Jump to content

Talk:Sara Roy

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

tag

[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]


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[reply]

blogs

[edit]

Why not just point out that she is a deluded bigot?

She asserts that Hamas has become more mature since its election in 2006, but, in fact, it has started 4 wars in 14 years, including its latest "Return March" war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9910:8C00:816:D32A:C9FE:7557 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Controversy section: notability and sources

[edit]

The section begins asserting "Roy drew public attention(...)", however, the only source to back this claim is now a dead link (http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp.). This brings to question the notability of the event described in this section, and whether it should included in the encyclopedic article. This is especially salient since controversies should be especially well sourced to justify their inclusion. (talk) user:Al83tito 01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sara Roy. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sara Roy. 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) 11:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMACION 100 POR 100 VERIDICA PARA NADA SACADA DE MI IMAGINACION.

Basura con patas mas conocida como Sara Roy es una persona muy mala peor q trump se podria decir, y os preguntareis porque? Vosotres la considerareis 'artista' pero en realidad es deportista si lo has leido bien . Juega con los sentimientos oue he tenido varios mental breackdown por su culpa ya que la muy hija de su mama, porque? porque destruyo la boda sabeliki y eso tb me dijero el otro dia q no apoya el arbol y eso xd un kiss y bay :)


gastag yo denuncio a sara roy :)


VIVA EL ARBOL



SARANFOFA NO AMO A COMER SARANFOFA UNA HUMANA CON FETO

parents as Holocaust survivors

[edit]

Why is this being removed? WP:ABOUTSELF applies to what Roy writes about herself. nableezy - 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Incomprehensible, even policy-wise. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally doesn't apply in an edited published magazine, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally does apply, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Kindly stop removing basic biographical details sourced to the subject. Thank you. nableezy - 16:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, check the cited source. It doesn't say what we cited it for. I've edited it for clarity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Chelmno source, added another for Auschwitz. nableezy - 19:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. But why do we need CP (currently footnote 6) when we have two strong sources for this fact? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Roy in CP is not a strong source for Roy's family history. nableezy - 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a distinguished scholar hasn't any of the obsessively distorted perceptions of CP evinced by an infinitesimally small number of wikipedians (how many of the 33 voting (sockpuppets included) rank among the 5,000 of 36,000,000 who have over 20,000 edits, meaning sustained commitment and competence), many with a low edit record, who deprecated CP, and she publishes on herself there, it's more than acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the the CP open letter that isn't in the academic journal article? Even if CP wasn't deprecated, surely it's always going to be better to use an autobiographical piece in a scholarly journal than an open letter in an opinion newsletter? The community's consensus, as it now stands, was to deprecate CP, whether editors here agree with that or not; while there may be exceptional reasons to use it, this isn't one, because we have solid sources to use instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking of her letter to Biden? Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, "On Equating BDS With Anti-Semitism: a Letter to the Members of the German Government", currently footnote 6. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated does not mean cannot be cited, and ABOUTSELF links are reliable sources, full stop. nableezy - 15:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that close of the RFC is going to be challenged, given the large amount of socking and ineligible accounts involved. Regardless though, Roy is a reliable source for herself per WP:ABOUTSELF and it does not matter where her own work is published for that. nableezy - 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sara_Roy&oldid=1209704157"