User talk:Coryannyyz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Coryannyyz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I've answered your question on my talk page; feel free to drop me another note if you ever have any other questions about editing! Here are some other links you may find helpful:

On the off-chance where I'm unavailable, you can ask further questions at the Teahouse, a friendly environment where new users can receive answers from experienced editors. You may also want to check out our public sandbox, where you can make test edits of any kind. Always remember to sign your posts with your username; you do so by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Once again, welcome!

Perfect4th (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful reply and links to all kinds of resources! I am a new faculty instructor in the Wikipedia Learning program, so I am taking all the trainings they have developed ahead of my students. Yet, helpful Wikipedians like yourself have already pointed me to many different resources that are not found in these trainings. Since I publish a lot of articles, book chapters and and websites with images, I am very familiar with copyright laws and so my only questions about images have to do with the technical side of uploading the images and overwriting someone else's image.
Specifically, I uploaded two images to the edits I made to a section of the AMNH article in my sandbox. These are my original digital images, so there is no problem with copyright. The training, which I admit I undertook after already uploading the images, says always upload first to WikiCommons. However, it appears that these images automatically appear in WikiCommons with the copyright attribution already assigned. However, it seems I should edit them to include categories etc. Do I really need to redo the upload through WikiCommons?
The second question has to do with Wikipedia etiquette. I would like to replace the existing image with one that shows the main subject of the previous one, but also shows a wider view of the gallery in which it is installed, which is important to get the context discussed in my additions to the article. I have posted this question on the article talk page, but nobody has responded. Should I "be bold," post it, and see if it takes or breaks? Coryannyyz (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on my talk page here (diff permanent link) to keep discussion in one place so it's easier to find. Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Meier[edit]

On Wikipedia, we go by third party independent published sources. The higher quality the better. You could say we like academics and university presses the best. In this case, we have footnoted sources that unambiguously characterize Billy Meiers FIGU organization as a UFO religion, such as: "UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture" by Gregory L. Reece..."Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements" by George D. Chryssides..."The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions" by James R. Lewis, and even a couple more not used in the article, like Robert Pearson Flaherty. WP:BLP does not mean that critical commentary cited to high quality sources cannot be included in articles. I hope you'll self-revert your removal of the term and start a discussion on the Talk page. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I teach anthropology of religion at an American university, so I'm no stranger to peer reviewed sources. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are not usually peer reviewed, but rather tertiary sources, which are discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on using encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources is very detailed, so each one must be evaluated independently: Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. If we discount these, then you have only one source claiming it is a religion, which doesn't seem to me to be "unambigous." The definition of "religion" is notoriously tricky and controversial, and calling it such comes down to how one defines religion. Since I am aware there is no consensus on this point, I am really not comfortable with the blanket claim that the already controversial figure of Billy Meier is a religious cult leader. This seems to add more drama unnecessarily. Perhaps there is a happy medium where we could say that some people have argued that it is a UFO Religion, or even that one author did so. If you don't like the solution I suggest, then perhaps it would be productive to begin a discussion on the article talk page. Best, Coryannyyz (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, *several* expert sources have given a critical analysis and have termed it a UFO religion, so saying one author 'argued' it would be disingenuous. We also avoid WP:GEVAL ("some people say this, some people say that"). WP:NPOV is not about aiming for a middle ground between fringe vs. mainstream views. I don't see any mainstream academic sources are arguing that it is NOT a UFO religion, so there isn't any academic 'controversy'. Editorial WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia operates, and policy-based arguments are the format, so the article Talk page is the best place to continue this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie - I see you are entrenched in your position. Although I don't agree with your reading of the Wikipedia policies or the literature (Reece doesn't actually say Meier is a religion - see p.154) I also don't care enough about this topic to argue over the definition of religion. You have your reversion. Enjoy! Coryannyyz (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coryannyyz&oldid=1173808769"