Semprof

Your edits all seem to reference the works of Jon Ruthven. You are invited to share your relationship to the author on the conflict of interest noticeboard.

• jon-ruthven.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.jon-ruthven.org

✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Help me!

The issues is that I submitted more than adequate documentation to show "notability." The documentation I've offered is impeccable, but they seem disinclined to believe it despite the highest level of scholarship (Oxford, Harvard Univ Press, JSSR, Christianity Today, etc.). The "editors" refuse to consider this perfectly valid and substantial documentation because it is "notoriously difficult" to verify--as if this is my fault!! These sources exemplify the highest standard for this field. (You may have heard of Harvard University Press?) Throwing out substantial, commonly-accepted academic support for "notability" because it is "difficult" to access is utterly unacceptable in any publication that seeks credibility. My feeling is that you are not operating in good faith. # — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.212.127 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Access is generally not a concern when discussing the reliability of a source. The reason they are rejecting the source is because it's work the person has done themselves, and is thus a primary source useless for notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please help me with the status of an article I submitted on 19 April, "Randy Clark"

Semprof (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Semprof

That draft was declined and is currently not submitted for another review. To me it seems there's some imbalance. One short sentence has a reference that's a collection of many different sources and in total is longer than the entire text of the article. However, other truly miraculous claims are based merely on Clark's own writings and not on third-party sources, or not on any sources at all. To me it also seems LaMona didn't notice the offline sources, but such sources are notoriously difficult to look up for reviewers.Huon (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Re: Randy Clark article. Did you even read this entry?? I met or exceeded all the requirements you asked for, then you complain that that the reference is "unbalanced"!! I cited sources you say are "notoriously difficult to look up" as if that my fault! These are references to books and articles published by Harvard and Oxford University Press, Christianity Today, Journal of Scientific Study of Religion, and you say you can't be bothered to check them out--and because of that dismiss them as false? Unbelievable!!!

Please help me with..."However, other truly miraculous claims are based merely on Clark's own writings and not on third-party sources, or not on any sources at all." Please cite specifically what you are talking about! DID YOU READ THE REFERENCE NOTE?? I have cited Clark's doctoral dissertation that is vetted by professors from Harvard and Vanderbilt University medical schools. You can't check those out online? YOU IGNORE ANY EVIDENCE YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE. I'm stunned at this cavalier dismissal of serious scholarship. Did you not check out who Candy Brown is? Craig Keener? "or not on any sources at all"???? That is a blatant lie!! Are we reading the same document? Is there no accountability there at Wikipedia?

 Here is the reference   He works closely with the Global Medical Research Institute (GMRI), which “seeks to apply the rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine to study Christian Spiritual Healing (CSH) practices.”  

References

Semprof (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Semprof

Please try to remain civil during this process. Getting angry and yelling at us won't do you any favours. A few things. First, it doesn't matter where he went to University or who accepted his doctoral thesis, it is still a PRIMARY source and does not demonstrate notability. Dissertations are generally not considered reliable sources anyway, because while it may be true that tenured professors are the ones approving the paper, it has not been properly peer reviewed as if it had been submitted to a journal.

Second, offline sources are notoriously difficult for reviewers to get to, because often we are sitting at our computers at home as opposed to being in the Library of Congress. It's perfectly acceptable to use offline sources, it's just hard for us to verify they say what you claim.

As a note regarding references - please make sure that each reference gets its own pair of <ref>...</ref> tags, as this makes it easier to parse them out. Additionally, putting in more than 2-3 references for a given statement is called citation overkill, and is very unnecessary. See WP:REFB for more information.

If you can find independent reliable sources that talk about his works, then I suggest you add them, as it will increase the probability that your draft is accepted upon resubmission. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

I keep getting irrelevant comments from reviewers who either ignore or misrepresent the evidence for the article, "Randy Clark" that I am submitting. I am a qualified academic (PhD) who has been teaching exclusively at the graduate level at fully accredited institutions for 22 years. For many years I taught thesis research and writing at the masters, but mostly doctoral level. Please help me with the following record of interaction with these reviewers to show me how I can cope with the Wikipedia submission process.

Frankly, I am utterly flummoxed at the superficial and negative responses to this submission. A recurring feature of their responses is to focus on one item in a series of supporting data and dismiss it for the wrong reason. They often misrepresented the data or the argument, as you will see below. Obviously my frustration boiled over at the last interaction that seemed almost calculated to miss the point of the citation, which was not to establish "notability," when I was making another point entirely (See www.globalmri.org ref below).

Perhaps you can help me respond to these demands which seem so unscholarly and inappropriate. My growing sense is that this article is being denied, not because it is insufficiently documented (it is vastly more documented than every other similar article I've examined in Wikipedia), but rather because of the reviewers' biased unwillingness to examine the evidence for religious claims. The documentation I've offered is impeccable, but they seem disinclined to believe it despite the highest level of scholarhsip (Oxford, Harvard Univ Press, JSSR, Christianity Today, etc.) The last reviewer, who holds a BA in Biology, is telling me that doctoral dissertations are considered "primary sources" and therefore invalid for Wikipedia! He obviously didn't understand the specific reason I cited this dissertation. Discounting dissertations is certainly not the practice in my field (theology), where doctoral dissertations are often the best source for research in a given area.

Please examine the history of this discussion (as the reviewers apparently failed to do) and explain to me where I have failed to support each claim in this Randy Clark article. I've written a number of articles for encyclopedias. I have never before encountered such random, off-the-mark comments from editors. Perhaps you can help me sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semprof (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2016‎

Three things. 1) Dissertations are primary sources. The subject of the draft wrote the piece, and therefore it is primary. 2) I didn't say they were invalid; I said that primary sources could not be used to demonstrate notability. 3) I have a BS in Zoology, though I'm not really sure what that has to do with following Wikipedia policies. I'll leave someone else to attempt to answer your concerns more fully. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: when you finish your posts, don't just put a #. Use ~~~~, which will append your signature to the end of your message. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, notability is our core inclusion criteria. If an article cannot pass any of the notability criteria, then it cannot remain on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia establishes notability (generally) with multiple reliable sources unassociated with the subject that write about the subject in depth or (specifically for academics) with evidence that their work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, that they hold a major named chair, or any one of the other six criteria listed at our academics notability page (linked above). Throwing his dissertations at us - which are primary sources useless for notability (BECAUSE they are primary sources) - does not help. We're looking for secondary sources or evidence from reliable sources that he meets either the general notability policy or any of the 8 criteria listed at WP:Notability (academics). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)