Talk:Julia Galef

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Effective Altruism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Unreliable sources

@Timelezz:, I placed the unreliable sources tag because the some references you have provided are not reliable/good references. eg.(Blog, Youtube). See WP:GOODREFS. It is best to avoid these kind of sources. Being a BLP (Biographies of Living People) article I thought the tag would help bring article better sources. A BLP article must be Verifiable and must hold undisputed contents. See WP:BLP. Ping me if I'm doing a mistake! Cheers! --†ããrøn95^® 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while youtube and blogs as a medium are not generally great sources, it can be a very good source in some circumstances. For example, the article writes that she credits her parents for her interest in rationality and the source refers to a youtube video (on her own channel) where she says it herself. A better source than having her saying it in her own words, there is not. The use of the video link adheres to the principle that "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." So far I know, this is the case with all Youtube/Blog references included in this article. Alas, I think the template 'unreliable sources' is too alarming. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaaron95, could you be more specific about which of the 42 references you do not consider to be WP:RS? In the case of blogs, there are certain circumstances under which they are considered acceptable (WP:SELFPUB); please indicate which references do not follow that rule in your view. In the case of YouTube, we have linked to videos from the official channels of the recording or owning parties, no copyright violations have been committed (WP:YouTube), nor is any of the videos self-published; they are third-party reliable sources that confirm independently of Galef herself that she lectured, moderated or participated as panelist at the events mentioned. As far as I'm aware we've not referred to any "Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, fan sites, and extreme minority texts", but I'm willing to be shown wrong when we did, and to make amends. The rest of the article is based on well-known newspaper or magazine sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Timelezz, Nederlandse Leeuw.. I think you've got a point here... But to be sure and to be on the safe side, I have requested a third person's intervention in WP:BLPN... And the tag will be removed once I'm enlightened! So, don't worry and keep up the great work! Happy Editing! --†ããrøn95^® 12:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not WP:SPS

Dear Jaaron95, I disagree that these references fall under "self-published sources as third-party sources" according to WP:SPS" The video link reference are there to proof that she was speaker/moderator at these events. Julia Galef did not publish these videos herself, but the video producer or the event organization. Self-publication sources are not allowed, as these sources of information are more prone to (self-)framing and thus unreliable. Here the video links are only as proof that she was speaker at these events, increasing verifiability. It is unlikely that the whole content of the video is a set-up to frame it as if she was a speaker. That would be one huge conspiracy :D. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timelezz:, I think you've got that right here! The references are made for not the hot topic of the article.. So, it's okay probably.. Sorry for wasting your time! No hard feelings! Happy Editing!

--†ããrøn95^® 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your own mistake, that is always appreciated. Is there anything else that you doubt (which we'll gladly correct), or could you now also remove the other template? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw:Thanks for reminding me..! Removing that in no time! --†ããrøn95^® 17:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, we appreciate your skeptical review of this page.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove trivia

I removed some trivia in the biography section, which was way too long given this person's relative lack of notability. (Compare to this academic: Barbara Wold, who's arguably more notable and has far less detail.) This article feels promotional and unserious, like a personal webpage. However, my edits were reversed without explanation. I'd appreciate if others would cooperate with me in cleaning up this page.Pawg14 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of your edits have merit, but I've undone one. Perhaps BlackBeast (talk · contribs) could chime in here. --Krelnik (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawg14 (talk · contribs), you are right. The section you remove indeed is a trivia. However, instead of removing you can also resume all two sections into one, and merge the information. But, I have no problem of leave the article as it is now. Krelnik (talk · contribs), thaks for the advice天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality sources, still

It looks like this article is still suffering from sources that are either closely tied to the subject, not reliable, or don't really establish notability. I added one RS to the lede, but the whole text needs a rewrite, and I would not be surprised if other editors out there find it worthy of an AfD or at least a major content purge. IMO, she appears to pass notability, but there are not too many sources out there that cover her in a meaningful way to write a biographical entry on WP. Delta13C (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to a bad sources purge in a week - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Galef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423163335/http://necss.org/speakers/ to http://necss.org/speakers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]