Jump to content

Talk:Legal nurse consultant

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

RfC

[edit]

Is the statement "It has been claimed that Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field." considered an advertisement, biased or unfair even though it has a reference attached? Also, the editor who posted it is an employee of the Vickie Milazzo Institute. Does that constitute a conflict of interest? Rsanch (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Edit Request: There is a statement in this article that says, "It has been claimed that Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field." This statment, in my opinion, is an advertisement for a private organization and should be removed in order to make this artcle neutral, fair, and unbiased. There are other organizations that have contributed greatly to the field of Legal Nurse Consulting as well. Additionally, the user who added it, TomZiemba, is an employee of Vickie Milazzo's organization. I beleive that also makes it a conflict of interest. Does anyone else agree with this change? Rsanch (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all, just letting you know that I've just declined a request for a 3O about the above issue, since there's no discussion that I can find on either the participants' talk pages or this one. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at relevant sources other than the NY Times article - the edit history - and in particular the comments made about edits - It is a clear case of WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Either the article needs to be correctly formatted, rewritten in a neutral tone with multiple sources - else It gets rapid deletion.

It would appear that the page is salvageable - and multiple references are not hard to find - In Multiple Languages.

The only source provided isn't even correctly formatted - and it's claimed that it now points to a different version from the original source. What a pity that someone forget to tell readers where the original source is, what it is and how it can be checked. It has been a feature of page versions over some time and the links battles are ever so informative.

The talk page history is also wonderfully uninformativeIRONY, showing just how much discussion there has been about "THE" article in the right places.

I Just can't understand why the correct banners have not been applied - and only Spam is up there! Where is the banner for lack of citation? lack of sources? {{peacock}}? {{notability}}? {{COI}}? {{globalize}}? That last one may have passed some by - but does this idea and profession of "Legal nurse consultant" exist outside of the USA? In which case Systemic Bias is also a good reason for rapid deletion - it really has no place in Wikiland and requires Extermination!

There is some rather nonsensical language about certification, and if it is required (Hinting at having to get it to be on the safe side) - and I also spotted a rather large Weasel in the middle. Maybe {{copy edit}} should be considered too!

Apart from a few MINOR issues, which seem to have passed editors by, the article is evidently a wonderful example of Quality pages in Wikipedia!IRONY

Now why is there SUCH a focus on just one link to the only citation and the odd claim made? If that is the only concern - please Just delete the whole page!

Now, what was the question again for the Rfc?

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you've done all this admirable research, and know of all these wonderful citations, how about adding some referenced information to the article instead of indulging in sarcasm? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken - My response was to an Rfc which I was alerted to - 29 May 2012 - and I see that there is still concern over references being used. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times citation

[edit]

The New York Times article cited does not support the statement "It has been claimed that Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field". The article simply uses Milazzo as an example, and makes no claim that she is a "pioneer". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "With the exception of a few advertisements placed in nursing magazines, Ms. Milazzo relies on word of mouth to attract new students. To be sure, she had little competition until recently. She essentially pioneered the field." Just pointing out my confusion over your claim about the source, which might still be insufficient or inappropriate for making this claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, somehow I missed that. You are correct, it says exactly that. However, "she essentially pioneered field" is not really sufficient (as you say) to support "it has been claimed that [she] pioneered the field". The second statement is stronger than the statement in the source cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, the New York Times made the assertion that "she essentially pioneered the field". Thus the statement "it has been claimed..." is correct. The statement does not say she DID pioneer the field, it just says that it has been claimed, aka asserted, alleged, etc. I don't see any milder way of putting it and remaining factually correct. Note that I do not agree with the quote being included in the article, because it is in my view advertising, but if a quote IS going to be included, I prefer it to be at least factually correct, which it is. Andreclos (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the assertion in the article with a direct quote, that she "essentially pioneered the field", but subsequently removed it, as on second thought it was not necessary for what I wanted to establish, which was that LNC is a young field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

[edit]

It has come to my attention that it's possible that both editors involved in an editing dispute on this article, User:Rsanch, and User:TomZiemba, both have a conflict of interest in regard to this subject, and may be employee of rival LNC firms. Due to WP:OUTING concerns, I am not going to attempt to confirm this information, but because of its plausibility, I am going to warn both editors not to continue to revert each other, not to attempt to skew the article in favor of any one company, and to follow the suggestions in WP:COI about editing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Beyond My Ken - in my opinion it is a sensible warning. --Fox1942 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with user Beyond My Ken. I would go further. The article is basically advertising and should be deleted, but attempts to do so have not been able to get a consensus for deletion. If it is going to remain, then it would be useful from the viewpoint of creating an encyclopaedic article if all WP:COI editors could be banned from editing it. Andreclos (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article, in the state it is in now, is "advertisement". What or who is it advertsing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had not looked at it for a few days. The article as it is now is a vast improvement. The article as it has been for almost all its history has been a blatant advertising vehicle. Over the last 5 years it has been a battleground between entities with commercial interests in the field. I have few doubts that it will be very soon reverted to the same advertising vehicle. I applaud efforts to turn it into a real article, but history makes me cynical here. Andreclos (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to prevent that happening. I'm keeping it on my watchlist, and, if necessary, if the commercial war heats up again, I'll request that the article be fully protected, and that the edit warriors be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will watch with interest! BTW, there is considerable doubt about which of the various LNC associations are bona fide associations and which are fronts for commercial enterprises. I think citations from the AALNC alone won't be sufficient to establish proof. I think you will need citations from credible independent sources such as the ANA for these citations to be seen to prove which are reliable sources. Andreclos (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of the American Board of Nursing Specialties, do you know? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, the ANA website contains this article, which describes the ABNS as "an advocate for consumer protection by promoting specialty nursing certification. Member organizations of ABNS represent over a half million certified registered nurses around the world" and reports the qualification requirements of the ALNCC-administered LNCC exam without negative comment about its legitimacy. That's hardly a ringing endorsement (nor do I think that the author of the paper necessarily represents the views of the ANA), but it does seem to mean that the ABNS is legitimate, and therefore the ALNCC's ABNS-approved LNCC exam may well be legitimate as well.

Of course, I'm diving into an area I know little about, so anyone with pertinent information to the contrary should feel free to weigh in. I'd like this article to be as unbiased as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal nurse consultant. 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:

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) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_nurse_consultant&oldid=1198564330"