Talk:Tim Ferriss/Archives/2016

Bad source for a claim of"worlds best guinea pig"

The source for the claim that Ferriss is the"world's best guinea pig" does not even point to Newsweek. Additionally, the Newsweek article says nothing about "the world's best". Though Ferris includes this claim on his own profile, I can't find the original source. -Reagle (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no Criticism section in this article? This author is known for being widely panned by critics for essentially copy and pasting a book together from others' studies without attribution and also straight up lying. His gaming of Amazon's review system is widely known, but not even mentioned once. No doubt he's gaming his Wikipedia page too, which would also be very relevant.

Criticism sections are discouraged by wikipedia style guides. All sourced criticisms should be incorporated into the main article along with the thing they are criticising. Ashmoo (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reads like advertising.

This article really reads like advertising. Someone who knows wikipedia well needs to go through this with a fine tooth comb.

Also, 117 sources? Jesus. Richard Branson (far more significant) has 113 sources and is much longer. Everything related to Ferriss on wikipedia seems massively inflated (including articles about his books.) 24.21.151.167 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@24.21.151.167: I think we should break this down into sections. Do you see any problems with the intro or infobox? Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Update I added the tag. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I re-added the tag. When Brotherexandrupuss removed it on November 2, 2016, he didn't give an explanation. It's plain this article reads like an advertisement. Chisme (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted in the top section of the page. The sources are all from legitimate, high quality outlets. The wording has been reviewed for NPOV. If there are specific sections to work on, tag those specific sections. Otherwise, removing tag. Brotherxandepuss (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the sources. Any objective reader will note the gee-whiz, whiz-bang tone of this article and will know it sounds like an advertisement. Not only that, it sounds like an infomercial. I'm restoring the tag. Chisme (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They're all objective facts, backed up by credible sources. If you have specific recommendations to improve NPOV in specific sections that is one thing, generally not liking the page is another. Brotherxandepuss (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Objective facts? As opposed to subjective facts? It's not a question of what I like or dislike. Read others' comments on this Talk page. This definitely reads like an advertisement. Would you like me to go through and tone it down? You wouldn't object? Chisme (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"This definitely reads like an advertisement" is subjective. I think it reads like a collection of facts put together, as almost all pages on Wikipedia do. If you look at an BLP page with the lens of advertisement, it will read that way. I agree that the flow may use some work so it reads a bit more fluidly. What would you suggest? Are there certain sections you see the biggest issue with? Happy to also contribute to that Brotherxandepuss (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)