Talk:Jewish Virtual Library

Judaism Start‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 May 2006. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

Reliable source?

I don't think that JVL conforms to the WP:RS guidelines. Many of their entries cite Wikipedia as a source. This should cast serious doubt about the other entries that list other sources. Cf. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Notmyrealname 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notmyrealname: It's not uncommon for resources to cite each other especially on the web where there is a lot of overlap of information. JVL has been used as a resource in many Wiki discussions and articles over the years. Anti-Israel advocates don't like it because it is a pro-Israel site. IZAK (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete true wiki notices or templates. Do the work of providing WP:RS references, including ones that show why article is notable enough to be on wikipedia. From this article, for all we know it's an antisemitic front group. We can't take anonymous people's word for it that it is what it says it is. Many articles like this have been deleted in the past. Carol Moore 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The fact that many Wikipedia articles cite this site does not make it any more or less of a reliable source. Any site that uses Wikipedia articles as their primary source (as shown by the examples I listed above) should be viewed with extreme suspicion (in terms of its reliability). There is no indication of any editorial oversight or fact-checking. Notmyrealname (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I feel obliged to say that JVL is VERY partisan, and therefore not suitable as a source for Wikipedia at all. The particular example I discovered is their article about the King David Hotel Bombing (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html) - an area in which I have expertise. The article states as an outright fact that the famous "We don't take orders from the Jews." statement was actually said. In fact, this is strongly denied by most of the British people there. A reliable source would make it very clear that the claim is disputed. Also, the significance of the hearsay evidence given to Parliament in 1979 that a warning of the attack was given is conspicuously exaggerated. If the quality of this article is representative of the whole of the JVL, then it would certainly be accurate to label it as a partisan source. New Thought (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JewishVirtualLibrary.org fails WP:RS

This website fail WP:RS, there fore it not to be use in any article as source. --Ani medjool (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to make that decision. Breein1007 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]