Talk:Irish Bulletin

Edit-warring

Hiya, as an uninvolved administrator, I have no opinion on the content of this article. However, it does appear curious that an edit war is ongoing, with one editor adding what appears to be sourced information, and another reverting that information wholesale, but without any attempt at discussion on the talkpage. Could I please encourage all editors here to try to bring disagreements to the talkpage, rather than simply reverting each other? This would be helpful both to try and find some sort of consensus, and also because it would assist other editors who are not familiar with the dispute, to try and understand the points of disagreement. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks, --Elonka 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict here is essentially a spill-over from a dispute at Black and Tans, as you are aware. I am currently working on a properly referenced re-write of this article, to get it at least beyond stub status. Any attempt to add piece-meal here would, judging from recent experience, only lead to unjustified reverts and the same application of unreliable references. Obviously, I will make it available to all in its entirety for discussion and criticism before it is applied. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits are supportable Reliable Source additions. The article continues to be reverted and all references removed. Not one comment has been written here regarding what, if anything, is objectionable. Apparently the owners of this article don't feel the need to discuss - or allow sourced material. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how this could ever occur on Wikipedia. A silent edit war where my every comma is removed - no explanation or discussion seemingly necessary. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the mess you had made of a simple stub article. It was reverted to its 'pre-mess' state. There are concerns regarding your sources, at least one of which you have accepted elsewhere. For such an experienced editor, by your own account, this is not acceptable. RashersTierney (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've brought my concerns about the inappropriateness of removing each edit, reference or comma from this article with vague edit summaries and no discussion attempts on talk to AN/I.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has weighed in to this dispute, and rather than discuss the shortcomings of the article here, has restored the mess/version mentioned above with the edit summary "this revision looks fine and isn't a copyvio, what's wrong with it?" The copy-vio canard was raised by the anon IP. Please do not exacerbate the issue by attempting discussion through edit summaries. If you do not understand the issues involved, you only have to ask for clarification. The 'new' version has also restored at least one ref. that was deleted by 'agreement'. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which ref are you referring to? What is wrong with it? Is that your only specific objection to the content and ref's?99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit particularly of uninvolved observers, your first two 'references' (#1 and #2) are nothing more than a POV justification for changing the word 'newspaper' to 'news-sheet/magazine', a construction entirely your own, and used in neither source. Your third ref. #3 in fact refers to the word 'newspaper', so undermining the terminology of your first two. The Jackson claim #6 that the Bulletin was the creation of Childers is just plain incorrect. As you must by now be aware, it was 'created' (on the authority of the Dáil) by Desmond Fitzgerald, three years before Childer's involvement as editor (and while he was still in the RAF). Your ref #7 is the introduction to a novel and has no bearing whatever on the subject. RashersTierney (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref #7 is not an introduction to a novel, it's a historical overview of individuals from the period by the author. I do see your point about it's usefulness, but it's removal does not change content in and of itself. On your other point - that ref's differ in their description of the publication - Why are the two ref's with one description ruled out by the one ref with another? Isn't a conflict about whether to describe it as newspaper, news-sheet or magazine, just that? A conflict in terms? I have a compromise: Let us remove the term and substitute the descriptive "militant nationalist newspaper" found in this Reliable Source report from the BBC:[3] -99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the ref you've contested. The former #7.99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You have removed one contested ref. Morgan's 1921, is a novel, and your apparent acceptance of it as otherwise speaks volumes re. what you consider to be reliable sources for a historical article. On the question of the subject of this article, lets be reasonable and re-introduce the NPOV term 'newspaper'. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any RS contesting of the referenced term "militant nationalist newspaper" as found in this Reliable Source report from the BBC:[4]? Also please note that the writer's name is Morgan Llywelyn, and she is a highly decorated historical writer specializing in Ireland whose books are used as classroom history texts. I removed the ref as you are contesting it, and because any use of such a tertiary source should be for only the most uncontroversial edits - of which this is apparently not one. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets take the BBC claim in its entirety; that Cumann na mBan "produced the militant nationalist newspaper, the ‘Irish Bulletin’". While individual CnB activists were intimately involved in its production, the claim that that organisation 'produced' it is patent nonsense. So much, once again, for your reliable sources. RashersTierney (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you objecting to, " ...with its production aided by Cumann na mBan[7]." - or applauding it?99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting your source. The statement of fact contained in the BBC source does not say 'aided by'. You are again being disingenuous, or at the very least fast and loose with references. RashersTierney (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is, "...helped run Dail courts and local authorities, and produced the militant nationalist newspaper, the ‘Irish Bulletin’." What exactly do you think produced means? Does produced mean run the press? Funded? Organized the various trades needed for physical production and distribution? Published? Distributed? Edited? Wrote? Acquired paper? What exactly is your remarkably tendentious objection to the BBC as a Reliable Source? The Reliable Source Noticeboard is the appropriate venue for removing the BBC from it's place on the list of Reliable Sources. _ 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection to the use of the NPOV term 'newspaper' at this introductory stage? Why the determination to apply any qualification? RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As it was a weekly broadsheet primarily, although not exclusively, aimed at foreign journalists and diplomats and an official organ of an arm of the government, specifically the self-titled Ministry of Propaganda, it's really not a member of the category. We should clearly denote it's well referenced function as a generally militant nationalist vehicle for propaganda - albeit one with a reputation for hyperbole and general accuracy. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally we agree on something. In the body of the article, certainly its role as a nationalist propaganda piece should not be minimised, after all that is why it was established. The term 'gazette' would appear more appropriate at the introduction, from your description, with which I concur. RashersTierney (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Done. But I'm not necessarily comfortable with Gazette. It seems a bit off in left field, stilted and inappropriate.99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I see the term is chiefly British. "esp., the official journal published by the British government, and containing legal and state notices." Still, perhaps it's usage can be revisited later.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor is the inclusion of the qualifier 'militant nationalist' what was agreed, but I have a life outside of this ping-pong game. Can we loose the 4 redundant refs? RashersTierney (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific objection on RS grounds, I'd prefer the ref's to remain for the moment. I understand that we may streamline our ref's later.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My objection is only that we have finally agreed a formula of words, but which is not reflected in any of those refs. making them misleading as sources for the wording. RashersTierney (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally see citations as conceptual support for assertions found in the content. I'll try to adjust the emphasis you see in the placement of the ref's. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There can hardly be any doubt that it was published. What exactly is the purpose of refs 2 - 4 inclusive? RashersTierney (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Conceptual support for assertions found in the content. We'll revisit this, but now is not the appropriate time to remove RS citations.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As things stand, each of those refs could justifiably tagged with . I don't see what timing has to do with anything. Either they are appropriate or they are not. 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)RashersTierney (talk)

I find them to be quite informative and appropriate, and I prefer their initial placement - my effort is to compromise on the emphasis you feel derived from location. Perhaps we should move all the ref's to the end of the sentence itself? ..-99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification

The above notice means that this article falls within the scope of an Arbitration Committee case known as "The Troubles", along with community-supported additional sanctions. Articles that deal with Irish (or British) conflict and nationalism, fall within its scope., which means that administrators (such as myself) are authorized to place additional editing restrictions on articles or editors within the topic area. (added) This means that administrators (such as myself) are authorized to place articles under probation, and enforce strict revert restrictions such as 1RR. When an article is placed under Probation, this means that administrators may place additional restrictions such as banning editors from editing a page or pages.(/added) Currently I am not placing any new restrictions, though I am notifying editors here that the possibility exists. To avoid such restrictions, simply work hard to edit in a civil and collegial manner: Keep discussions on the talkpage focused on the article, and not on the motivations (or perceived motivations) of other editors. Avoid reverting, and instead work on changing someone else's text to a version that you like better, as a means of trying to find a compromise. And whenever making a controversial edit, be sure to also engage in discussion on the talkpage. Note that these are not formal restrictions at this point, but simply strong recommendations on my part. If I (or some other administrator) does issue formal restrictions, the way it (usually) works is like this: We'll state restrictions formally on an article talkpage, or on a user's talkpage. If the restrictions are violated, we'll issue a warning on that user's talkpage, notifying them of the possibility of further sanctions. If they then violate the restrictions again, further sanctions may be placed which could range from banning them from an article or topic area, to completely blocking their access from Wikipedia. But usually bans and blocks are not necessary, as long as editors are willing to voluntarily moderate their behavior when warned.

Another thing to be aware of, is that articles in this topic area are already under a 1RR restriction.[5] which means 1 revert per editor per article per day. Anyone reverting more than this, may be subject to an immediate ban or block. So again, to avoid restrictions: Work on editing towards compromise, rather than reverting. Stay civil. Explain controversial edits on the talkpage. Keep discussions focused on the article, and not on the editors. Where a dispute occurs, work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And with those simple guidelines, no one probably needs to worry about ArbCom restrictions.  :)

If you have questions, feel free to ask, --Elonka 16:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You have got the 1RR sanctions wrong it was stated in, Request to amend prior case The Troubles, that, Sandstein is correct that 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy... that is what was said by User:Stephen Bain when User:Sandstein refused to block for a breach of 1RR, so if editors agree to 1RR on this article that would help but it is not part of the decision of the arbcom case on The Troubles, and for you to enforce it with out community backing would create lots of drama. BigDunc 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point. You are correct that the ArbCom's remedy was to allow administrators to place individual users under probation, which probation would involve a 1RR (one revert per article per week) restriction. This was then superseded by a 1RR restriction on all Troubles-related articles, which was implemented via community discussion in October 2008.[6] I have amended my comment above accordingly. If you have any further concerns, please do bring them up. :) --Elonka 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that 1RR is now in place on all article related to the Troubles? BigDunc 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is my understanding of the October 2008 discussion, yes. There may be some more recent discussion or motion which supersedes that, so if anybody knows of one, please provide a diff and I'll take a look. --Elonka 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well get ready for the shit storm the reason the Request to amend prior case The Troubles was brought up in april on the arbcom page (haven't got time to check the archive) was because some admin would block, others wouldn't and it caused more drama, so unless you are going to police all articles relating to The Troubles you will have editors not getting blocked and all this does is get backs up when they are blocked and others aren't. I for one got blocked for a 1RR breach and I reported others for breaching the same and they weren't blocked this will happen again. Local consensus for 1RR would be a better solution and I would agree to a 1RR on this article. BigDunc 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that just because 1RR is authorized on all Troubles-related articles, does not mean that administrators are going to run around and enforce it mindlessly. In actual practice, what usually happens is that an administrator may become aware of a Troubles-related article where edit-warring is taking place, and then that administrator will notify the editors there that the article is under a 1RR restriction. It's usually only in cases where an editor continues reverting after warnings, that an administrator will proceed to a block or ban. As for the April case that you are referring to, I'm not familiar with it, but if you can provide a link, I'll definitely take a look. And in the meantime, if there is consensus here at the talkpage for some other restriction on the article, then administrators can definitely assist with enforcing it. Again, I have no preference either way in how the article is written -- my own motivations here are simply to reduce edit-warring, and help to stabilize the editing environment so that normal "healthy" editing cycles can resume. --Elonka 20:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Spot on Dunc, that is correct. I'd suggest that the article be semi-protected to prevent IP abuse. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is really only appropriate in cases of current IP vandalism, but I'm not seeing anything like that. If I'm missing anything, could you please provide diffs? Thanks, --Elonka 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wider involvement needed

I've left a notice at Irish WP notice board asking for broader input. This laborious one-to-one is beginning to fray my nerves. RashersTierney (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone tell me what the sources 2, 3 and 4 are sourcing? Also the source #8 doesn't work. BigDunc 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Could someone tell me the distinction intended between published and produced at the lead - "published[2] [3] [4] by Sinn Fein and produced by the Dáil Éireann (Irish Republic) Department of Propaganda (later renamed "Publicity Department" . How was it simultaneously produced by one body and published by another. More nonsense. RashersTierney (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

agree thats what I am trying to find out. BigDunc 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a mistaken reading on the part of the posting ed. of ref #6, which refers to the establishment of the Department, long before the IB appeared. RashersTierney (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article's factual accuracy is disputed

Creation of paper

The lead say Childers created the paper I think that is wrong and the latest edit by Rashers seems to confirm this, any thoughts? BigDunc 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears wrong because it is wrong. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After checking all the references I could find, I agree. I think the referenced author in the intro is mistaken. The Green Flag (Robert Kee) states: "The Irish Bulletin...run by two Volunteers, Desmond Fitzgerald and Frank Gallagher, with assistance from...Erskine Childers" However, I think it's overkill to slap a "Disputed" tag on the article over this relatively minor issue when the rest of the article is well referenced and (except for one IP) undisputed. A simple edit can solve this (which I'll do later if no-one else does). Hohenloh ⁺ 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it hoping for outside input this article has an IP that will revert any removal of their sources, thats why I didn't remove it as I didn't want to start another edit war.--BigDunc 16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that crossed my mind, which is why I didn't rush in to edit either! Might be best to leave it there for a while... Hohenloh ⁺ 16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article develops, the refs. in the lead will become redundant anyway. The posting ed. should by now be aware of the factual error contained, or if not prepared to accept that, at least engage in discussion here to find a solution. RashersTierney (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They are too busy edit warring on RSN. BigDunc 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree more work needs to be done on this issue - however we do not have a source which contradicts. Perhaps a Childers biography? Even one on his son may help. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note/References illegible due to overlapping

The two-column format is causing overlapping of the notes/references (I use Firefox). Can someone change this to single column? (I'd do it myself but I'm not familiar with the technique being used for this particular article). Hohenloh ⁺ 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hohenloh. (Love that :-) I'm using Firefox too, and am not having that difficulty. The first col. of refs (disputed) have been badly formatted. Perhaps thats why they appear odd? RashersTierney (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit 'jumpy' for me too. I'm not familiar with this system either, usually just use xreflist|2x. Hopefully the posting ed will see this and remedy. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then it's due to my screen resolution (and if I'm having this problem I'm sure others are too). Usually I'd just fix the badly rendered refs (which would also make them more intelligible), but as I'm a bit stuck for time suggested the single format. I'll return and sort this out later, if it's not done in the meantime (and good luck with your efforts on the other thing!). Thanks, Hohenloh ⁺ 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you also complete your ref's? Things like "Murphy (2006) p10" mean nothing to me. No where do I find any Murphy mentioned elsewhere.[7] Thanks. _99.135.170.179 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Its in sources. I'll add a full cite at the first reference. RashersTierney (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The unwarranted removal of valid references must be subject to some sanction. This continued disruptive editing by the anon IP is beyond a joke. RashersTierney (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the reflist single-column so this problem is sorted now. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source

I've opened a section on this subject so as to leave no doubt as to the singular unsuitability of it's publications here. The "publisher", Aubane Historical Society, is a small group of amateur historians that has received exceptionally critical treatment from the press and academics. "It often presents itself in populist terms as a group of amateurs speaking for the plain people of Ireland as against academic historians, whom it presents as elitist snobs with sinister political agendas.The Aubane interpretation of Irish history has also been criticised by Irish academics."

• The criticism of the group is brutal, "published and promoted by the cranky and cult-like Aubane Historical Society (Google the phrase, "From Peking to Aubane" to follow Aubane's strange evolution from super-revisionism to super-nationalism)..." "Their (Aubane's) campaign seems designed merely to sow doubt, create confusion and muddy the waters..." "the Aubane Historical Society, and its allies, bombard the media with a massive mailbag of tendentious and tediously argued letters. These create so much fog around the facts..."[8]

• Or from this article:[9] " decent local people were not wise in accepting the dubious assistance of the Aubane Historical Society" ..."The latest lunacy..." "I can see why naff Irish nationalists need to believe the fiction..."

• And still more:[10] "The Aubane Historical Society seem like a group of people genuinely interested in Irish history, but with some strange and contentious opinions. They also seemed like a very introspective group – felt like I’d walked in on a group of very close friends where I didn’t know anyone. I’ll let my relative’s comments be the last word: “I don’t know about these “Aubane” people, they sound like very strange folk indeed!”"

• The Irish Times has published various opinions on the Aubane Historical Society like, "Conspiracy theorists display narrow notions of Irishness"..."Diehards reveal true colours - The amateur historian in Ireland is often little more than a propagandist masquerading as an expert, writes David Adams" ..."Most people would consider that an act of outrageous vandalism - though these obviously would not include some members of the Millstreet based Aubane Historical Society,"

No doubt, a voice will be available -somewhere- praising their fearless revisionism or the relative merits of amateur historians unshackled by the restrictive binds of academia, but frankly it appears that the source and it's publications are simply not suitable for our purposes in building a Reliably Sourced encyclopedia using neutral references.99.135.170.179 (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Murphy is a graduate of Oxford University, Trinity College, Dublin, and the National University of Ireland (UCD). If you wish to challenge his credentials, I suggest you take it up with the academic institutions concerned. RashersTierney (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not Oxford, Trinity - nor even West Clonakilty Community College that published. One can find numerous examples of pedigreed individuals promoting all things, holocaust denial, hallucinogenic drugs, pederasty. Graduation from a prestigious school does not bequeath de facto RS status.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is the author, and Murphy is well regarded academically as can be seen from the endorsements at the back cover of the book, linked for your convenience. RashersTierney (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Book blurbs are not suitable third party sources capable of establishing Reliable Source status neutrally. Also, this wouldn't happen to be the same amateur local member of the AHS "club" whose day job is Monk, would it? ...And wrote his thesis on the flute in Ireland?99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to blog - do it on Weblog. From the waffle above, you are clearly no novice.RashersTierney (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there is disagreement on this matter, please seek outside opinions, by bringing up this source at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Elonka 02:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And restore the refs in the meantime. RashersTierney (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also done - and timestamped prior to your quick demand.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between an amateur historians and a profesional historian is that one gets paid and the other does not. Use of the word "academic" before historians is a real red herring because all it says is that they are paid historians, if your not paid well then your an "amateur." A bit like putting the word official before something and suggesting we blindly accept it as fact. That the Independant and Times are critical of Aubane is hardly notable. Should we open a section on both the Independant and Times as not being reliable sources, because we could offer a number of examples to illustrate how biased they can be. This section is pointless, because Aubane is a publisher and is not being cited. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to cast such broad aspersions on The Independent and Irish Times, when the criticising correspondents are generally Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris, neither of who's views on the Irish Revisionist debate are a secret, or editorially representing the views of papers concerned. RashersTierney (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not unfair at all. The editorial policy of the papers are subject to charges of bias, likewise their correspondents. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue the difference with you, its really not worth either your time or mine. Meanwhile, this article needs input! Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the non-reliable source and replaced it with the tag. I don't see any need at this time to remove the material, and we may very quickly be able to remove the tag and leave the text as is.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is better not to remove references, if they are dubious then add but do say, here, why you think so. ClemMcGann (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion:[11]. I hope that helps. _-99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

99.135.170.179 stop being disruptive. You did not remove a non-reliable source and having taken part in :this discussion you are well aware of that. Dr. Murphy is considered to be a WP:RS per that discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of uninvolved editors at WP:RSN

Alright, to clarify the matter, here's my view as an uninvolved administrator. I have read through the RSN thread several times, and my read of the consensus of opinions of uninvolved editors is this.

Articles from Aubane Historical Society are generally not reliable sources. However, some authors who are generally perceived as reliable sources, have published in the AHS. Their publications should be treated as though the author self-published an article, meaning that it should not be considered to be peer-reviewed. It is therefore a Primary Source, not a Secondary Source, which means it can only be used to source non-controversial information. If the information that it is sourcing is contentious, then the AHS article cannot be used as the only source. It can only be used as a backup source, if some other (reliable, peer-reviewed) source is also provided for the contentious information. If there is any contentious information in a Wikipedia article which is sourced only to AHS, that information should either be removed, or tagged as needing an additional (and reliable) citation.

If there is disagreement about whether it should be removed or tagged, then the information should be removed, until a reliable source can be provided.

Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that AHS is not a Reliable Source and we cannot ignore this by making an unsubstantiated assertion that a particular author has self-published through them. No evidence exists that AHS allows independent manuscripts to be produced under their imprint - quite the contrary - AHS is clear as to their bias and goals and notorious for the lack of accuracy and scholarship, hence the unreliable status of works produced under their direction. Further, the author has a long history with them and acts frequently as quoted point man in various printed attacks on traditional Irish history academian's. No finding has been made giving the author a unique status endowing him with presumptive RS status, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he - or his limited output - are generally perceived as reliable. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)