13% of men and 7% of women reported out of control sexual experiences, but Ley et al. ignored those percentages and only mentioned that 0.8% of men and 0.6% of women reported that their "actual sexual behavior had interfered with their lives." Porn use is not sex. Problematic porn use therefore exists in some people who believe that no "actual sexual behavior [is] interfering with their lives."

Ley et al. next make the groundless leap that problematic porn use is always a subset of "actual sexual behavior that interferes with users' lives," and estimate that porn problems might affect 0.58 % of men and 0.43 % of women in the USA. Unbelievable. Ley et al.'s own source (see discussion of 24 below) says that experts estimated (in 2012) that 8–17% of Internet pornography users were addicted.

In contrast with the Ley et al.'s trivial estimates, the researchers in "Viewing Internet Pornography: For Whom is it Problematic, How, and Why?" found that,

• approximately 20%–60% of the sample who view pornography find it to be problematic depending on the domain of interest. In this study, the amount of viewing did not predict the level of problems experienced.

Ley et al.'s purposefully misleading calculations also assume that everyone with porn addiction seeks treatment. In fact, it's likely that only a small percentage do. For example, consider the millions of smokers who attempt to quit every year and the millions who have quit over the last several decades. It's likely that those who struggled without professional help far outnumbered those who sought it. Once again, one wonders how a peer reviewer, or co-author Finn, could let slip such deceptive reasoning.

Positive Effects of VSS Use

Ley et.el state - Most people who view VSS believe that it improves their attitudes towards sexuality [25] and improves their quality of life [26]. The studies Ley et al. cite as proof that porn's effects are beneficial (24, 25, 26) are unconvincing. The first (24) actually offers evidence of the ill effects of porn use:

Excerpt: Experts put the percentage of persons with problematic sexually compulsive behavior in reference to viewing sexually explicit material at approximately 8–17% of the population of users (Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000; Cooper, Scherer, Boies, & Gordon, 1999). This group of users exhibits behavioral indicators of sexual compulsivity (e.g., spending 11 or more hours per week in online sexual pursuits) and reports personal distress and impairment of functioning (e.g., declining performance at work).

Further, the researchers found that possible beneficial uses of "sexually explicit visuals" are largely confined to medical and educational audiences.

The second study (25) is primarily a marketing survey of people who like porn (e.g., "Which of the following practices do you like to be present in pornography?"), peppered with a few questions about attitudes toward women. It was funded in part by the porn industry itself. As part of the lengthy survey, a sole ambiguous question asked "What effect has pornography had on your attitudes towards sexuality?" What does this question, or its possible answers ("Large positive effect," "small negative effect," etc.) even mean? Isn't this like asking people at a rave whether rave participation has had a positive or negative effect on their attitude toward ecstasy?

"Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption" (26) also relies purely on porn users' self-perceptions (rather than a comparison with non-users or ex-users). Its questions were skewed to always find porn use beneficial because of all the non-standard sex acts porn users learn about. Its conclusion? The more pornography you use, the more real you believe it is, and the more you masturbate to it, the more positive its effects in every area of your life. Wow! Not even a bell curve there folks. Senior psychology professor and reviewer John Johnson called this questionnaire "a psychometric nightmare," yet Ley et al. treat it as authoritative. See this critique of the study.

Frankly, many of the "benefits" claimed by Ley et al. turn out to be negatives for today's young porn users. Here are some of their examples of how porn users might profit:

• greater likelihood of anal and oral sex [27] and a greater variety of sexual behaviors [28].

So, more is an unqualified benefit? In "Does pornography influence young women's sexual behavior?" (2003), Swedish researchers found that of 1000 women polled at a family planning clinic, 4 out of 5 has consumed pornography. About half had experienced anal intercourse, and the majority found it a negative experience. Condom use was only 40%, presenting a risk of spreading STIs. Among young Swedish men visiting a similar clinic, 99% had consumed porn and half had had anal intercourse. Only 17% always used condoms during anal sex. Both genders said that watching porn had influenced their behavior.

According to Mount Sinai: "It is believed that an increased number of people are engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners and engage in oral sex practices and as a result are contracting HPV in the head and neck region, resulting in [at least a four- to five-fold increase in the number of oropharynx cancers in the US]."

• This increased breadth of sexual behaviors could arise by increasing a person’s feeling of empowerment to suggest new sexual behaviors or by normalizing the behaviors [29].

"Normalizing sexual behaviors" ultimately proves alarming to many young porn users because, in their unending quest for novelty, they so easily escalate to bizarre fetish porn that doesn't have anything to do with their earlier sexual tastes. Some go far into this spiral before they begin questioning whether what they're watching is "normal."

• VSS can also promote pleasant feelings in the moment, such as happiness and joy [30, 31].

What porn user doesn't have "pleasant feelings" during use, just as many people enjoy drinking? Shouldn't users be more informed about the potential longer-term effects of their porn use? Incidentally, citation 31 is Prause's own shaky research: "No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film." See a critique of that study: "Study: Porn Users Report Narrower Emotional Range."

• VSS may provide a legal outlet for illegal sexual behaviors or desires.

Really? Are Ley et al. then advocating watching child porn and creating a demand for more of it?

In any case, progression appears to work the opposite way in some users. Instead of simply providing an outlet for innate sexual preferences, internet porn may create preferences. Thanks to their unending quest for novel sexual stimulation online, some porn users report escalating to bestiality porn or underage porn, both of which are illegal in some jurisdictions.

In "Does deviant pornography use follow a Guttman-like progression?" researchers investigated whether desensitization (leading to a need for more extreme material) occurred in individuals who engage in adult pornography at a young age. They found that,

Excerpt: individuals with a younger “age of onset” for adult pornography use were more likely to engage in deviant pornography (bestiality or child) compared to those with a later “age of onset”.

Ley et al. then proceed to associates declines in crime with increased porn use, and imply a causal link between the two citing correlational data (based not on actual studies, but on notoriously inaccurate government statistics). If such data have a place in this review, then we call upon Ley et al. to redo their entire review to incorporate the dozens of correlational studies associating porn with ill effects. (See the list at the end of this critique, as well as various overlooked studies we cite within the body of this critique.)

Ley et al. write: A large longitudinal study controlling for baseline attitudes and behaviors identified that VSS use accounted for only 0–1 % of the variance in gender role attitudes, permissive sexual norms, and sexual harassment in boys or girls [12]. Ley et al. paint a rather misleading picture of the total findings in citation 12 ("X-Rated: Sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with U.S. early adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit media" (2009).)

Excerpt: Of all the variables in the models, exposure to sexually explicit media was one of the strongest predictors, even after controlling for demographics, pubertal status, sensation seeking, and the baseline measure of the sexual attitude (if relevant). Thus, these analyses suggest that exposure to sexually explicit media should be considered an important factor in the sexual socialization of early adolescents. ... One of the most troubling findings in this study is that exposure was related to not only early oral sex and sexual intercourse for both males and females but also perpetration of sexual harassment by adolescent males. (emphasis added)

Addiction Model

Addiction is not, as Ley et al. brashly insist, a theoretical construct. Addiction is perhaps the most studied and best elucidated of all mental disorders. It can be induced in animals and is currently studied right down to the molecular and cellular mechanisms that physically and chemically change in the brain in response to chronic overconsumption. Addiction is, in fact, the very opposite of a theoretical construct. It's a physiological reality that applies to both chemical and behavioral addictions.

Again, Ley et al. go to amazing lengths to try to convince themselves and their readers that the slow-moving DSM-5 physicians who are finally beginning to bring the DSM into line with current research by creating a behavioral addiction category--didn't really mean it: While there seems to be a consensus that addiction is a useful construct to describe opiate dependence [39], the usefulness of ‘addiction’ to describe the excessive use of any drug [40], compulsive gambling [41], and excessive video game playing [42] has raised many concerns.

The citations they tuck into their stunning assertion deserve a closer look. 39, 40 and 41 were published in 1996, 1986 and 1989, respectively. All predate the lion's share of the research on each of the addictions named. Ley et al. were forced to reach back into the depths of time because modern hard-science studies do not support Ley et al.'s "concerns" about the science of addiction.

Citation 42 relates to videogaming (which has burst on the scene more recently than gambling, of course) and it points to a 2008 item. However, this item predates all but 3 of the ~60 existing brain studies on internet/videogame addicts. As a body, the intervening studies demonstrate that internet addictions also belong in the behavioral addiction category. In short, Ley et al. resort to subterfuge to support their outdated views.

Next, Ley et al. present their unique definition of porn addiction drawn from thin air, and begin to trot out their straw army, a long list of random "proofs" they claim are vital before one can consider porn addiction to exist. As part of this exercise they totally disregard ASAM's public statements and the decades of hard science that refute their position. Repeatedly, they imply that porn addiction has been studied in the ways they list and found to be absent.

This is not the case. The first-ever brain study on porn addicts done at Cambridge University has not yet been published. However, it found the same kinds of solid evidence of addiction seen in substance addicts, gambling addicts and internet addicts. One would think that if Ley et al. were indeed taking an objective look at the possible existence of internet porn addiction, they would devote much attention to the ~60 brain studies on internet addiction and internet videogame addiction. Surely those studies are highly relevant to internet porn addicts as well, particularly given ASAM's consensus that all addictions are fundamentally one disease.

Again, it's worth noting that Ley et al. proclaim opioids to be the only legitimate addiction--or in their artful lingo, the only "dependence for which an addiction construct is useful." No one agrees with them. Not the DSM, not ASAM, not the medical profession generally. They may, in fact, be the only 3 people on the planet clinging to this unsupportable position. Or perhaps they hope their empty assertions will fool unsuspecting journalists.

Ley et al. suggest that porn addiction's existence needs to be supported by proof of negative consequences that cannot be ascribed to other causes. As far as we know, very few studies have even attempted to look at the kinds of severe symptoms porn users report in online forums: erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia, morphing sexual tastes, depression, anxiety, social anxiety, decreased motivation for positive activities, less attraction to real partners, concentration problems, etc. Nor is it easy for porn users to connect porn use with their symptoms until they stop using porn (remove the key variable) for an extended period. Such experiments are difficult to design and execute, and impossible to do with adolescents even though they are the most likely to be adversely affected because their brains are more susceptible to addiction.

As far as we know, only one study has asked porn users to stop porn...for a mere three weeks. Those researchers saw a significant increase in subjects' desire to remain in a committed relationship, compared with controls who kept using. In short, it's far too soon to assume that there are no negative consequences from internet porn use itself, especially in light of both the demonstrable problems stemming from overconsumption of internet generally, and the dozens of correlational studies about porn use showing associations with harm.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - High VSS Use Associations with Health-Risk Behaviors

Ley et al. imply that causation studies have been done, and that - No study has demonstrated a direct, causal link between VSS use and health-risk behaviors. In fact, no one knows what causal studies would reveal about porn use and health-risk behaviors, because no causal studies have been done. There are only 2 ways to determine causality neither of which seems likely to be undertaken with respect to health risks and porn: 1) Have two matched groups, in which one group uses porn and the other does not. 2) Remove porn for an extended period and see the results.

In the interim, correlation studies are the strongest formal evidence available, and dozens of them show associations between porn use and health-risk behaviors. (See list at end of critique.) Bear in mind that Ley et al. themselves freely cite correlation studies when they like the results.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Erectile Dysfunction and High VSS Use?

Why does this section exist? No published studies have ever considered porn use as a variable in connection with erectile dysfunction. There is nothing to review. Why are Ley et al. once again creating the false impression that the relationship between ED and porn has been formally studied and found to be absent? Why are they citing ED studies that never raised porn as a possible cause, let alone removed porn use as a variable to see if it would help (as it has thousands of young men with unprecedented ED who report their results online)?

Ley et al. admit that two European studies have found a startling increase in ED in young men. However, neither belongs in "No Clothes." The researchers in those studies didn't think to poll their subjects about internet porn use. They could only theorize that the increases in youthful ED might be stemming from factors such as smoking, drug use, depression or poor health. As an aside, smoking is at an historic low, and it only causes ED problems in longtime smokers who develop arterial disease. Commenting about these two studies, urologist James Elist said that Internet porn was the primary cause of ED in young men:

Excerpt: recreational drugs, smoking, and mental health seem, compared to internet porn consumption, to be making up rather the smaller portion of elements being responsible for early onset ED.

Next Ley et al. hypothesize that porn can't cause ED because the brains of men with and without ED showed no differences during VSS viewing in (63). Actually citation 63 is irrelevant to the discussion of ED and porn. It only examined cerebral cortex activity, not the limbic regions that govern desire and erections. Incidentally, Ley et al. ignored another study that did find differences in cerebral activation between those with psychogenic ED and controls: "The role of left superior parietal lobe in male sexual behavior: dynamics of distinct components revealed by FMRI." Note: 'Psychogenic ED' is a term for ED, such as porn-related ED, which cannot be explained by organic causes such as vascular damage.

Ley et al. (and their reviewers) apparently overlooked the next two studies as well, which revealed significant differences (in the limbic brain regions that control sexual excitement and erections) when researchers compared control subjects with subjects who had psychogenic ED.

• Macrostructural alterations of subcortical grey matter in psychogenic erectile dysfunction (2012)
• Hypothalamus may be involved in psychogenic erectile dysfunction (2008)

In their determination to dismiss internet porn as a possible cause of unprecedented youthful ED, Ley et al. even vilify masturbation and orgasm. (The irony of this position taken by the champions of "high sexual desire" is noteworthy.) They prefer to theorize about these two time-honored, normal activities, rather than consider the glaring possibility that high-speed internet porn, a brand new stimulus that has only been present for the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, might be a factor.

They reach the remarkable conclusion, supported by no urologist, that chronic ED in young men is a function of masturbation, or, alternatively, the refractory period. The latter is particularly droll in light of the fact that it sometimes takes 2-12 months for guys to get their erections back even after quitting porn/masturbation. That's some refractory period!

Persistent porn-induced ED in young men caught the medical profession by surprise, but this year doctors have finally begun to acknowledge it. Harvard urology professor and author of books on men's health Abraham Morgentaler, MD said,

• "It's hard to know exactly how many young men are suffering from porn-induced ED. But it's clear that this is a new phenomenon, and it's not rare."

And Cornell urology professor and author Harry Fisch, MD writes bluntly that porn is killing sex. In his book The New Naked, he zeroes in on the decisive element - the internet:

• It "provided ultra-easy access to something that is fine as an occasional treat but hell for your [sexual] health on a daily basis.

Dr. Fisch continues:

• I can tell how much porn a man watches as soon as he starts talking candidly about any sexual dysfunction he has. ... A man who masturbates frequently can soon develop erection problems when he's with his partner. Add porn to the mix, and he can become unable to have sex. ...

Finally, Ley et al. say something with which we totally agree, although we don't know if young men with limp members would appreciate Ley et al.'s label of "non-pathological." The researchers acknowledge that learning, another term for which would be 'sexual conditioning,' might be contributing to youthful ED. We totally agree that young porn users may be wiring their sexual response to screens and novelty-on-demand instead of people, such that performance with a real person is alien and not arousing. This, of course, does not preclude some of these ED sufferers from also being addicts.

What Ley et al. fail to mention is that sexual conditioning (learning) and porn addiction appear to hijack some of the same mechanisms in the brain. In other words, sexual conditioning and addiction are surprisingly closely related phenomena as a biological matter. It's illogical to entertain sexual conditioning as a possible cause of porn-related problems and still insist that addiction-related brain changes cannot also be at work in some users.

Chronic ED stemming from Pavlovian conditioning via screens is powerful evidence that internet porn is a supernormal stimulus quite unlike static porn in terms of its effects. ED was not a challenge for youthful porn users who could only gaze upon brothel murals or magazines.

In short, Ley et al.'s admission that porn can cause ED via sexual conditioning (learning) is quite close to an admission that porn can also cause addiction--although they seem to be unaware of this. Addiction is merely another example of pathological learning, equally related to Pavlovian conditioning. As researchers said in "Initiation and maintenance of online sexual compulsivity: Implications for assessment and treatment":

Excerpt: Sexually compulsive behavior on the Internet is now a widely recognized problem. ... Factors that serve to maintain compulsive online sexual behavior include classical conditioning and operant conditioning [i.e., Pavlovian conditioning].

Addicted or not, when young men with porn-related ED quit using porn they generally experience a long period of low libido, non-responsive genitals and sometimes mild depression. Happily, thousands of ex-porn users have gradually resolved their sexual health problems (ED, delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia, loss of attraction to real partners and morphing porn-fetish tastes) simply by quitting. Their informal experiment suggests causality, even if further research would be needed to establish it.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Failure to Inhibit VSS Use

In support of their claim that "Far more people report a feeling of inability to control their VSS use, than actually report life difficulties resulting from their use [23]", Ley et al. again cite a study that did not ask about pornography use. (See above discussion of citation 23.) They also conclude that "No data currently support the notion that ‘porn addicts’ have difficulty inhibiting their VSS use".

In any case, what study has asked porn users to stop using porn so their difficulties could be observed? Not one that we know of. That said, Ley et al. overlook a wide range of correlation studies that suggest that some porn users have difficulty inhibiting use. Consider the following:

• Internet sex addiction treated with naltrexone (2008)

Excerpt: Malfunctioning of the brain's reward center is increasingly understood to underlie all addictive behavior. Prescribed for treating alcoholism, naltrexone blocks opiates' capacity to augment dopamine release. This article reviews naltrexone's mechanism of action in the reward center and describes a novel use for naltrexone in suppressing a euphorically compulsive and interpersonally devastating addiction to Internet pornography.

• Predicting compulsive Internet use: it's all about sex! (2006)

Excerpt: The objective of this research was to assess the predictive power of various Internet applications on the development of compulsive Internet use (CIU). The study has a two-wave longitudinal design with an interval of 1 year. ... On a cross-sectional basis, gaming and erotica seem the most important Internet applications related to CIU. On a longitudinal basis, spending a lot of time on erotica predicted an increase in CIU 1 year later. The addictive potential of the different applications varies; erotica appears to have the highest potential.

• Hypersexual behavior in an online sample of males: associations with personal distress and functional impairment.

Excerpt: There were 75.3% (N = 253) who reported feeling distressed due to hypersexual behavior. Functional impairment in at least one life area was specified by 77.4% (N = 270), and most participants (56.2%) reported impairment regarding partner relationships. Personal distress and functional impairment in three areas were associated with a strong motivation for behavior change. Distress was associated with online pornography use, masturbation, and/or sexual contact with changing partners.

• Cybersex Users, Abusers, and Compulsives: New Findings and Implications (2000)

Excerpt: This study empirically examines the characteristics and usage patterns of individuals who use the Internet for sexual purposes. The Kalichman Sexual Compulsivity Scale was the primary tool used to divide the sample (n = 9,265) into four groups: nonsexually compulsive (n = 7,738), moderately sexually compulsive (n = 1,007), sexually compulsive (n = 424), and cybersex compulsive (n = 96); 17% of the entire sample scored in the problematic range for sexual compulsivity.

• Pornography consumption, sexual experiences, lifestyles, and self-rated health among male adolescents in Sweden. (2013)

Excerpt: One third of Swedish 16-year old males who were frequent porn users reported watching more pornography than they actually wanted.

Neuroadaptations to VSS Use

This section trots out a veritable platoon of straw men, who are nothing more than a hand-picked assortment of 'essential elements' Ley et al. imply have been studied and found wanting in porn users. For example, offering no supporting authority, Ley et al. opine that porn can't cause addiction unless it shifts the brain's response from 'liking' to 'wanting.' This, they claim, distinguishes "porn addiction" from substance addiction because Data consistently demonstrate the ability of substances to shift brain response to craving, rather than liking, states and porn studies haven't (yet) shown this.

In effect, Ley et al. are denying that craving for porn exists. Yet all of these studies suggest craving is present:

• "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively." (2011)

• "Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013)

• The pornography craving questionnaire: psychometric properties (2014)

Excerpts from the previous item: In light of its similarities with substance abuse and dependence, there is growing support for conceptualizing problematic sexual compulsions as an addictive disorder (Barak & King, 2000; Griffiths, 2001; Meerkerk, Van Den Eijnden, & Garretsen, 2006; Orford, 2001). One element of addiction— and of many impulse control and paraphilic disorders—is the subjective experience of craving. ...The heaviest pornography users reported significantly higher craving.

Moreover, once again, Ley et al. seem not to have done their homework. The studies of 'liking' and 'wanting' by no means "consistently" favor their assertion. For example, here is a recent study that tried to assess 'liking' versus 'wanting' in cocaine addicts: "The Subjective Effects of Cocaine: Relationship to Years of Cocaine Use and Current Age."

Excerpt: These data fail to support the incentive sensitization theory for addiction by Robinson and Berridge, as cocaine “liking” and “wanting” remained the same regardless of age or years of cocaine use.

Research on alcohol also contradicts their assertion: "Excessive alcohol consumption and dependence on amphetamine are associated with parallel increases in subjective ratings of both 'wanting' and 'liking'."

The 'liking' versus 'wanting' Berridge rat studies were really about mapping associated, minute brain regions. Berridge employed neurochemical agonists and antagonists, and often determined 'liking' and 'wanting' based on the rats' facial reactions. ' If you scan the reward center of an addict while he's viewing cues it will light up, but it's not yet possible to tease apart 'wanting' and 'liking'. That's precisely what happens in the porn addicts Dr. Valerie Voon of Cambridge University investigated.

In any case, there are no studies on 'liking' versus 'wanting' in porn addicts. The best evidence currently available may be the addicts complaining that they wish they could stop.

Next, in anticipation of the Cambridge University study showing strong activation in response to porn cues in porn addicts, Ley et al. state that - "stronger activation to VSS in those reporting liking VSS more are both expected and non-pathological." Of course sexual cues are somewhat universally arousing. However, Ley et al. miss the point that the upcoming research compared results with controls who weren't porn addicts, and found a significant difference.

Again, with 'heritability' Ley et al. mislead readers by implying that this element is essential to establish addiction (huh?), and that studies have investigated it in porn addicts and found absent. However, no such research has appeared (yet), and its absence is not evidence of anything.

Ley et al.'s superficial understanding of addiction is perhaps most evident in their comments on ΔFosB, a transcription factor that accumulates with overconsumption and can trigger a more lasting set of addiction-related brain changes. First, there is no question that drugs of abuse and natural rewards induce ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) of rodents. The 2001 paper by Nestler, et al. "ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction" stated:

Excerpt: ΔFosB may function as a sustained “molecular switch” that helps initiate and then maintain crucial aspects of the addicted state.

Since 2001, study after study has confirmed that consumption of natural rewards (sex, sugar, high-fat, aerobic exercise) or chronic administration of virtually any drug of abuse induces ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens. Alternatively, ΔFosB can be induced selectively within the nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum of adult animals. The behavioral phenotype of the ΔFosB-overexpressing rodents resembles animals after chronic drug exposure.

Second, Ley et al. say that ΔFosB works via D1 pathways. That's not always true. The prominent exceptions are the opiates (e.g., morphine, heroin), which induce ΔFosB equally in D1-type and D2-type neurons. Natural rewards such as sucrose (but not sex) resemble opiates in this regard. Sexual activity induces ΔFosB in D1-type neurons in a pattern similar to cocaine and methamphetamine.

Third, Ley et al. say that ΔFosB's main role is to reduce dopamine signaling. Actually, ΔFosB's initial action is to inhibit dynorphin, thus increasing dopamine signaling, although ΔFosB may also ultimately lead to D2 down regulation (decreased signaling). See "Cdk5 Phosphorylates Dopamine D2 Receptor and Attenuates Downstream Signaling" (2013)

Fourth, Ley et al. completely miss ΔFosB's role in sensitization (inducing cravings). A review covering 15 years of ΔFosB research describes sensitization as ΔFosB's primary action that induces addiction, both chemical and behavioral.

Excerpts: These data indicate that the induction of ΔFosB in dynorphin-containing medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens increases an animal's sensitivity to cocaine and other drugs of abuse, and may represent a mechanism for relatively prolonged sensitization to the drugs. ... ΔFosB in this brain region sensitizes animals not only for drug rewards but for natural rewards as well, and may contribute to states of natural addiction.

Sensitization also explains how ΔFosB reinforces sexual reward. In relation to sex, only rodents' ΔFosB levels have so far been measured. Just a few examples:

• Delta JunD overexpression in the nucleus accumbens prevents sexual reward in female Syrian hamsters (2013)

Excerpt: These data, when coupled with our previous findings, suggest that ∆FosB is both necessary and sufficient for behavioral plasticity following sexual experience. Furthermore, these results contribute to an important and growing body of literature demonstrating the necessity of endogenous ΔFosB expression in the nucleus accumbens for adaptive responding to naturally rewarding stimuli.

• Natural reward experience alters AMPA and NMDA receptor distribution and function in the nucleus accumbens (2012)

Excerpt: Together, these data show that sexual experience causes long-term alterations in glutamate receptor expression and function in the nucleus accumbens. Although not identical, this sex experience-induced neuroplasticity has similarities to that caused by psychostimulants, suggesting common mechanisms for reinforcement of natural and drug reward.

• Natural and Drug Rewards Act on Common Neural Plasticity Mechanisms with ΔFosB as a Key Mediator (2013)

Excerpt: Natural and drug rewards not only converge on the same neural pathway, they converge on the same molecular mediators and likely in the same neurons in the nucleus accumbens to influence the incentive salience and the “wanting” of both types of rewards (sex and drugs of abuse).

So, what of humans? Ley et al. correctly state that there are serious challenges in measuring ΔFosB in humans. It requires fresh corpses. But again, they either deliberately misled their readers or failed to do their homework. They did not report that higher than normal ΔFosB levels have been found in deceased cocaine addicts. This suggests that ΔFosB plays a similar role in reinforcing reward in humans. Instead Ley et al. only pointed to null ΔFosB results in deceased alcoholics. How's that for cherry-picking? They choose an anomaly in hopes they can deceive their readers that ΔFosB research can't offer strong support for the concept that all chemical and behavioral addictions are one biological disease.

What accounts for the anomaly? The study on alcoholics only looked at the frontal cortex, not the nucleus accumbens or dorsal striatum, which is where ΔFosB is normally measured in connection with addiction. All the studies that induced addiction-like behaviors and hyper-consumputive states did so by elevating ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens not the frontal cortex.

In any event, alcoholic corpses would be poor subjects because they typically experience a slow decline from their chronic condition, which would typically make indulgence in their addiction less feasible and thus make accumulation of ΔFosB less likely near their deaths. In contrast, the cocaine addicts whose ΔFosB levels were measured all died sudden deaths without protracted illness. See "Behavioral and Structural Responses to Chronic Cocaine Require a Feedforward Loop Involving ΔFosB and Calcium/Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinase II in the Nucleus Accumbens Shell" (2013)

Excerpt: The cohort was composed of 37 male and 3 female subjects, ranging in age between 15–66 years. All subjects died suddenly without a prolonged agonal state or protracted medical illness. ... Here, we present the first evidence that levels of both ΔFosB and CaMKII are increased in NAc of cocaine-dependent humans. These data indicate that our examination of ΔFosB and CaMKII induction by cocaine in rodent NAc is clinically relevant to human cocaine addiction.

Next, Ley et al. make the jump from deception or incompetence...to incoherence. For reasons known only to themselves they begin babbling about male-on-male mounting behavior, claiming that no one can study hypersexuality or ΔFosB without using gay rats, which would "pathologize homosexual behavior." Huh? This is as uncorroborated as their earlier statements that only opioids can cause addiction.

Perhaps this lively red herring is here to distract readers from contemplating the critically important implications of ΔFosB for sexual addictions. Both amphetamine and sex sensitize the same neurons in the brain, which suggests that of all addictions, sexual behavior addictions may be among the most compelling. Or to state this another way, drug addictions hijack the brain machinery that evolved to drive sexual learning.

In short, Ley et al.'s insistence that sexual behaviors can't become addictive in the face of a supernormal stimulus like internet porn is nothing short of reckless given the evidence that ΔFosB is at work, sensitizing brains, in both sex and addiction. See "Pornography addiction – a supranormal stimulus considered in the context of neuroplasticity."

Alternative Models - Secondary Gain

Next Ley et al. chastise the "lucrative, largely unregulated" pornography and sex addiction treatment industry. However, the internet offers many free porn recovery sites. Very few of the tens of thousands of people on online porn recovery forums see therapists. It's likely that the vast majority of those who self-identify as porn addicts, however severe their symptoms, do not seek, or spend a dime on, treatment. Only a handful have gone to treatment centers, which tend to specialize in helping those with more pervasive sexual or other behavioral and/or chemical addictions.

In any case, how could treatment cost possibly have a bearing on whether or not porn addiction is a physical reality? If Ley et al. are so bothered about possible bias, they could profitably have spent more time investigating their own.

Ley et al. also argue that religious affiliation gives rise to the "supposed pathology" of porn addiction. Self-polls repeatedly show that the overwhelming majority of young people on porn recovery sites are not religious. For example this self-poll of the largest English-language forum found that only 20% of those polled were seeking to quit porn for religious reasons.

And if moneymaking is a problem in the porn-addiction controversy, what of the lucrative porn industry manipulating its visitors to keep them producing ad (and other) revenue? What of author David Ley himself, who presumably charges his clients for his clinical services and book denying the existence of porn addiction?

Ley et al.'s sloppiness, or desire to discredit those who treat sex addicts, shows up again when they claim that 'R. Weiss' has published an explicitly religious argument against porn viewing. The actual author is D. Weiss. Rob Weiss is a sex therapist and the author of several books, including Cruise Control: Understanding Sex Addiction in Gay Men. This error stands to muddy his reputation with both readers and clients.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems

In this section Ley et al. claim there's no evidence that porn use causes mental health problems, suggesting that any such problems necessarily predate porn use. No doubt pre-existing conditions do increase some users' vulnerability to addiction. Yet therapists are increasingly seeing another type of porn addiction that is not dependent on pre-existing conditions.

They are labeling it in various ways including "opportunity addiction" and "contemporary rapid-onset addiction." Unlike classical 'sex addiction,' this type of addiction is to internet porn and has more to do with early exposure to graphic sexual stimuli via the internet than inherent vulnerabilities, which may or may not be present.

Ley et al. claim that citation 125, "Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Preoccupancy: A Three-Wave Panel Study" (2008), is evidence that lower life satisfaction causes increased porn use, not the reverse. That may, of course, be true for some users, but let's look more closely at some of that study's other, more disturbing findings. The researchers surveyed 962 Dutch adolescents three times over the course of 1 year.

Excerpts: The more frequently adolescents used SEIM [Sexually Explicit Internet Material], the more often they thought about sex, the stronger their interest in sex became, and the more frequently they became distracted because of their thoughts about sex. ... Sexual arousal as a result of exposure to SEIM may cue sex-related cognitions in memory ... and may eventually lead to chronically accessible sex-related cognitions, that is, sexual preoccupancy.

Next, Ley et al. state that "even when loneliness was strongly predicted by overall Internet use, researchers failed to appropriately statistically control for general Internet use and attributed loneliness to VSS use [126]." Alas, continuing a pattern that is becoming dishearteningly familiar in "No Clothes," citation 126 has nothing to do with internet porn use: See "When What You See Isn’t What You Get: Alcohol Cues, Alcohol Administration, Prediction Error, and Human Striatal Dopamine." Shoddy.

Ley et al. then resort to misrepresentation - "Others have reached similar conclusions: “the high comorbidity rates in the present sample call into question the extent to which it is possible to speak of Internet sex addiction as a primary disorder." The relevant citation (127) comes from "Internet sex addiction: A review of empirical research," which was not about internet porn addiction, but rather sex addiction facilitated by the internet. In any case, the statement was not a "conclusion" at all. It was made in reference to only a single study (Schwartz & Southern, 2000) of the many studies the author reviewed. The researcher's actual conclusion was:

Excerpt: If the cybersex user experiences clinically significant distress or impairment because of their engagement in sexual behaviors on the Internet, it appears relatively safe to claim that s/he suffers from Internet sex addiction.

Granted it is difficult to conduct formal causality studies of the type being carried out informally online by tens of thousands of guys who are giving up internet porn and seeing profound mental health benefits (improved concentration, reduced social anxiety and depression, increased motivation and elevated mood). However, researchers have conducted numerous correlation studies that show an association between pathological internet use and mental health problems. In addition to the many studies we discuss specifically herein, we list and describe ~30 relevant studies at the end of this critique, all of which demonstrate mental health risks, or other risks, associated with porn use and none of which made it into Ley et al.'s review.

Ley et al. had better be right that internet porn can't cause mental health problems, because if they're mistaken they're dismissing a serious health concern that has the potential to be quite prevalent in today's digital natives given their porn use (universal among males, growing among females). In view of the increase in depression and suicide risk in those who spend too much time online, internet porn consumers' wellbeing may be at risk.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use Explained by Sex Drive

Here Ley et al. trot out their pet theory that porn users merely have higher libido than other people and simply can't be expected to scratch their itch without the help of internet porn. Further, Ley et al. insist that somehow this means these high-libido people can't become addicts. This faulty logic has been refuted in "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.

What do the studies they cite in support of their prized hypothesis actually say?

• 122 "Frequent users of pornography. A population based epidemiological study of Swedish male adolescents"

Excerpt: The frequent users had a more positive attitude to pornography, were more often “turned on” viewing pornography and viewed more often advanced forms of pornography. Frequent use was also associated with many problem behaviours. (emphasis added)

• 123 "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively"

Excerpt: We found a positive relationship between subjective sexual arousal when watching Internet pornographic pictures and the self-reported problems in daily life due to the excessiveness of cybersex as measured by the IATsex.

• 129 "Nonaffective motivation modulates the sustained LPP (1,000-2,000 ms)"

Irrelevant citation. There is no indication that this study is about porn viewing or sexual desire.

• 130 "Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on risky decision making are mediated by ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ decisions, personality, and hemisphere"

Again, an irrelevant citation. There is no mention of porn viewing. Instead researchers used "The Columbia Card Task" as their instrument.

• 81 - "Dysregulated sexuality and high sexual desire: distinct constructs? (2010)"

Excerpt: Men and women who reported having sought treatment scored significantly higher on measures of dysregulated sexuality and sexual desire.

Incidentally, this team of researchers, headed by young Canadian sexologist Jason Winters, deserves special mention as the first to sneak past actual peer reviewers with the fiction that sexual behavior addicts have no pathology, but are merely people with high libido. Quite a feat, but hardly a step forward for humankind.

• 52 "Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images"

This is Prause's very own creative-writing exercise, which has been extensively extensively critiqued.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use Explained by Sensation Seeking

The ineptitude of Ley et al. continues. They claim that Higher need or desire for sensation is predictive of more frequent use of VSS, in both adolescents and adults [12,133, 134]. Yet citation 133 has nothing to do porn viewing. See "Theta-Patterned, Frequency-Modulated Priming Stimulation Enhances Low-Frequency, Right Prefrontal Cortex Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) in Depression: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Study" Nor does citation 134: "Peripheral endocannabinoid dysregulation in obesity: relation to intestinal motility and energy processing induced by food deprivation and re-feeding"

Had they (or their reviewers) investigated the actual literature, they might have found - Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013), discussed earlier, which says that cue reactivity (evidence of addiction-related brain changes), not "high desire," fuels problematic porn use:

Excerpt: Poor or unsatisfying sexual reallife contacts cannot sufficiently explain cybersex addiction.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use As Effective Affect Regulation

Here Ley et al. make the argument that controlling emotions with porn or distracting oneself with porn is normal and only beneficial. They compare porn to cartoons as a way of improving mood. In making their case, Ley et al. overlook, or misrepresent the significance of, various studies that completely contradict their beliefs, and demonstrate that internet porn use is not "like cartoons" in its effects, or mood-elevating properties:

• "Differential psychological impact of internet exposure on internet addicts" (2013)

Excerpts: The results showed a striking negative impact of internet exposure on the positive mood of ‘internet addicts’. This effect has been suggested in theoretical models of ‘internet addiction [14], [21], and a similar finding has also been noted in terms of the negative effect of exposure to pornography on internet sex addicts [5], which may suggest commonalities between these addictions. It is also worth suggesting that this negative impact on mood could be considered as akin to a withdrawal effect, suggested as needed for the classification of addictions [1], [2], [27]. ...

High internet-users also showed a pronounced decrease in mood following internet use compared to the low internet-users. The immediate negative impact of exposure to the internet on the mood of internet addicts may contribute to increased usage by those individuals attempting to reduce their low mood by re-engaging rapidly in internet use. ...

Exposure to the object of the problematic behaviours has been found to reduce mood [26], especially in individuals addicted to pornography [5], [27]. As both of these reasons (i.e. gambling and pornography) for use of the internet are strongly associated with problematic internet use [2], [3], [14], it may well be that these factors may also contribute to internet addiction [14]. Indeed, it has been suggested that such negative impacts of engagement in problematic behaviour may, in themselves, generate further engagement in these high probability problematic behaviours in an attempt to escape these negative feelings [28]. ...

It should be pointed out that, as two of the key uses of the internet for a sizable number of internet users are to gain access to pornography and gambling [4], [5], and these latter activities are clearly subject to potentially-addictive states, it may be that any results relating to ‘internet addiction’ are actually manifestations of other forms of addiction (i.e. to pornography or gambling). (emphasis added)

• "Pornographic picture processing interferes with working memory performance" (136)

Excerpts: Some individuals report problems during and after Internet sex engagement, such as missing sleep and forgetting appointments, which are associated with negative life consequences. One mechanism potentially leading to these kinds of problems is that sexual arousal during Internet sex might interfere with working memory (WM) capacity, resulting in a neglect of relevant environmental information and therefore disadvantageous decision making. ...

Results contribute to the view that indicators of sexual arousal due to pornographic picture processing interfere with WM performance. Findings are discussed with respect to Internet sex addiction because WM interference by addiction-related cues is well known from substance dependencies. (emphasis added)

• "Sexual Picture Processing Interferes with Decision-Making Under Ambiguity"

Excerpt: Subjective sexual arousal moderated the relationship between task condition and decision-making performance. This study emphasized that sexual arousal interfered with decision-making, which may explain why some individuals experience negative consequences in the context of cybersex use. (emphasis added)

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use and Sexual Orientation

Here Ley et al. imply that porn problems are especially a "gay and bisexual" thing, as if sexual orientation is relevant to the existence or absence of addiction. Moreover, we wonder if porn watching is still a sexual-minority-only issue among today's digital-native males. A recent poll of the largest online English-language porn recovery forum showed that 94% of users were heterosexual, and 5% gay or bisexual. With the advent of free, streaming video clips and private smartphones, it is doubtful that young heterosexuals still lag behind other male porn users.

In any case, in this section Ley et al. tumble from carelessness to mind-boggling incompetence. Not one of the six studies they cite has anything to do with their statements. Ley et al in bullets:

• "Studies examining rates of VSS use in nationally representative samples find higher rates of VSS use in both adolescents and adults who identify as other than heterosexual [133], as do studies of clinical samples" [143].

Citation 133 has nothing to do with VSS. It's about transcranial magnetic stimulation and depression. Citation 143 has nothing to do with VSS. It's about monkeys: "Male masturbation in free-ranging Japanese macaques."

• ""Trials of DSM-5 hypersexual disorder criteria found that MSM were more than three times as likely to be in such treatment settings, compared with rates of MSM in comparable substance abuse or mental health facilities"" [144].

Citation 144 has nothing to do with the above statement. It's "Sleep deprivation: Effect on sleep stages and EEG power density in man"

• Increased use of VSS in these populations may reflect adaptive strategies. MSM may be more likely to seek information and stimuli consistent with their sexual orientation. This may reflect a common component of the ‘coming-out process’ of forming a stable sexual identity [145].

Citation 145 has nothing to do with above statement. It's "Dieting and binging: a causal analysis"

• "Studies that examine use of VSS in MSM find that these men overwhelmingly endorse these positive benefits from VSS use" [146]

Citation 146 has nothing to do with men who have sex with men. It is about 12 and 13-year olds. "Sexual risk taking in adolescence: the role of self-regulation and attraction to risk"

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - Impulsivity

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - Compulsivity

We will address these sections on 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' together because they are part of the same strategem. Ley et al. seek to re-brand people with problematic porn use as having unalterable "traits" as opposed to reversible pathological learning as a consequence of their interaction with their environment (addiction).

Certainly, some people are more impulsive than others. Innate impulsivity is a risk-factor for developing addiction. But Ley et al. imply that the presence of increased impulsivity mysteriously precludes addiction. This is flat out wrong; impulsivity increases the chance of addiction.

Part of their plan is to split impulsivity from compulsivity. They don't like the latter because it has been used interchangeably with addiction. With respect to compulsive behavior, the goal of Ley et al. is to re-brand it as "high desire." More on that in a moment.

Let's see what the established science has to say about the terms 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity'. The following comes from "Probing Compulsive and Impulsive Behaviors, from Animal Models to Endophenotypes: A Narrative Review":

Excerpt: Impulsivity may be defined as ‘a predisposition toward rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli with diminished regard to the negative consequences of these reactions. In contrast, compulsivity represents a tendency to perform unpleasantly repetitive acts in a habitual or stereotyped manner to prevent perceived negative consequences, leading to functional impairment. (emphasis added)

Historically, 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' were viewed as diametrically opposed, with impulsivity being associated with risk-seeking and compulsivity with harm-avoidance. However, increasingly they are recognized to be biologically linked. That is, they share neuropsychological mechanisms involving dysfunctional inhibition of thoughts and behaviors. ("New developments in human neurocognition: clinical, genetic, and brain imaging correlates of impulsivity and compulsivity")

So, when someone develops an addiction it's accepted (by experts) that their impulsivity and compulsivity have been increased by their addiction-related brain changes. Why? Addiction has been shown to change the frontal cortex and striatum causing dysfunctions. Both impulsivity and compulsivity are driven by dysfunctional cortico-striatal neural circuits. See "Probing Compulsive and Impulsive Behaviors, from Animal Models to Endophenotypes: A Narrative Review"

Excerpt: Impulsive and compulsive disorders are conspicuously heterogeneous, sharing aspects of impulsivity and compulsivity, and become even more complex and thus more difficult to disentangle over time. For example, for impulsive and addictive disorders, tolerance to reward may develop and the behaviors may persist as a method of reducing discomfort (i.e., they become more compulsive).

Indeed, in animal studies low dopamine D2 receptors, caused by addiction, are associated with impulsivity. ("Low dopamine striatal D2 receptors are associated with prefrontal metabolism in obese subjects: Possible contributing factors") Moreover, causation has been established in both animal and human addicts. In other words, addiction can cause the impulsivity that Ley et al. prefer to believe is purely a fixed trait, independent of addiction.

To state all of this another way, while 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' can be studied separately, they coexist when one has an addiction. In other words, the research has moved in the opposite direction of the impulsivity-compulsivity split that Ley et al. are pandering. In fact, the DSM recently changed pathological gambling from an "Impulse-Control Disorder" to an "Addictive Disorder" precisely because the research is showing it is an addiction, not a matter of impulsivity. "Addiction, a Disease of Compulsion and Drive: Involvement of the Orbitofrontal Cortex" describes the current model of addiction, which:

Excerpt: invokes both conscious (craving, loss of control, drug preoccupation) and unconscious processes (conditioned expectation, compulsivity, impulsivity, obsessiveness) which result from dysfunction of the striato-thalamo-orbitofrontal circuit.

Interestingly, the citation (147) Ley et al. offer for their untenable position contradicts them. The researchers concluded that problematic internet porn (IP) use is "an addictive problem" and the trait of "impulsivity did not appear to be an important factor differentiating IP users from problematic users or IP users from nonusers."

Citation 149 investigated the impulsivity of patients with compulsive sexual behaviors, and their brain imaging results were not consistent with impulse control disorders. Citation 150 goes to an unpublished study by Prause herself, "Neural evidence of underreactivity to sexual stimuli in those reporting problems regulating their viewing of visual sexual stimuli." May we be the first to predict that, once again, she will claim the results disprove porn addiction regardless of underlying data or flaws in study design?

It is important not to let weak claims about "traits," or agenda-driven research, muddy the water, because many of the brain changes associated with addiction are reversible. Addicts can relearn healthy 'wanting,' which means they are empowered to change their circumstances. They can learn to alter the choices they made about how they interact with their environment.

A few words about 'compulsivity' as viewed through the eyes of Ley et al.: They deny "the compulsivity model," instead nurturing the notion that compulsive porn use is just evidence of "high desire." By the same logic, alcoholics would simply have "high desire" for alcohol, and addicted smokers "high desire" for nicotine. This hypothesis has been challenged in a peer-reviewed journal comment, "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al." Also see the studies we cited above in the section entitled, "Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Failure to Inhibit VSS Use."

Conclusion

Ley et al. extol the health benefits of porn because it facilitates orgasm. However humanity orgasmed just fine for a long time without any help from internet porn. More important, orgasm appears to be less beneficial in the case of masturbation than in the case of partnered sex, so problematic porn use may be getting in the way of potential benefits.

Ley et al. suggest that young porn viewers may be moving to more extreme porn when they don't have partners with whom to engage in sexual risk behaviors. Both their supporting citations show that the younger someone is exposed to porn, the more likely s/he will proceed to illegal porn. Citation 153 found that early exposure to sexually explicit material is a risk factor for sexual risk-taking, and, as discussed earlier. 154 found that the younger kids start viewing pornography the more likely they are to view bestiality or child porn.

Ley et al. also point to the benefits of masturbation to porn as a way of reducing risky partnered sexual behaviors, as if no one had the option of self-pleasuring instead of acting out prior to internet porn! Next they warn there's a risk in "labeling VSS as only addictive." (Who labeled it as "only addictive?")

They even go so far as to advocate porn use as "cognitive retraining" citing (155) "Brain training: games to do you good!" Today's porn is indeed brain training for some users, many of whom report devastating "retraining," such as loss of attraction to real partners, sexual dysfunctions and morphing sexual tastes that escalate to material inconsistent with their underlying sexual orientation.

Ley et al. claim that the concept of porn addiction is driven by the dark hand of "non-empirical forces." This is comical, given that they left out massive empirical evidence that discounts their hypotheses, and brazenly cherry-picked what supported their agenda from various studies, frequently ignoring actual conclusions.

Next they assure us that the popularity of the term "porn addiction" in the media is simply due to widespread ignorance. In fact, the public appears to be ahead of these sexologists in their recognition that addiction is a real, biological condition. Ley et al. also seem unwilling to consider the possibility that growing recognition of the term 'addiction' might, in fact, be evidence that more people are experiencing addictions and sexual dysfunctions caused by porn.

Heading for the finish line, Ley et al. imply that concern about porn addiction is somehow proof of moralistic judgments calculated to suppress sexual expression and stigmatize sexual minorities. In fact, as the concept of porn addiction has gained currency, moral concerns about porn use, suppression of sexual expression and stigmatization of sexual minorities all seem to be declining sharply. Perhaps if Ley et al. were to investigate that correlation they would promptly bring their views on internet porn addiction into alignment with current scientific thought.

Porn studies showing adverse effects, which were overlooked by authors, and have not been mentioned above

1. Adolescent pornographic internet site use: a multivariate regression analysis of the predictive factors of use and psychosocial implications (2009) findings suggested that Greek adolescents who are exposed to sexually explicit material may develop “unrealistic attitudes about sex and misleading attitudes toward relationships” The data indicated a significant relationship between consumption of Internet pornography and social maladjustment. Specifically, adolescents who indicated infrequent use of pornography were twice as likely have conduct issues as those who did not consume pornography at all. Also, frequent consumers were significantly more likely to indicate abnormal conduct issues as well as borderline addictive Internet use
3. Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Notions of Women as Sex Objects: Assessing Causality and Underlying Processes (2009) Peter and Valkenburg (2009) determined that viewing women as sex objects was related to increased frequency in the consumption of sexually explicit material. It is unclear how adolescent females are impacted by viewing other females, and possibly even themselves, as sex objects. In short, these findings suggest that “adolescents’ exposure to SEIM was both a cause and a consequence of their beliefs that women are sex objects.
6. Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material, Sexual Uncertainty, and Attitudes Toward Uncommitted Sexual Exploration: Is There a Link? (2008) Drawing from a sample of 2,343 Dutch adolescents aged 13 to 20, the authors find that more frequent exposure to sexually explicit Internet material is associated with greater sexual uncertainty and more positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual exploration (i.e., sexual relations with casual partners/friends or with sexual partners in one-night stands)
9. Adolescents' Use of Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Uncertainty: The Role of Involvement and Gender (2010) As adolescents use SEIM more frequently, their sexual uncertainty increases. Equally true for both boys and girls; pornography is confusing for all. As adolescents use SEIM more frequently, they became more strongly involved in the material. Involvement is defined as an intense experiential state during the reception of media content and comprises both affective and cognitive processes Lose track of time; don’t notice surroundings, completely focused.
11. Adolescents’ Exposure to a Sexualized Media Environment and Their Notions of Women as Sex Objects (2007) Both male and female Dutch adolescents (13-18) who used more sexually explicit content were more likely to view women as sex objects.
14. Associations between young adults' use of sexually explicit materials and their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction. (2011) Higher frequencies of SEM use were associated with less sexual and relationship satisfaction. The frequency of SEM use and number of SEM types viewed were both associated with higher sexual preferences for the types of sexual practices typically presented in SEM. These findings suggest that SEM use can play a significant role in a variety of aspects of young adults' sexual development processes
17. Developmental Pathways into Social and Sexual Deviance (2010) Hunter et al. (2010) examined the relationship between exposure to pornography prior to age 13 and four negative personality constructs. This study surveyed 256 adolescent males with a history of sexual criminal behavior; the authors found a relationship between early exposure to pornography and antisocial behavior, likely the result of a distorted view of sexuality and the glorification of promiscuity (Hunter et al., 2010). Hunter et al. (2010) found childhood exposure to sexually explicit material may contribute “to antagonistic and psychopathic attitudes, likely the depiction of distorted views of human sexuality and glorification of promiscuity” (p. 146). Moreover, these authors argued that because adolescents do not always have the opportunity to counterbalance “real-life experiences with sexual partners. . .. they are especially susceptible to internalization of distorted pornographic images of human sexuality and may act accordingly” (p. 147)
20. Early sexual experiences: the role of Internet access and sexually explicit material (2008) During the ages of 12 to 17, males with internet reported significantly younger ages for first oral sex, and males and females reported younger ages for first sexual intercourse compared to those without it. Early sexual experiences: the role of Internet access and sexually explicit material.
23. Emerging Adult Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors Does Shyness Matter? (2013) The more university-age men engage in solitary sexual behaviours of masturbation and pornography the more shyness they report.
26. Emerging in a Digital World: A Decade Review of Media Use, Effects, and Gratifications in Emerging Adulthood. (2013) The more internet porn university students use the worse the quality of their relationships.
28. Exposure to internet pornography among children and adolescents a national survey (2005) Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver.
31. Exposure to Internet Pornography and Taiwanese Adolescents Sexual Attitudes and Behavior (2005) This study indicated that exposure to sexually explicit material increased the likelihood that adolescents will accept and engage in sexually permissive behaviors. Determined that exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet had a greater influence on permissive sexual attitudes than all other forms of pornographic media.
34. Exposure to sexually explicit Web sites and adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors (2009) Braun-Courville and Rojas’ (2009) study of 433 adolescents indicated that those who use sexually explicit material are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners, and using drugs or alcohol during sex. This study was supported by Brown, Keller, and Stern (2009) who indicated that adolescents who witness high risk sexual practices in sexually explicit material in the absence of education on the potential negative consequences, are more likely to engage in some form of high-risk sexual behavior themselves.
37. Frequent users of pornography. A population based epidemiological study of Swedish male adolescents (2010) regression analysis showed that frequent users of pornography were more likely to be living in a large city, consuming alcohol more often, having greater sexual desire and had more often sold sex than other boys of the same age. High frequent viewing of pornography may be seen as a problematic behaviour that needs more attention from both parents and teachers
40. Internet Pornography and Loneliness: An Association? Porn use was associated with increased loneliness.
43. Mental- and physical-health indicators and sexually explicit media use behavior by adults This 2006 survey of 559 Seattle adults found that porn users, compared to nonusers, report greater depressive symptoms, poorer quality of life, more mental- and physical-health diminished days, and lower health status. Mental- and physical-health indicators and sexually explicit media use behavior by adults.
46. Nucleus accumbens activation mediates the influence of reward cues on financial risk taking Porn use correlates with increased financial risk-taking.
48. Pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women: revisiting the relationship in nonexperimental studies (2009) Porn use and violent porn use were both associated with attitudes supporting violence against women.
51. Pornography and teenagers: the importance of individual differences (2005) They found that a male adolescent who “possesses certain combinations of risk factors determines how likely he is to be sexually aggressive following pornography exposure” (p. 316). Focusing directly on violent sexually explicit material, Malamuth and Huppin (2005) suggest that, not only are these higher risk adolescent males “more likely to be exposed to such media but when they are exposed, they are likely to be changed by such exposure, such as changes in attitudes about the acceptance of violence against women” (p. 323–24).
54. Pornography Consumption and Opposition to Affirmative Action for Women (2013) Pornography viewing predicted subsequent opposition to affirmative action in both men and women, even after controlling for prior affirmative action attitudes and various other potential confounds.
57. Pornography use as a risk marker for an aggressive pattern of behavior among sexually reactive children and adolescents (2009) Alexy et al. (2009) studied the pornography consumption patterns of juvenile sexual offenders as they related to various forms of aggressive behavior. Those who were consumers of pornography were more likely to display forms of aggressive behaviors such as theft, truancy, manipulating others, arson, and forced sexual intercourse.
60. Pornography Viewing among Fraternity Men: Effects on Bystander Intervention, Rape Myth Acceptance and Behavioral Intent to Commit Sexual Assault (2011) The more porn male university students watch the more casual their attitudes toward sexual assault.
63. Pornography, Relationship Alternatives, and Intimate Extradyadic Behavior (2013) Porn use is linked with increased fooling around on the side in romantically committed individuals.
66. Pornography's Impact on Sexual Satisfaction (2006) Porn use reduced satisfaction with intimate partners.
69. Sexual Addiction among Teens: A Review (2007) It is concluded that there probably does exist a phenomenon of sexual addiction that applies across the life course (including the teenage years), that deserves much more study.
72. The use of cyberpornography by young men in Hong Kong some psychosocial correlates (2007) participants who reported to have more online pornography viewing were found to score higher on measures of premarital sexual permissiveness and proclivities toward sexual harassmen
75. Use of Internet Pornography and Men's Well-Being This 2005 study revealed that depression, anxiety, and real-life intimacy problems are associated with chronic cybersexuality in men.
78. Variations in internet-related problems and psychosocial functioning in online sexual activities: implications for social and sexual development of young adults. (2004) (Available in full online) Online sexual activities displaced normal relationship development, learned courtship, and romantic behaviours in university students.
81. X-rated material and perpetration of sexually aggressive behavior among children and adolescents: is there a link? (2011) Ley, Prause and Finn do mention this study, but they attempt to reduce it to evidence of "sensation seeking" in porn users. They didn't mention that adolescents who are intentionally exposed to violent pornography appear to be six times more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression than those who had no exposure or were exposed to non-violent pornography
84. Young adult women’s reports of their male romantic partner’s pornography use as a correlate of their psychological distress, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction. 2012 Results revealed women’s reports of their male partner’s frequency of pornography use were negatively associated with their relationship quality. More perceptions of problematic use of pornography was negatively correlated with self-esteem, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction.
87. The effects of gay sexually explicit media on the HIV risk behavior of men who have sex with men. 2013. Overall sexually explicit media consumption was not associated with HIV risk; however participants who watched more bareback sexually explicit media reported significantly greater odds of engaging in risk behavior. The results suggest that a preference for bareback sexually explicit media is associated with engaging in risk behavior.
90. Use of pornography and self-reported engagement in sexual violence among adolescents (2005). The findings showed that active and passive sexual violence and unwanted sex and pornography were correlated. However, reading pornographic material was more strongly linked to active sexual violence, while being a boy was found to be protective against passive sexual violence. Nevertheless, some effects of viewing pornographic films on passive unwanted sex were also found, especially among girls.
93. Pornography and sexual aggression: Associations of violent and nonviolent depictions with rape and rape proclivity (1994). Data collected from a sample of 515 college men indicated strong bivariate associations of rape and rape proclivity with use of almost all forms of pornography. Multivariate analysis indicated that the strongest correlates of sexual coercion and aggression, as well as rape proclivity, were exposure to hard‐core violent and rape pornography. Exposure to nonviolent hard‐core pornography displayed no association net of the other variables. Exposure to soft‐core pornography was positively associated with likelihood of sexual force and nonviolent coercive behavior, but negatively associated with likelihood of rape and actual rape behavior.
96. Attitudinal effects of degrading themes and sexual explicitness in video materials (2000) Results revealed that men exposed to degrading material, regardless of explicitness, were significantly more likely to express attitudes supportive of rape, while explicitness had no significant main or interactive effect on these attitudes. Further, the interaction of explicitness with degradation was found to impact scores on a measure of sexual callousness. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed
99. Young adult women’s reports of their male romantic partner’s pornography use as a correlate of their psychological distress, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction (2012) Results revealed women’s reports of their male partner’s frequency of pornography use were negatively associated with their relationship quality. More perceptions of problematic use of pornography was negatively correlated with self-esteem, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction.
102. Pornography Use: Who Uses It and How It Is Associated with Couple Outcomes (2012) Overall results from this study indicated substantial gender differences in terms of use profiles, as well as pornography's association with relationship factors. Specifically, male pornography use was negatively associated with both male and female sexual quality, whereas female pornography use was positively associated with female sexual quality.
105. Sexual media use and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples (2011) Results revealed that a higher frequency of men's sexual media use related to negative satisfaction in men, while a higher frequency of women's sexual media use related to positive satisfaction in male partners.
108. When is Online Pornography Viewing Problematic Among College Males? Examining the Moderating Role of Experiential Avoidance (2012) The current study examined the relationship of Internet pornography viewing and experiential avoidance to a range of psychosocial problems (depression, anxiety, stress, social functioning, and problems related to viewing) through a cross-sectional online survey conducted with a non-clinical sample of 157 undergraduate college males. Results indicated that frequency of viewing was significantly related to each psychosocial variable, such that more viewing was related to greater problems.
111. "Bareback" Pornography Consumption and Safe-Sex Intentions of Men Having Sex with Men (2014) The results provide novel and ecologically valid evidence that "bareback" pornography consumption impacts viewer's inclinations toward sexual risk-taking by lowering their intentions to use protected sex measures. Suggestions are given as to how these findings can be utilized for purposes of intervention and prevention of STI and HIV infections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk • contribs)

Copyvio, original research or advocacy?

I don't know how to handle this long post from

) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The DSM is not science based. You can argue that the DSM5 has not accepted, porn addiction, but we already know that. However the DSM5 has been labeled as pseudoscience by the head of the NIMH. The DSM5 is not medical consensus. NIMH director Tom Insel stated that the NIMH will no longer fund studies based on the DSM - http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

— User:Gaborlewis

Quoted from [27] by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is, at best, a surprising reading of Insel's blog post. It's also also, in large parts, wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the shrink would tell to the insurance company "I'm afraid I can't follow DSM-5, since it's pseudoscience." Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ley, Prause and Finn said that 90% of the studies upon sex addiction are scientifically worthless since they either contain no empirical data (but only value judgments) or if they contain empirical data there is no responsible statistical analysis of such data. So the three authors cannot be blamed for discarding from the review what they considered sub-standard scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This paper is normal peer-reviewed academic research. I wouldn't say that it is a systematic review. MEDRS applies, so it would be helpful to have comments from people with a medical background who regularly comment on MEDRS. In the meantime I would say that it passes MEDRS but a full systematic review would take precedence. If the OP wishes us to consider the various other papers that they cite in criticism of Ley, Prause and Finn, they should make a specific request. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Because entire sections, specifically pgs 53-81of "Judicial Cases Concerning American Slavery and the Negro" address in various and sundry places throughout the book, several of the issues I am currently developing and, in some cases on some pages, challenging, I am unable to narrow the specific quotations and internal citations without doing, basically, as I have done: submit an entire book source for evaluation and approval, citing the specific pages which contain the material I seek to cite.

I am looking forward to a robust and meaningful series of replies, all approving this oft-cited-on-WP book... Thanks in advance, PresidentistVB (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

...and you are likely to be disappointed. This noticeboard isn't intended or able to give blanket, advance endorsement of a publication for all purposes in all places. It looks like you're throwing a chapter of a 1926 book at us without telling us where or how you intend to use it. You also haven't told us where or if any other editors have challenged the reliability of this source in any of the places where it is used on Wikipedia—which rather like asking us to render a verdict without allowing the prosecution to present a case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We can, however, comment on the general standing of a book. This appears to be social history/social commentary. At a brief reading, it looks excellent, but above all it is very out of date. More recent historians have almost certainly covered the same ground, so use those more recent historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source but there are a few things to consider. There is a sort of hierarchy when discussing reliable sources. For instance, tertiary sources can be used but they can not be used when in conflict with a reliable secondary source. Even among reliable secondary sources, more recent, peer reviewed, and scholarly sources are more reliable than something published without undergoing the same academic scrutiny. I'm not sure if the Carnegie Institute of Washington is a peer reviewed university press or scholarly journal, so it may not carry more weight than other sources that have undergone that peer review from a renowned institution. Also, many of the pages you expressed interest in are actually a reference to primary sources. Primary sources are not as reliable as secondary sources. So if you're going to cite from this book, be sure that you're citing what the author has to say about the primary sources, not the primary sources themselves. If I'm mistaken on any of this, I'd appreciate another editor clarifying any discrepancies.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Has an RfC to discuss the interesting situation where redistricting results in "successors" and "predecessors" being named for office holders where there is zero actual district overlap between the "current" officeholder and the putative "successor" or "predecessor." Collect (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

According to David Patterson there was a pogrom in Aleppo in 1853.

_{<ref name="Patterson2010">{{cite book|author=David Patterson|title=A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lMLmK-fmf8kC&pg=PA56|accessdate=18 October 2010|date=31 October 2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-13261-9|page=56}}</ref>}

User:Oncenawhile does not provide any source to disprove this assertion. He nevertheless removes the content because he claims Mr. Patterson's work is Islamaphobic (defames a BLP?) and he is "100% certain that Mr. Patterson has no idea what happened in Aleppo in 1853, and it is likely that he knows little about Aleppo at all."[28] Now User:Pluto2012 demands that I provide another source.[29]

Some input is requested. Is David Patterson reliable enough for the uncontradicted assertion that there was a pogrom on Aleppo in 1853? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a little bit more nuanced :

Talk:1947 Aleppo pogrom#1853

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Genealogy_of_Evil.3F

talk

) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, per [30] no mention of such event is found in a specialist work on the history of Aleppo's Jews.

talk

) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an academic author and a good publisher. However, based on the bad review in the Oxonian Review, the fact that this is indeed a very tangential claim for Patterson and his book, and the fact that apparently no other sources can be found while there are independent sources for a Christian-Jewish conflict in 1853 Aleppo, I would be very reluctant to use this source for this fact. Even nominally reliable sources make errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The bad review you link to is a student review published in a 10 year old student run literally magazine. Patterson is a professor and published scholar in the field in which he writes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The review is from 2011, and the author, while young, has (and had at the time of writing) a BA from King's College London and an M.Phil. from Oxford, both degrees in very relevant fields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but still disagree. A reliable source is not invalidated by a student-authored "bad review" published in a student-run literary magazine, even if the reviewing student has degrees in the relevant field. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see it the other way round. If someone has the relevant degrees in the field, why should it matter that he (or she) is a student? Do my papers become unreliable if I decide to go off and study medieval history? There may be a cultural difference at work here - with a Master's degree one usually is a fully qualified scholar, not just "a grad student", Howard Wolowitz jokes notwithstanding. That said, I checked what is available from Patterson's book online, and while he may give the impression that the pogrom was related to Muslim jihad, he does not actually seem to say so. He may be referring to the Orthodox Christian attack on Jews also mentioned in other sources. In that case, I wonder if and how one should mention that Christian-on-Jew event in the context of the 1947 nationalistic Arab unrest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Several reliable sources mention a blood libel made by Christians against Jews in Aleppo in 1853. For authors like Patterson this would be enough to call it a pogrom, but we should have better standards. I have read several accounts of the accusation and none of them report a pogrom. A notable aspect was that the Muslim authorities took the side of the Jews and urged them to seek revenge on the Christians. I'll add more details on the article talk page. Zero^talk 12:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see several sources that mention a blood libel in Aleppo in 1853 but few that give any details or say any more than that. If there are enough sources, and there must be some somewhere, we should have an article on those events. This would have been just one of a series of blood libels, generally instigated by Christian community leaders or would-be colonialists and suppressed by the Ottomans, probably not energetically enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is [32] which appears to be a press release run in a local paper, a reliable source for making the same assertions in Wikipedia's voice?

During her time in the State Senate Appel worked to pass the Equal Pay For Equal Work Act.

I am uncertain precisely where a "presumption for fact checking" implicit for a reliable source intersects with verbatim use of a press release. I would rather hope a better source were found, as the amount of "campaign material" sourced to her campaign web site made up a large amount of the BLP. Collect (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Straightforward local paper stuff, OK for local news, which this is. Giving the newspaper the benefit of the doubt, they would have cut out any assertions that she intercepted the landings of dozens of UFOs. The problem is with the "worked to pass the ... Act". What on earth is that? She voted for the Act? She wrote a letter asking other state senators to vote for it? Too vague to be of any use. Whole article is resume-like. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You should have seen the material directly sourced to her campaign web site <g>. I fnd press releases easy to spot from effusive use of adjectives. Collect (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of newspaper reporting, especially business news, is based on press releases. Reporters are supposedly familiar with the subjects they report and if they are satisfied with a press release to report its contents as facts, then that is sufficient. TFD (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this political parties own website RS for membership numbers? It has been added to the article and removed as not RS several times. I do not see how it is not RS for their own membership numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Parties' membership claims are notoriously inaccurate. Hence it fails

WP:SELFPUB as "unduly self-serving." TFD (talk

) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially for smaller and fringier parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning the Labrys, an ancient Cretan symbol, with the main claim:

The labrys also has been used since the 1970s as a lesbian, feminist, and goddess movement symbol to represent women's strength and self-sufficiency.

The sources provided are:

1. The book The Butterfly Effect, [33][googlebooks], a poetry book with the single inline citation ""The word labyrinth is related to labrys, the double axe, a powerful lesbian symbol of the 1970s.". It is written by Susan Hawthrone, who appears to have a doctorate in Women’s Studies and Political Science from the University of Melbourne.[34]
2. A personal homepage of dubious reliability, http://www.swade.net/gallery/symbols.html#labrys, that lists lesbian symbology among others, with the citation "Today, the labrys has become a symbol of lesbian and feminist strength and self-sufficiency.", written by an undisclosed individual.
3. A second googlebooks with a faulty link, [35]

The contested content is reviewable at this diff.

The editor refuses to have the content challenged and deleted per

) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Go do some research. If you don't like these sources there are plenty of others. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a bookstore called Labrys Books, which would seem to be supportive.

• Beth Marschak; Alex Lorch (2008). Lesbian and Gay Richmond. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 62–.
  ISBN 978-0-7385-5368-9. --S Philbrick(Talk)
  21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This book:

• Kathleen L. Komar (2003). Reclaiming Klytemnestra: Revenge Or Reconciliation. University of Illinois Press. pp. 25–.
  ISBN 978-0-252-02811-3
  .</ref>

may have the following statement on page 25 (but I do not have the book so cannot confirm):

...this version of the labrys for feminist ends. In modern times, some lesbian groups, for example, have reappropriated the labrys as a symbol...--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that this site is being used to source bold claims within the body of Game of Thrones' related articles. From what I've seen, there is occasionally a good piece of notable info (such as an interview with one person or another related to the books or the resulting television series), but it is mixed in with wave after wave of fancruft. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if accurate, the information on a fan site cannot be taken as an indication of what should be included in an encyclopedia. I would take citations like this as a sign that the article is getting crufty. Shii (tock) 20:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed it reliable? If so, or there are responses to the recent edits such as [36], then direct them here. --

talk

) 20:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)