Talk:Rob Brezsny

message: I'm concerned that this page refers to "many surprisingly accurate, astute forecasts" without providing any documentation. I think this should be cut. Anyone? Palaverist 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User:Fordmadoxfraud added a  peacock template to this article. The user may not wish to directly improve the article but providing specifics would be helpful. Which phrases/words/paragraphs did you find promotional without imparting any real information ? I'm reading the peacock template info now and the list of words and phrases to look for is daunting. "Peacock terms" - clever. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire paragraph headed "Astrologer" is uncited, unencyclopedic in tone, preeningly POV, and reads like dust jacket copy from one of Brezsny's books.  Sentences like "Many have attempted to imitate him, but it rarely comes off." belong in a press kit, not an encyclopedia article.  Ford MF (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree the Astrologer section should be rewritten. It appears most or all of that was written in 2006 by Eric Francis, another astrologer and apparently a fan. However, Brezsny's writings are unique - especially in the astrology column world. Remarking on his extraordinary style is within and encouraged by the guidelines on peacock terms. I'll try to communicate this without sounding "preeningly POV" or dust jacket copy. At any rate, this section needs improvement. Any other areas of the article that you consider peacockish ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock template 

message: The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals. I explained that the promotional blurbs were against policy and he understands this. But he asserts that his musical career is notable and I agree. Being a member of a notable band which has its own article, Worldwide Entertainment War is notable. So is having written a song on a Jefferson Starship album. So the problem is sourcing, not notability.
I have suggested that he create an account and supply sources here on the talk pages, as I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the research. Rather than remove the material again, which is neither negative or disputed, please consider looking for sources instead. 
Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the article to the version prior to edits by User:Drmies. We need to improve the citations, not wholesale delete relevant sections of a biography of a living person. His edits removed the sections on the person's music career and writing career. The Amazon citations should now be replaced with better citations or removed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the poor choice of language in my edit comment. Let's assume everyone is of good intent at this point and we just want to improve the article. User:Drmies reversion of my most recent edits does not, in my opinion, improve the article. It removes valid content, deletes citations substantiating claims made in the article, restores a citation with a broken link, restores erroneous citation needed templates, and leaves the page less informative. Further, why don't we discuss such significant large wholesale changes to a page on a living person here on the talk page rather than engage in reversions of reversions of reversions? User:Drmies, could you give us a concise statement of your concerns with specific pointers to what and where in the article your concerns are demonstrated? Several of us have been working for over a decade on this article and wish to preserve the relevant and appropriate information it contains. For now I am reverting to my last edit while we discuss this in greater detail and come to consensus. Thanks! Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are just continuing with reinstating unverified content and link spam. First things first: I am going to remove that set of links to articles again, and I'll drop the appropriate template on your talk page. It may be that with 877 article edits you are simply not aware of our editing guidelines and conventions, or with the BLP, but this is simply not OK. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you bother to read the talk page upon which your are commenting you would see that both editors (myself included) discussing these citations agreed they needed to be improved and Amazon blurbs should be replaced/removed. My reversion to the last consensus edit was intended to provide the best starting point from which to address the identified issues. Your modifications had removed relevant appropriate material, introduced errors, reintroduced older already addressed issues, also reintroduced questionable links and citations, and was a much poorer starting point going forward. Further, your wholesale changes were made prior to participating in the talk page discussion already underway. I am baffled by your addition of a User talk page spam template on my talk page. That seems uncalled for and unnecessary. May I suggest using the talk page to first communicate with the person before adding their talk page to the spam category? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music career 

message: Let's discuss proposed revisions here. I'd like to start with a couple of changes I made yesterday but which User:Drmies reverted. These are the two places where I removed a citation needed tag. In the intro I replaced it with two web citations pointing to articles from the Monterey County Weekly and the Weekly Alibi. These articles contain published statements on the duration and distribution size of Brezsny's astrology column. I assumed this was what the citation needed was referencing. If there is a reading of this that indicates otherwise then please clarify. Otherwise, I do not see any need to revert that edit and we should retain those references. The other citation needed was simply removed since I think it was placed there prior to the Wikilink to World Entertainment War where the page on the band lists Brezsny as the a member. If you believe a citation is needed could you explain why? It is, of course, easy enough to find references for Brezsny's membership in the band. We could just add those. If we can come to consensus on these two issues then we can quickly move on to additional issues. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We are attempting to improve the content and citations. That is why we are discussing the page here. Yes, we should excise any puffery and yes, we should delete/modify/improve inappropriate or insufficient citations. I do not have any problem with removing the Amazon blurbs or replacing them with better content or citations. Statements by someone like Tom Robbins on the nature of another author's work is not, in my opinion, meaningless puffery but I'm not here to defend those bits of the article. You removed the Bibliography section and continue to refer to portions of it as some sort of link dump. The intention of the Bibliography is to indicate to the reader what works the author has published. If it is the fact that some of them are external links then perhaps we can fix that by simply listing the works without the appropriate link although I would first like to read the Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle links to an author's works. Thanks for your collaboration on this but let's leave snarky remarks about me out of the discussion :) Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it: those things are blurbs. We don't cite blurbs. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Are the citations to the Monterey County Weekly and Alibi Weekly sufficient and appropriate to have removed the citation needed template from the intro/summary? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Is Discogs really considered an unreliable source? By Wikipedia or just by you? Discogs is the best resource for information on published music that I am aware of. Why do you consider Discogs unreliable? Can you point me to Wikipedia guidelines indicating that Discogs is an unreliable source? That would be astonishing news to me and, in my opinion, just wrong. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Discogs is considered, by Wikipedia, an unreliable source as it is user generated content - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources I suppose the same principle applies to Wikipedia itself so Wikipedia is an unreliable source as well. Seems weird. But, Allmusic is considered a reliable source so we can just replace citations referencing Discogs with citations referencing Allmusic. Is that acceptable? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: The Allmusic link indicating Rob Brezsny was the singer and songwriter in the band World Entertainment War is at https://www.allmusic.com/album/world-entertainment-war-mw0000264051 Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SECONDARY. Not everything a notable person does is noteworthy. Secondary sources prove noteworthiness. Primary sources are merely a record of facts. An article that accumulates content based on Amazon links, blurbs, and online databases quickly becomes little more than puffery. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Briefly looking at the article links removed in that section it appears several are no longer active and others recently added look inappropriate. Let's leave that subsection removed until appropriate article links can be proposed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick with Wikipedia convention, please. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate? Which Wikipedia convention(s) do you perceive I am violating? I am unable to readily see how your response relates to the subject under discussion in this section. Perhaps you are referring to something other than my expressed surprise at your proposal of an edit war rather than discussion? Or my suggestion that there may be appropriate article links proposed in the future? Or, is that just encouragement that when/if we add back any article links that we stick with Wikipedia convention? Please clarify. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

text: This topic appears to be of great concern to you. I don't know how Drmies feels about it, but many editors would regard all the pings above as harassment—the issue may not be as important for other editors as it appears to be for you. If you have any suggestions for how Wikipedia should be defended against spam and promotion, please make them at WP:Village pump (proposals) or on the talk page of any particular template that is of concern. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything could be perceived as harassment but the fact remains that there's nothing wrong about asking an editor to explain the purpose of their dubious tagging; it is doubly so if the editor's an admin. Incidentally, many editors would regard the tag bombing that occurred as harassment. 78.28.54.8 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, User:Johnuniq, for joining the discussion here and thank you for helping to improve this article. I do hope my comments here are not perceived as harassment, they are not intended as such. My main intent is to improve the article through a collaborative editing effort. It has been my experience on Wikipedia that adhering to the philosophy of "assumption of good faith" facilitates collaboration. Let's try to return to a state where that assumption is in place. I'm not trying to harass, I am asking for an explanation of the Undisclosed payments tag so that we can address the concern. Hopefully that explanation is forthcoming and we can resolve the issue. And, yes, this topic is of concern to me. Shouldn't it be of concern to all editors of this article since the implication is that one or more of us is ethically compromised. I would like to clear it up as soon as possible. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: If you would like to challenge any of the amendments I made, please feel free. I was not aware that the removal of content that blatantly violated Wikipedia's neutrality, content and formatting policies was so likely to be contested, but I'm happy to defend any of my changes. Yunshui 雲水 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revisions 

message: User:Drmies asserts that the phrase "Brezsny is a well-known horoscope columnist, author, and singer/songwriter ..." is puffery. I assume it is the use of "well-known" that is perceived as puffery. Should we remove "well-known" or is it in fact true and verifiable that Brezsny is well-known and that is not, in fact, puffery? Are there other instances of perceived puffery in the article we should also consider revising? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of puffery 

message: User:Drmies deleted the subsection on "Articles" in the Bibliography without bothering to discuss it here first. In the edit comment he states "i'm fine with edit-warring over this: this is just promotion. we don't link articles unless they are provably special, and a bunch of these are just websites", apparently preferring to propose an edit war rather than discuss on the talk page first. It may in fact be the case that the Articles subsection of the Bibliography section needed to be modified, deleted, or moved to an "External Links" section. What is the policy on bibliographical information on authors with respect to published online articles? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly looking at the article links removed in that section it appears several are no longer active and others recently added look inappropriate. Let's leave that subsection removed until appropriate article links can be proposed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick with Wikipedia convention, please. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate? Which Wikipedia convention(s) do you perceive I am violating? I am unable to readily see how your response relates to the subject under discussion in this section. Perhaps you are referring to something other than my expressed surprise at your proposal of an edit war rather than discussion? Or my suggestion that there may be appropriate article links proposed in the future? Or, is that just encouragement that when/if we add back any article links that we stick with Wikipedia convention? Please clarify. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography articles 

message: User:Drmies added several multiple issues templates including the Undisclosed payments template which states that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." What evidence or indication is there to believe that this article is being edited in return for undisclosed payments? Isn't the addition of this template, without conferring on the talk page first and without any evidence or indication that this may be the case, isn't that very addition in that manner a violation of the assumption of good faith? Do you have any evidence that would lead one to believe this is the case? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic appears to be of great concern to you. I don't know how Drmies feels about it, but many editors would regard all the pings above as harassment—the issue may not be as important for other editors as it appears to be for you. If you have any suggestions for how Wikipedia should be defended against spam and promotion, please make them at WP:Village pump (proposals) or on the talk page of any particular template that is of concern. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything could be perceived as harassment but the fact remains that there's nothing wrong about asking an editor to explain the purpose of their dubious tagging; it is doubly so if the editor's an admin. Incidentally, many editors would regard the tag bombing that occurred as harassment. 78.28.54.8 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, User:Johnuniq, for joining the discussion here and thank you for helping to improve this article. I do hope my comments here are not perceived as harassment, they are not intended as such. My main intent is to improve the article through a collaborative editing effort. It has been my experience on Wikipedia that adhering to the philosophy of "assumption of good faith" facilitates collaboration. Let's try to return to a state where that assumption is in place. I'm not trying to harass, I am asking for an explanation of the Undisclosed payments tag so that we can address the concern. Hopefully that explanation is forthcoming and we can resolve the issue. And, yes, this topic is of concern to me. Shouldn't it be of concern to all editors of this article since the implication is that one or more of us is ethically compromised. I would like to clear it up as soon as possible. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisclosed payments template 

message: User:Yunshui made significant changes earlier today to the article without joining the proposed changes discussion here. Please, let's collaborate on improving this article and discuss proposed changes here. I have not yet reviewed these most recent changes but my previous experience editing has lead me to believe that a collaborative effort produces the best results. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to challenge any of the amendments I made, please feel free. I was not aware that the removal of content that blatantly violated Wikipedia's neutrality, content and formatting policies was so likely to be contested, but I'm happy to defend any of my changes. Yunshui 雲水 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss changes first 

message: discogs and allmusic (both usergenerated content) are still used to source a substantial part of the BLP. But let's examine the other sources
*Monterey County Weekly. Can't access that (451: Unavailable due to legal reasons), so no opinion there. 
*alibi.com, an op-ed with the punchline "In other words, don’t look for a rational explanation of astrology."
*"Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia", a publication by the subject of the article
*Mining an Oracle "And thus begins a mind-altering, interview-transcending, extremely entertaining encounter with Rob Brezsny."
*Grave encouter" (same publication), "In which we bury a symbol of paranoia in an effort to break on through to the other side with astrologer Rob Brezsny"
None of these strike me as particularly reliable for a BLP, especially since Rob Brezsny is a featured astrologist in metroactive.com.  Please explain why you think these sources are reliable enough for a BLP. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bunch of over-thinking. If you believe the article should be deleted, take it to AfD. Otherwise, the refs are entirely adequate for the uncontroversial information they verify. You're not seriously suggesting the "Pronoia" ref should be removed when it merely is used to provide the publishing details for a title mentioned? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At least they don't seem to establish notability, so that would be the next step. Still have to do BEFORE, though. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing concerns 

message: Is Brezsny's book "Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia" the first and only book on the subject of pronoia? I cannot find another. Of course, it's difficult to prove uniqueness - all I can say thus far is that any other books on pronoia are well hidden from public view or anyway not easily discovered. If in fact Brezsny's title is the first and only book on pronoia this would add to any claim of notability. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? How should one best go about determining and framing this? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FRINGE —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 21:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on the relevance or intended point of directing me to WP:FRINGE ? I'm not sure if Pronoia (psychology) is a fringe theory or accepted in mainstream psychology but I don't see the relevance in this context. Are you saying that it is a fringe theory and, as such, a book on the subject would not qualify the author as notable even if the book is the first and only on the topic? Or, are you saying something else? Any clarification appreciated. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Brezsny is not a psychologist, and therefore anything he writes about pronoia is from a non-specialist's point of view.  A book of self-help and pop psychology from a non-psychologist is not notable as "the first and only book on the subject of pronoia", and confers no particular notability on the author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the psychologist who first described "pronoia" was describing a condition of the mind, equivalent in its way to paranoia.  Just as the Universe is not conspiring against you (paranoia), neither is it conspiring to "shower you with blessings" (pronoia).  In point of fact, the Universe doesn't give a damn about you, or me, or anyone else, for that matter; the Universe just is.  To attempt to craft a philosophy of life around pronoia -- a mental aberration -- is just about as WP:FRINGEy as it gets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would be your assertion that the first published book on crop circles would not confer upon the author any notability. Similarly, the first published book on the existence of angels would not contribute to the author's notability. That is, notability is not just significance in terms of social or global impact but it must also be accompanied by content that is within the realm of the rational scientific view. Correct? If I misunderstand your view please correct me. If I do understand your view then I must say I most certainly do not agree with it nor do I believe the Wikipedia guidelines on notability are consistent with your view. Let's discuss further to make sure we understand each other and the guidelines. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) If the first published book on crop circles was written by a dental hygenist, or even a dentist, for that matter, then it would not confer notability on them, per se, unless recognized experts were to start citing it as authoritative. These days, anyone can write a book on anything and get it published or self-publish it.  The existence of a published book means nothing, and is not noteworthy in itself.  Now, if you'd like to cite some examples of professional psychologists citing Brezsny's book as an authoritative source on pronoia, then you'd have something.As for angels, you're rather late to the table on that, people have been writing about angels for at least a millennium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Unsurprisingly, notability in the Wikipedia sense refers to whether reliable sources have noted something. The first breakfast consisting of a banana would be notable if reliable sources noted it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be a shocking difference of views on the Wikipedia notion of notability at least with regards authorship of books on fringe theory and possibly much wider. I agree with Johnuniq, notability is conferred by being noted not by the nature of the content of the published work. Take as an example the notability of Erich von Däniken, a Hotel manager who wrote a book titled Chariots of the Gods?. He had no professional expertise in the area, no credentials, nothing to qualify him, it may have even been plagiarized. But the book's popularity and widespread notice resulted in many many verifiable independent reliable secondary sources qualifying the author as notable. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no "shocking difference".  Pretty much everyone here knows what notability it, although we may disagree on how it is interpreted in particular cases. You asked a question: Does writing a specific book confer notability on the author, and the answer is "No, it does not." That you refuse to accept that, and continue to argue against all other parties is a manifestation of your conflict of interest about this subject: you simply cannot approach the subject neutrally, and behave as an advocate for him and his work. Please do not edit the article directly any more, instead, make suggestions for changes on this page and other, neutral, editors will deal with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books on pronoia 

message: User:JzG, an editor with a great deal more experience than I, deleted the citation to the Alibi Weekly with the comment that it is not WP:RS. That is, he believes the Alibi Weekly is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Guy, can you explain to us how you make that determination? I added the citation and, to my view, the Alibi Weekly qualifies as a reliable source. It is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico weekly news and entertainment newspaper, the web site being the online version of the print version. The Alibi Weekly is a member of both the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and the National Newspaper Association. More info on the publication, staff, etc at https://alibi.com/index.php?scn=contacts Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you would actually read WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. Can you assist me in understanding specifically how that disqualifies the Weekly Alibi? If you do not wish to help with my understanding that is understandable - just ignore me but please refrain from denigrating insulting remarks about me. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't assist you if I don't know what it is you actually know.  What is your understanding of what a reliable source is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Published 3rd party sources preferably with a fact checking policy. I think context is important and there is a hierarchy of reliability starting with peer reviewed  scientific papers, textbooks, books published by reputable publishing houses, magazines, journals, newspapers. In this particular case my understanding is that the publication of a news organizations whose reporting is fact checked and from well established outlets would qualify as reliable by Wikipedia standards. I'm sure my understanding can be improved but my question is really what about the Weekly Alibi would lead one to believe it is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It seems like it is, at least in its news reporting sections. It's ok if you don't want to spend time helping me - I see you view my discussion contribution here as "bludgeoning" and not in the vein I intend it. However, if you do want to help me understand why the Weekly Alibi is not a reliable source I would appreciate it. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reason to beli3eve that an "alternative weekly" such as the Weekly Alibi has a reputation for fact-checking? Membership in trade associations means nothing in that regard.  Have they been the recipient of any local or regional awards for news reporting?  Have their news pieces prompted follow-up stories by mainstream news organizations?  Certain periodicals of that type do have such a reputation, and are considered to be reliable sources, but what may be true about the Village Voice or L.A. Weekly or the Chicago Reader isn't necessarily true about all alternative weeklies.We don't start with the proposition that a source is reliable unless proven otherwise, when there's essentially no information on the quality of a given source, we assume that it's unreliable until proven that it is.  So: what is your evidence that the Weekly Alibi -- which appears to be primarily a newspaper of event listings and reviews -- qualifies as a reliable source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reliability has to be evaluated in context and on a case by case basis. That's why I was asking Guy what he used in his determination that The Alibi is not a reliable source. It does, in fact, have a very good reputation in New Mexico - it's the second highest circulation of any newspaper in New Mexico, staff from the Alibi have moderated Albuquerque mayoral debates ( http://nmpoliticalreport.com/tag/weekly-alibi/ ), the newspaper is quite active in New Mexico politics, candidates for local and state offices pursue endorsements by The Alibi, yes they have arts and entertainment sections but they also have a robust news section, and they have been publishing for over a quarter century. It seems like it meets the criteria or anyway pretty close which is why I wanted to know why Guy didn't think so. Thanks for your explanation, perhaps Guy used the same reasoning - unreliable unless one can provide evidence that it does qualify. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why I'm asking you why you think it's reliable.  But you don't really have to answer that, I know, and everyone here who's been reading your interminable questions knows the reason: you think it's reliable because if it's reliable you can use it in the article. You've got it all bass-ackwards, and I'm tired of talking to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am just trying to understand the policy and improve my ability to determine reliable sources. This particular source is not even required by the article, there is another source which is used in a citation for the same content. It is, however, an instructive borderline case and yes, it would be preferable to add it back into the article. I do believe The Alibi should be considered a reliable source and tried to provide you with some of the evidence as to why. You got me digging for citations for my citations! Please do not respond if you are tired of talking to me. There is no need. But if you do continue to respond please refrain from characterizing my motives in such negative ways. Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying reliable sources 

message: I am trying to improve this article with better sources, I added reliable citations (some included quotes, showing how the support the statement on WP) and they are reverted quickly without any discussion or acknowledgement. The agressive policing of citations is uncivil editing behavior and does not follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. Please assume good faith and use the talk page, if you are confused or feel the need to have more information. These are the deleted links, ,  Jooojay (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement for discussion before reverting bad edits.  You just can't throw any old thing into an article, the reference needs to actually support the statement made.  In this case, neither reference supported the statements they were added to support.  Unfortunately one of my edit summaries was truncated, but the other said clearly why the edit was being reverted.The article from the Times does indeed have a quote from Berzsny -- "Astrology is a poetic language of the soul, not a scientific method," he said, likening it to "a Neruda poem, Kandinsky paintings or a Nick Cave song." -- but it does not say that it comes from his column - it says it came from an e-mail, so it does not support the contention that "he uses a more literary approach than conventional horoscopes use".The next edit added this statement to the article "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions," but the source cited does not say anything about Brezsny's writing "in general", it quotes what he says about what might possibly happen in a particular eclipse to a particular person, Donald Trump. The article reads:No one, of course, knows what will happen to Herr Trump during the eclipse, but Rob Brezsny, author of The Stranger's Free Will Astrology column, said there could be a death of some sort—though not, unfortunately, a literal one."I don't like to make absolute predictions, but this could result in an ego death," Brezsny told me. "In a normal person, that could be a good thing, because it would relieve that person of illusions and delusions that he has about himself. But in Trump's case, there could be a shattering." The kind of man who reads a folder of positive reviews about himself twice a day doesn't seem all that susceptible to an ego shattering, but, Brezsny added, "anyone else who is ridiculed as much as Trump is would probably have gone insane by now. The eclipse may portend a climax to the humiliation."While Brezsny's use of psychobabble in his statement is instructive, the source in no respect supports the added statement "His astrology writings generally avoid absolute predictions".Both reverts were justified. If more junk gets added to this article, it will be just as quickly removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your reasoning, it states in the NY Times article his approach to astrology and how it is different. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process, this Wikiquette isn't about a "requirement" to editing, this is about communicating your intention clearly and with respect. Your revert edit history literally makes no sense in the English language. Using terms like "psychobabble" are not neutral language, and in the context of poetry and art, this term is offensive. Please don't use threats, to describe how you intent to revert in the future. Again, none of this is appropriate and goes against wikiquette. Jooojay (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, let me "communicate" clearly to you my intentions: if you, or anyone else, makes similar edits to this article, adding references which do not support the statements made, I will revert them, without asking in advance for your permission to do so - and I don't really care how much you bend yourself into a pretzel afterwards attempting to justify them.  If a statement in the article say "X", then the reference had better say "X", - and exactly "X", not "X-prime", "X-like", or your own personal interpretation of what "X" means.  If the article says "Brezsny uses a more literary style than most other horoscope writers", then the source had better say something like "Brezsny's literary style is unique among horoscope columnists."The statements in this article are going to be verifiable and the sources are gong to be reliable - no sneaking in The New York Times to gussy up the reference list.  If you have objections to that, take it up on WT:V and WT:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and you can complain about my calling Brezsny's bullshit about an eclipse causing an "ego-death" "psychobabble" the day that I add "psychobabble" to the article, until then, I stand by what I said, in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette

message: Now that there are quite a few citations for this fairly brief biography, can we remove the needed sources tag? And, so far as I can tell, the only remaining ref not considered reliable by Wikipedia is the citation of Discogs, THE most reliable source for music discography on the planet, ever. Any collector will tell you Discogs is far superior to AllMusic or any other online or print resource when cataloging music. Discogs even has the matrix numbers for vinyl. Try finding that on AllMusic. I get it that Wikipedia considers blogs and other user generated content as unreliable but Discogs is crowd sourced and pretty much self correcting. Much better than AllMusic and AllMusic is considered reliable. So, I cannot bring myself to delete a Discogs ref, that will have to be one of you. When that is gone though, we can remove the other tag, the unreliable sources template. Right? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Discogs as source: crowd sourcing is only "self correcting" when there is a lot of input and there are no biasing factors, which is not at all clear in this instance. I re-wrote the information so that it is supported by the Good Times article. I also removed the clean-up tags, as I believe that all statements are now supported by reliable sources - editors who disagree are free to re-add the tags if they wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove remaining template tags 

message: I spoke with the subject of this article, and he feels that his proposed corrections were rejected by editors of the page.  Do firsthand corrections not merit inclusion? Cjcollier (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There haven't been substantive edits to this article in about two years, so it isn't clear what his "proposed corrections" were. In any case, "firsthand corrections" generally shouldn't merit inclusion on their own because Wikipedia generally follows what independent, reliable sources say, not what article subjects report about themselves. Therefore, he shouldn't be editing the article himself but is welcome to suggest changes here on the talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject's factuality concern