Talk:Dissident Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus - default to keep.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I am almost in disbelief that the website was presented as a progressive newsletter, "Jew and Me" huh? I will let the idiot author speak for himself without having to explain anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever keeps reverting this page, it is incredibly annoying. If you take issue then discuss your argument here on the talk page, otherwise Desist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

the problem seems to be this paragraph. resolving it ought to be easy; just cite a source fulminating against a newsletter that would publish such loony anti-Semitic screeds. I couldn't find one but perhaps I'm not looking in the right places.

because if the article is just going to say "it's controversial" without explaining who finds it controversial, followed by quotation of choice bits from one article, I don't see why it shouldn't mention how the author says that he "uses the blood of Gentile Children to bake Christmas Cookies shaped like Uzi's". that might clarify the tongue-in-cheek (not to say trollish) aspects of the article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, while there are certain passages written with irony, the overall tone of the article is not tongue in cheek but one of anger. Although I don't exactly see the author advocated the death of American Jews, I do however see a certain seriousness in what he is saying.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

then call it bitter satire. or don't. what editors here think of the piece isn't really important; what matters is what the sources say about it. (which is? I still can't find any.) otherwise the interpretation that the article puts forth (or doesn't) will just be that of whoever can revert more often, and that's no way to write a proper encyclopedia article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence describing it causing controversy since when I first added it a while back I took that description from one website which was rather small-scale, the rest of the paragraph is actually direct quotes from the cited article, I trust there will not be too much controvery over it as it contains no opinions about the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non compliance.

This article fails WP:WEB The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Therefore the content fails to meet WP:VER using reliable sources which are secondary sources. The content is therefore original research, unencyclopedic, and possibly autobiographic. Are there any resources which can be supplied to answer non-compliance? Ste4k 20:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I may agree that Dissident Voice isn't particularly notable, however it recently passed an afd vote, so for now the community considers it notable enough for an article, so obviously the websites own publications are acceptable as a source for the article. Your other charges about this article and its editors really do not show any sort of an assumption of good faith, and they seem to indicate a misunderstanding of policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, however, non-compliance hasn't anything to do with notability. Non-compliance is failure to meet several policies. Notability is simply an essay written to help describe the proposed guideline on Importance. Per WP:VER which is existing policy, this article cannot use a primary source (itself) as a reference. Per WP:NOR which is existing policy, nothing may be written without having a verifiable source. Per WP:NPOV This article needs to be written using a neutral point of veiw. Three policies being violated certainly substantiates that the article is noncompliant. The fact that the discussion up above is actually showing a POV contention between editors certainly justifies the NPOV.
  • "An article released by Dissident Voice titled "Jew and Me" by Adam Engel" This entire section requires a source. Do you have any previously published secondary resources that discuss that this article was released by Dissident Voice? If not, then per WP:VER the material should be removed from this article.
  • "Dissident Voice is an internet newsletter that began publishing articles in 2002 under the editorship of Sunil K. Sharma of Santa Rosa, California." Do you have any previously published secondary resources that discuss that this article was released by Dissident Voice? If not, then per WP:VER the material should be removed from this article.
  • "Frequent DV contributing writer Kim Petersen, based in Nova Scotia, joined the publication as co-editor in September 2005." Do you have any previously published secondary resources that discuss that this article was released by Dissident Voice? If not, then per WP:VER the material should be removed from this article.
  • "It has also reprinted articles and transcripts from Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Lila Rajiva, and Media Lens, a UK media watchdog group." Striver (talk • contribs)'s comment was that "This is "reasonably familiar " for those who have visited the webpage." That is by definition original research and this statement should be removed from this article.

Ste4k 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resolution / proposal to rename.

Reading the article as is, it appears to be more about differences and/or lack of differences between "Jews" and "Zionists". Seeing that two editors in the previous discussion for deletion believe that the magazine "Dissident Voice" is notable, I propose that this article be renamed to "Differentiation of Jews and Zionists", and that the reference to the article in "Dissident Voice" then be considered a secondary source, it's reputibility relying solely on the opinion of those two editors. This appears to have been taken care of. Ste4k 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Are there any third-party sources for this? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the discussion nobody answered that portion of my earlier nom. Ste4k 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

As far as I can tell, the articles from Chomsky and Fisk on the site are simply transcripts of Chomsky's talks and reprints of Fisk's Independent articles. Also, while there are some early items from 2003 that seem to be written originally for DV by John Pilger, most of the recent Pilger pieces are reprints from The New Statesman. Please point out if I'm missing something, but the article seems to imply that these and others wrote original pieces for DV. KWH 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the same impression, but didn't know that these people wrote for the other magazines. The article makes it sound as if they wrote for DV first before they moved on elsewhere. Ste4k 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this and it seems like the site's policy in the past on attribution seems to be very loose... e.g. press releases by Ralph Nader are put under the byline of Dissident Voice so it seems like Nader is writing for them. Not saying that was on purpose, but it makes it hard to infer any notability from the names on the articles they re-post. KWH 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements are non-compliant, perhaps the wisdom of the consensus of those that created policy considered such things. Perhaps not. Either way, the statement hasn't been printed anywhere else (WP:VER) and if it is supposed to be understood by reading the web site, then that would be OR. I'd delete it myself, but prefer to have a second opinion on such things first. Ste4k 03:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] web archive ref

Thanks for the web.archive.org url, that's a keeper. :) The problem is, though, that the site web.archive.org isn't saying anything about when articles were published by the DV. You are using your own research to make that assumption, which of course is original research of its own. If that archive were to state explicitly, though, that this was the very first article, that would be different and we would have a source. The first reference to the internet registrar shows the date of the creation of the web site itself as 25-Jan-2001 18:52:24 UTC. Perhaps you are correct that they didn't use their domain at all for 11 months, perhaps you're not. We really can't tell. We should probably use the date/year and reword the sentence according to what our sources actually say. Do you agree? Ste4k 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Other pages in the archive show the front page of the site as being a placeholder page as of September 26 2001. The first archive page showing an actual site is the one given in the article. I thought that would be authoritative, but if you click on links given in that archive you will find at least one article which is claimed to be from "Issue #2, March 2001" - so either Sharma was publishing the newsletter via some other means in 2001 (perhaps email) or archive.org lacks records on some earlier existing site. I don't think we can say anything authoritative about when/where articles were published based on this information, and a WP:V source must be found to substantiate any history here.
The most we can say - that the domain name was first registered in January 2001 and the archive shows the first frontpage in September 2002 - is relatively uninteresting with respect to a website.
Also, for what it's worth, just because the DNS record shows that the name was first registered in 2001 doesn't even mean that Sharma was the one who first registered/purchased it - the DNS database only shows the create and last update dates and current contacts for a domain name. KWH 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've adjusted the thesis statement accordingly. Please give it a once over for your approval. I commented the other cite you listed out of code. I didn't know if you wanted a copy of it there. Delete it if its no longer needed. Ste4k 05:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic

I added the traffic stats according to Alexa. I found it interesting that a friend of a friend of mine owns a web site that he runs from the office in his home and it has more reach over a period of two years than DV according to Alexa comparison. Ste4k 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is notoriously unreliable. For example, according to Alexa, Camera.org has a reach of less than 5 ([1]), where as Dissident Voice has a reach of around 20 or so. I just created an article for Honest Reporting, similar minor and somewhat partisan website on the I-P conflict - it only has a reach of around 15 per million.
Dissident Voice is in the set of sources used for Google News -- thus in my opinion, whatever your opinion on it, it would be useful to have an article describing what exactly it is.
Also, Dissident Voice describes itself as "A Radical Newsletter in the Struggle for Peace and Social Justice" -- which may be more accurate than just "progressive". --Deodar 02:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the subject matter itself. I have neither read any of it's articles nor am I familiar with it in regards to anything else. I agree with you completely about Alexa. The reason that I included the statement was to hopefully provide a factual bit of notability since that in itself was what was argued in the earlier AfD (just being fair). Trying to get this article into shape might require some people that know it better like yourself. If you want to remove the statement about Alexa, that's fine with me, but it was put into the article on behalf of those that voted "Keep". About being included in sources for Google, if Google News makes a statement about Dissident Voice, then whatever that statement is could be cited. To be balanced, though, there should also be a statement quoted from Google News regarding the total number of sources they use. Ste4k 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

[[Image:DV Boy.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The logo on the main page of the website, followed with the words
"[http://www.dissidentvoice.org/ A Radical Newsletter in the Struggle for Peace and Social Justice]"]]

It would be best to get permission from the author of the above graphic. I recommend one emails the author and askes them to put up a website giving permission that can then be cited. --Deodar 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Even with permission, since this particular image is the very same image used on the web-site as it's own front page, to abide with fair use policy, reproduction here requires that the image itself be given a critical commentary or that it is considered to be a logo. If it is a logo then the guidelines for logos need to addressed. Ste4k 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If not a logo, then what is it? And what guidlines is not addresed? --Striver 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Most similar articles do not have a logo. But the first step is to get permission. The second step is to determine its appropriateness. --Deodar 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone asked permision for taking the logo of CocaCola? If not, why do we need to do it here? --Striver 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
CocaCola's logo is iconic worldwide. It is incredibly notable -- like the nike swoosh. DV's logo is just a photo with the DV name photoshopped on top. It doesn't serve a major purpose and I am not sure what it adds to the article. The article is devoid of sources and significant content. Focusing on adding some fairly irrelevant image is not incredibly useful. --Deodar 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as pointed out, the DV image may or may not even be a logo. All images on WP need to list their fair use rationale. I think the matters concerning non-compliance are more worthy of your attention, Striver. According to policy and the intent of Wikipedia, those to unsourced statements are only original research and should be removed. Ste4k 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citing sources

Bhouston, per your comment about being accurate, I was in the process of verifying sources when you reverted my edit. Please be specific in the future with your own citations and please use the {{cite web}} template so that your citations may be accurately verified. Thanks. Ste4k 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

The sources listed for these statements do not state what the statements state. Ste4k 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] failed verification

There is a copyright notice at the bottom of an article which was reprinted by DV which is being used to source the original research previously mentioned (the first statement). Ste4k 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be nonsensical. The list is of people whose work has been "republished". Anyways, I don't have time to deal with your adgenda. Best. --Deodar 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Ste4k 14:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "self-published" source

Besides being used as original research, the Dissidant Voice Archive should not be used as a source of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Ste4k 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The DV archive can be used as a reliable source as to its contents and to what writers DV has published or republished. Again, I repeat that you are being non-sensical. --Deodar 14:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, discuss the article and not your personal opinion of me. There is nothing stated on that page that says that DV either publishes or republishes any of the articles listed. The page is listing articles written by other people and not about the owner of the website. What it states on the page is simply other peoples' articles and their names. There are some articles listed there by the owner of the web-site. But this page as a source is being used to reference the statement about other people. As such, it should not be used according to our guidelines. Ste4k 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my claim that you strongly appear to have something against this website -- I am not familiar enough with you or the website in question. It would be more useful for you to state it outright, and try to find sources to back up your beef rather than approach it in the passive-aggressive and tedious fashion you are currently treating it. I am not a supporter of DV, but you seem to be contesting basic uncontestable facts about the website via false appeals to Wikipedia rules -- which really does indicate there is more going on here than you are letting on. --Deodar 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I did initial treat your edits in good faith but after I sourced the basic statements, at your request, and something you could have done yourself, you continued to question them in new and extremely tenuous ways -- it appears as if it is not a cycle that is going to end. --Deodar 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have challenged the sources you have provided based on WP policy. I have stated clearly each policy and in each case in what regard I understand parts of this article to be failing. I will remind you again to assume good faith, discuss the article and remain civil. Thanks. Ste4k 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on your statements, and on the fact that nowhere in any of the references provided for the challenged statements made in the article, does it mention anything about all of these authors being published and/or re-published on the site, either the statements are unverifiable, or you as the editor placing them are the actual resource stating that they have been published and/or re-published. The magazine is not stating this at all. Using one's own research to provide this fact as an editor is original research. Some of these reprinted sources are actually portions of books that are not cited. If the actual source of the material being referenced were used, then they also would not be mentioning anything about either Dissident Voice, nor any of the other authors reprinted by Dissident Voice. Just because an editor knows something to be true, does not qualify the statement to be placed in an article. Please see our policy on the burden of evidence as well as verifiability being the threshold of inclusion rather than truth. Thanks. Ste4k 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a key question to be answered here: are the works which have been republished written for this website, or reproduced with full permission (e.g. syndicated)? Are the reprinted articles by Chomsky et. al. republished with permission? If these things have been written for the site then they should be included; if they are reproduced with the explicity permission of the authors then they may be appropriate but it should be made clear whether the site is actively collecting this content or whether it is being submitted; if the reproduced works are from copyright materials without the permission of the publishers then they should definitely not be included; if the work is in the public domain then we should say so. Just zis Guy you know? 10:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This article by Lila Rajiva was published in AsianSexGazette with the copy notice "All rights reserved" in two places near the bottom. The original resource attributed to the inclusion of this person into this article was Dissident Voice Archive and this person's name is not listed at that resource. The resource itself was actually added to provide evidence for the claim about the year the subject of the article began publishing articles. This evidence however was original research, and other original research had determined an earlier year. The list of names was added later without any resources at all and seven red-linked names. The {{OR}} tag was removed without discussion except in edit summary stating that the article was now completely sourced. Later during verification of new resources that were added as external links, I removed this person's name from the list since it wasn't found in the archive. A new resource was added to justify inclusion in the statement. The new resource is an article about Iraqi women and doesn't mention DV publishing, nor re-publishing at all. It also hasn't any copyright notice, nor does it state that permission was granted for it's use. Ste4k 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V states that:

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it."

Based on this definition, it is quite reasonable to use the website's archive as its own source in its claim to have republished articles. Thus I have removed the unnecessary tags with regards to unrealiable sources. --Deodar 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it doesActually WP:RS states that, and for each reference you source these need to be answered specifically and individually. Also please not that original research is for a different reason. Please discuss and come to consensus before making changes that are controversial. Please use the {{cite web}} template so that references are listed in the correct section and it is clear then how each citation is authored and published in your opinion. Mixing the styles causes your additions to appear to be external links, and obscures the intention of the source. Thanks. Ste4k 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, WP:VER states:
  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Ste4k 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I quoted above the exception on self-published sources above - please take a wholistic view of WP policies, thanks. --Deodar 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um?

Huh? What is this? Some tiny, non-notable single author (looks like from the article) who has a fringe website? Why is this even on Wikipedia? - MSTCrow 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I made that same paraphrased statement earlier here. Ste4k 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google reference is original research.

Google does not state the statement sourced. It is only a personal observation, and therefore is original research. Ste4k 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the blog posting referenced which mentioned it? --Deodar 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the reference posted, but there was no mention of it. Ste4k 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, this claim better applies to the Alexa ranking. --Deodar 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. The actual words on the reference page cited are: "Reach per million users: 15", rather than 20 so, perhaps that should be corrected along with the accessdate. Ste4k 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Petersen is " is an average dude who enjoys scuba diving" according to DV

According to DV Kim Petersen is " is an average dude who enjoys scuba diving". This by no means shows any notability and therefore does not meet the criteria of an inclusion per WP:RS#6.3.1. Ste4k 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Petersen does not have an entry in Wikipedia -- thus I am not sure why you are concerned about this individuals notability. Can you clarify? --Deodar 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed OR

Bhouston, rather than starting a revert war, is there a reason you are unwilling to discuss each resource here in discussion? Is there a hurry? Two editors have already agreed that these citations are simply OR. Ste4k 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just applied your standards to the rest of the article contents. It's been trimmed to a stub and labelled as such. Best. --Deodar 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDissident_Voice_2181.html"