Talk:Organizational storytelling

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Sugarpencil (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

I agree - this is very confusing. A shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.11.96 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complex definition

The opening definition is confusing [It recognises the special place of narration in human communication, making narration "the foundation of discursive thought and the possibility of acting in common."]. I think we could do better. What about, "It recognises the special place of narration in human communication, making stories the foundation of meaning and action." We will need a citation for this sentiment. Story consultants should resist suggesting their own books. --User:Finrod.Ancalime (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2008 Rewrite

Looking through the article it reads more like a marketing brochure than a Wikipedia entry. Many statements are made without qualification or supporting authority and the links to academic theory and consultancy practice are patchy. I plan to attempt some restructuring next week when I get time, however it seems sensible to announce that intent here and invite comment. --Snowded (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. There's very little citation, and a huge chunk of references. I've been idly considering this article for a merge into a larger one (haven't found a good candidate) but a cleanup won't hurt and if you can get it to stand on its own legs, so much the better. Have fun! -- mordel (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am partly thinking that it needs to be renamed to reflect the use of narrative in organisations (which includes story telling but is not limited to it) with some radical pruning of the material to reflect a more neutral position. I an not going to get a chance until the end of the week and will post an outline here first --Snowded (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise useful, could use a division into sub-topics... repetitive at places. Needs to be organized better.--Coolpriyanka10 (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research by Catherine Cassell, Gillian Symon (ISBN 978-0761948889), and from Organizing & Organizations by Yiannis Gabriel, Stephen Fineman, David Sims (ISBN 978-1848600867). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refspam

We have WP:REFSPAM / WP:EXT with an essentially unsourced topic. Widefox; talk 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Organizational storytelling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sourcechecked=true; both original URLs point to damaged PDF files that don't display properly. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article has many problems. For starters, the references seem mostly wrong to me. Is it just me having a bad day? For example, could somebody please explain to me the following reference, how to I find it or what it means:

 Anonymous, Anon. “Organisational Storytelling - Social Vocabulary.” social vocabulary. Organisational storytelling. N.p., 6 Dec. 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.

What is N.p.? What is Web?

There is a number of those. I am really not trying to be picky about a referencing format, but I would firmly believe that a reference needs to be possible to find or at least understood what it means so that the reader can fairly evaluate the credibility of the source. Unless somebody clarifies those in the article, I think they just need to be erased. Once the junk is out, and I mean all of it, then the improvement to the article might start happening. Right now, it is not good at all. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]