Talk:RethinkX

Deletion of external links

I have re-read Wikipedia's External Links policy, and have deleted nearly all of the article's external links accordingly, as described below.

• Link to RethinkX's blog post that claims that its predictions have been accurate: Deleted the link and its associated text.
• Link to a YouTube presentation of the Founder of RethinkX giving a presentation on the content of one of his books: Left this alone. It is the same information as in the book, in a condensed form. Not sure why this would be a problem. The link is not used to support a factual claim.
• Link to CarThrottle: CarThrottle appears to me to be a credible source of information on the perspective of "car enthusiasts," in accordance with its claimed subject matter expertise. I have converted the "in-line external link to its About Us page" to a reference to CarThrottle's About page, quoting its claimed subject matter expertise.

• Link to Energy and Capital: Energy and Capital (including its staff member, Jeff Spiegel) appears to be to be a credible source of information on the perspective of investors in the energy sector, in accordance with its claimed subject matter expertise. I have converted the "in-line external link to its About Us page" to a reference to its About Us page, quoting its claimed subject matter expertise.

• Link to the USA's National Milk Producers' Federation: The National Milk Producers' Federation appears to be to be a credible source of information on the perspective of milk producers in the USA. I have converted the "in-line external link to its home page" to a reference to its home page, quoting its claimed subject matter expertise.
• Link to Beef Central: For consistency, I added a reference to Beef Central's About Us page, as I had done for CarThrottle and the National Milk Producers' Federation, quoting its claimed subject matter expertise.
• Link to the LinkedIN page of Gabriel Torres Pascual, establishing that he leads Pascual's innovation efforts. Deleted external link. Added reference to a page on Pascual's corporate website which announced that he was taking on this role. This is not a "secondary source," but for corporate information such as verification of employment and title, the corporation's website seems like the optimal source. Is this not so? If not, why not?
• Link to Future Meat: Changed to cite as-yet unwritten Wikipedia article. The fact that Tyson Ventures had invested in Future Meat had been established by content in Tyson Foods to which I added an internal reference.
• Link to New Wave Foods: Deleted external link. Added a reference to an article in CNBC announcing the investment.
• Link to RethinkX's page claiming accurate predictions: Deleted external link. Added reference to the page.

Thus, I have deleted all but one external links from the body of the article, leaving only an external link to Tony Seba, the author of RethinkX's Clean Disruption, giving an hour-long summary of its content. This external link is not used to support any factual statement; it is a convenience to the reader. Please let me know if this is a problem, and why. --JimPlamondon (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, two external links remain. The second is to RethinkX's claim to have made accurate predictions. As stated in the article, these claims have not been independently verified, and even if true, may represent cherry picking.

--JimPlamondon (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Contains content that is written like an advertisement

Could you be more...specific? What content, exactly, do you find to be promotional, as the article now stands? --JimPlamondon (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazon

A Wikipedia editor called out the article's links to Amazon as being potentially problematic. I have replaced all links to Amazon with links to Google Books, except for "Rethinking Humanity" and "The Great Stranding," which are not on Google Books. I can't see how that is an improvement, or helpful to anyone, but if that's what Wikipedia wants, that's what I'll do. 🙂

If someone would please be so kind as to inform me why links to Amazon are problematic, I'd appreciate it. 🙂 --JimPlamondon (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I went through the sources that I had cited, and deleted any that were blogs or otherwise iffy, except for a couple of blog posts from noted industry experts.

In the sections citing experts, I found independent verification of the expert's expertise -- such as webpages citing them as speakers at unaffiliated conferences -- and added references to those to support my use of them as sources of expert opinion.

I may do a bit more "reference culling" after I eat lunch. 🙂 --JimPlamondon (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Done, so please remove tags

I have addressed the tagged issues as best I can. I will wait a couple of days to see if an editor removes the tags. If not, I will remove them. --JimPlamondon (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 🙂

Thank you, Broccoli and Coffee, for "cleaning up" this article (rather than simply deleting it). I sincerely appreciate it. 🙂

I have repaired a couple of references that were deleted in the editing process.

I also rewrote the intro, for two reasons

1. It no longer made sense, given its various edits.
2. The description of Rethink's focus had become so abbreviated that it was overly general ("technology"). I lengthened it to "identifying disruptive innovations that could soon impact society", thereby narrowing it to be more accurate. This provides context for the criticisms leveled against RethinkX's ideas, specifically, that RethinkX's predicted disruptions won't happen as quickly, or affect society as much, as RethinkX predicts.

Fair enough?

Thanks! 🙂

--JimPlamondon (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of tag

On 30 July 2021, --JimPlamondon did a serious job to make the article safe reguarding the tag issues. Why is the tag still active, far more than a year later? Why is there no article about Tony Seba? --Harald Thielen-Redlich (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)