Talk:Carol Giambalvo

Untitled
I think Carol Giambalvo was also formerly affiliated with the Cult Awareness Network. Maybe that could be mentioned. Phr (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ... ...
 * At this point in time, January of 2016, it is already mentioned in the article.
 * Any reference to that would certainly be interesting, though I believe the Cult Awareness Network is now currently a part of the Scientology organization.Smeelgova 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean from before then. Phr (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that there is more information from Giambalvo's own page, here: A History of FOCUS/reFOCUS. Smeelgova 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI Carol's AOL blog service has been permantly shut down a few days ago without warning to members. Editors of this page will I'm sure want to revise the page, hopefully with Carol's new site wherever she sets it up again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.42.66 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Category: Researchers of cults and new religious movements
Is she a researcher? What are her credentials? Zambelo (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP
As my request for additional sources for this WP:BLP was reverted, I will state here why these are needed. At present the article has these sources:
 * (notarized) Declaration of John M. Sweeney, Jr.
 * "Carol Giambalvo". ICSA: International Cultic Studies Association.
 * Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer (London)
 * Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal
 * Spiritual Counterfeits Project Journal
 * Carol Giambalvo's Cult Information and Recovery, Giambalvo, Carol, personal website
 * Cult Information and Recovery Giambalvo, Carol, personal website
 * Cult Information and Recovery, Giambalvo, Carol, personal website, "Awards" section

So, we have:
 * A personal declaration (not a reliable source)
 * A website BIO (not a reliable source)
 * A short Q/A that does nothing to establish notability
 * A reference in a list (nothing to establish notability)
 * A non-notable (and arguably pretty fringe) journal (I am assuming it's these guys)
 * And three self-published personal website references

None of these sources support a BLP, hence the tag requesting more sources. Tgeairn (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability
As my article tag regarding WP:Notability was removed, I will explain why it is needed.

WP:BIO says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and "All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality."

The provided sources are not independent of the subject, not reliable, and none of them demonstrate significant coverage. Thus, we need better sourcing to demonstrate notability. Tgeairn (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources
As my tag regarding the use of self-published sources has been removed, I will explain the issue.

At least four of the eight sources in the article at this time are self-published (three personal websites and one fringe journal). Additionally, the ICSA BIO may not be self-published but it is certainly closely related. Any article (particularly a BLP) cannot hang so heavily on SPS. Tgeairn (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources needed
As the tag requesting secondary sources has been removed, I will explain the need.

At least five of the eight sources in the article are either written by the BLP subject or by an entity closely related to the subject. BLP articles (and all articles) need reliable secondary sources that are not closely associated with the subject. We need verifiable, reliable, secondary sources for this article. Tgeairn (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
The notice that some of the article sources may be unreliable has been removed by another editor. I maintain that some of the sources are not reliable:
 * Personal declaration - not reliable
 * Website BIO - not reliable
 * Q/A in The Observer - while not a great source, likely reliable for what it says
 * Book mention - again, likely reliable for what it says
 * Non-peer-reviewed journal - not reliable
 * Personal website - not reliable
 * Personal website - not reliable
 * Personal website - not reliable

So, we have 6 of 8 sources not reliable. The tag should be re-placed on the article until the issues are resolved. Tgeairn (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability?
Is this person actually notable? the articles is 3 sentences long and aside from incidental mentions in articles or books about much broader subjects there are basically no references It seems like there is a series of articles about people in the anti-cult movement who are not notable. Moreover, it seems like as one goes through the articles in the template "Opposition to New Religious Movements" There is a large number or articles that were created to push the anti-cult POV. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)