From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OR issues

This article uses a massive amount of PDF files as references, all of them uploaded and added by the same user. Might be OR. Shutterbug ( talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The fact that "a massive amount of pdf files were used as references" and which were "added by the same user" is no indication whatsoever for *original research*. Why don't you point out the specific pdf files in question?
I removed your tag. It did not even address the "issue" properly. Cheers. Martin Ottmann ( talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

broken links - no sources

I put the tags back in. Almost all sources for this article are either broken links (links to non-existent PDF files) or primary sources, or - statistically, out of 28 references only 4 are not broken links exist [1] [2] [3] and those all 4 are primary sources. The 24 broken links earlier linked to 24 more primary sources. Zero scholar works, zero secondary sources at all. Shutterbug ( talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree. I just ran a script to convert all the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo foo] links to [[foo]], and this turned a boatload of links red! This is one of the reasons why it's important to use the proper link style for internal links (another is that it breaks SSL browsing). Plastikspork ( talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

"Cult" as a term

The term should not be used as per WP:LABEL, which states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, so if you insist on using the term, you'll need secondary sources to back it up. Yeenosaurus ( talk) 🍁 03:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply