Talk:Sara Roy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-04-29. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
The article has lots of sources, why was it tagged?
- Because blogs are not WP:RS and there is no evidence that Roy has been the subject of "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject" — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I use Wikipedia more often thatn I write for it. When I read about someone or something in the newspaper that I know nothing about, I google it and usually find Wikipedia useful. If I don't find an article, I start one. This woman is in the news quite a lot. And the article uses newspapers, not blogs - except martinKramer.org which is a scholarly blog, written by a scholar in the field Roy studies. American Clio (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Sara Roy teeters on the border between scholarship and political advocacy. Pretty much every time she publishes something, you get a flurry of blog posts and news articles. The usual pro and con about the Middle East.
I see it this way. Sure the Wikipedia article on George Washington is useful, but if Wikipedia didn't exist, there would be other sources of info on our first president.
On the other hand, there is no way to get info on political scholars like Roy - except by doing google searches. Time consuming.
It's not like we have to pay for paper and ink (or kill trees) to run articles like this. Wikipedia has infinite space. And providing articles on people like Roy. people who will naver be famous like Noam Chomsky or Edward Said, but who get into the news often enough so that journalists and others need info on them are a useful service.
This one needs more info. But I fearlessly predict that she will do something that provokes a controversy (like schedule a speaking engagement) and there will be more interviews and articles on her, and someone will add it to the article. American Clio (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
[edit] blogs
Some blogs are valid sources. Ones in which notable public figures post on the sites of real magazines, for example. Like Martin Peretz's blog at TNR.com. I see no reason why Peretz cannot be cited form it as he would be quoted form a magazine. He is a noted public intellectual and he is writing for the record.
Ditto for academics writing in their field of expertise. Such as signed blogs at the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed and History News Network. these are the newspapers of record in the academy. Serious people sign their posts and expect to be quoted.
a similar rule applies to personal academic blogs, such as MartinKramer.org. There is no difference between quoting such sources and a journalist quoting the professor. The importance of the statement in each of these cases comes from the stature of the speaker.
I freely confess that I have a bias. I believe that the Jewish State has as full a right to exist as the Danish State or the Japanese State.
Malik Shabazz has a bias too. An overt animus against Israel. He expresses this by taking down sourced information that is uncongenial to his campaign to discredit the Jewish State. It is a form of political vandalism. 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
- Please read WP:SPS and WP:BLP#Reliable sources: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer".
- You should also read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks.
- With respect to Roy's views about divestment, see WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." There is no indication that Roy's position — or rather her lack of a position — with regard to divestment is the most prominent fact about her. Deal with it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Shabazz,
There are two ways of achieving balance.
One way would be for you to bring new, sourced material to the page. You willnotice that I bring a lot of new, sourced material to a lot of pages.
Your way appears to be removing sourced material. Reputable weeklies like the Jewish Advocate are solid sources. So are the persoanl blog essays of noted intellectuals like Nartin Peretz and martin Kramer.
The reason I suspect you of bias is that I write on an eclectic rangs of interests. When I write on art or the history of Fiji, you leave it alone. When it is on the Middle East, you excise sourced material that happens to reflect well on Israel or badly on some enemy (I do mean enemy, not critic) of the Jewish State. American Clio (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
-
- If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning sources, take it up in the appropriate forum. The guideline says that editorial columns and blogs are not reliable sources and should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. Those aren't my words. I don't make policy around here.
-
- Also, I've warned you about your personal attacks. Continue in this vein and you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
