User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

help regarding the comments received on my draft

Courtesy link: Draft:Shivali Kukreja.

i have used various refrences which have links to news websites and also a refence was directly from a youtube video , how these are un verifiable Nigam Pranjal (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nigam Pranjal, an example where the reference provided does not support the information is the first one: She currently serves as the Head of Risk, Audit, and Compliance at nib NZ, where the reference takes me to the homepage of NZ Health Insurance. Suffice to say that there is no mention of Shivali Kukreja on that page. Ergo, the sentence should be tagged with {{failed verification}}. I hope that clarifies my comment; that is the most egregious example but there are other instances where the provided citation does not support the inline claim. If something is unverifiable (which has a precise meaning on Wikipedia, that is to say it would be impossible to verify) then it cannot be said on Wikipedia (see WP:V), especially in a biography of a living person, which have a higher standard for inline citations.

In addition, interviews and other non-independent sources may be used to verify some non-promotional material; in general they do not count for notability unless they contain significant analysis independent of the subject, see WP:INTERVIEW. The YouTube video you cited is a primary source and again does not count towards WP:Notability. As UtherSRG explained on your talk page "It isn't about the number of references, it is about the quality of references. Please read and understand WP:SIRS and WP:42."

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Holomovement

Looks to me like someone untrained in metaphysics trying to do materialist metaphysics. But, as I read materialist metaphysicians I've seen the *good* version of these arguments before. IE: one that doesn't try to go directly to "the brain is structured just like the universe" when trying to extrapolate an ontology from a metaphysics. Is this basically what I'm seeing here? Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: That's kinda what I read too, and said better than when I tried here with "in-universe" using not as many words. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Then again, my training is in environmental microbiology and I'm a chemist, so I'm not sure how close my expertise falls on the scale of purity to materialist metaphysics and "a dynamic and unbroken totality that underlies all of reality."

Probably downfield I would imagine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

LOL Graham Harman argues against this sort of monism. He's not my favourite but, then again, my favourite is Quentin Meillassoux who argues that all physical laws must be seen as contingent in a turn away from Kant in favour of Hume. But this is part of what I mean by this being amateur. Look at Deleuze's work on Liebniz and the idea of the monad and you can see that even those materialist philosophers who entertain monism tend to be somewhat skeptical of it or seek to problematize it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)