Talk:Robert Epstein

message: This article is unreferenced. Please see WP:ATT. Merbabu 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: This articel seems like a puff piece to me. It makes no reference to his interesting experiment in trying to get a woman to fall in love with him back in 2003. What is the latest on this project? Anybody know?75.63.235.11 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Puff piece?

message: This article is a straightforward, heavily referenced article about an accomplished American psychologist.  It also appears to be under attack by MrOllie and his/her cronies.  Among other things, MrOllie has removed references to Dr. Epstein's online tests - all of which are noncommercial and which have been listed here for years.  Obviously, the next thing MrOllie (who's not worthy of his/her own entry) will do is to eliminate Dr. Epstein's books. Since it's a bibliographical entry, I'll check into having it protected under Wikipedia's new policy.Cbrookca (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed a single thing from this page, check the history. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But I have now. Please read over the guideline on external links and keep it to one official site. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitely not puff

message: I was not attempting to imply that anyone recanted. I will rephrase and see if that works better.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While the sourcing on the article as-is is not perfect, pjmedia.com is a blog site ( see PJ Media ) so almost instantly fails the "reliable source" test (WP:RS) barring very special circumstances - e.g. if Epstein himself was posting, and the reference was used solely to verify that Epstein did indeed say it.  So I'd be very skeptical of including any content that relies on it, as it isn't reliable or necessarily noteworthy.  Do you have anything from, say, a reputable newspaper?  SnowFire (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, looking more closely.  These references don't even appear to be relevant even if they came from reputable sources.  The existing references directly mention Epstein - e.g. https://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/google-is-burying-negative-search-suggestions-for-hillary-clinton-new-study-shows/ , which quotes him.  Your articles are just meanderings on a somewhat similar topic, and don't seem to mention Epstein at all.  The "interesting" claim that Epstein made wasn't so much that Google was biased, anyway (Which is vanilla whining, absolutely everyone thinks the media is biased against them, this has been studied), but rather that not only is it biased, it is exceptionally powerful and can hypnotize people into voting however they like.  (Of course, I can't blame your recent sources for not talking about it, because it was blatantly wrong - even IF Google was biased, Clinton didn't actually win, so Epstein was wrong one way or the other - either Google didn't manipulate the election, or they tried but were ineffectual when he thought they could just perfectly pick winners.)  SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think I learned something about how to find/evaluate sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to refs, how could Sputnik/RT be acceptable with their obvious conflicts of interest? (Even with no Russian meddling (which should probably be mentioned in the article, considering he's tackling meddling of elections, but which still contrasts), propaganda mouthpieces can't possibly be reliable, except for what their governments want to say about themselves. Also, if he is publishing there himself does that imply the Russian government was involved with this paper?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.246.203 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Corroborating journalists