Talk:News and Letters Committees
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I realize this article is very basic and needs work (perhaps my problem) but as a political organization in the US, I fail to see why it merits speedy deletion. I am not familiar with all wikipedia rules but it seems to me equally obscure organizations have pages so I am a little puzzled. I do think it needs work; it's just a start. Should I do it all in sandbox first? I am not a wikipedia expert. Rmalhotr 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mainly what it needs is non-trivial references to independent reliable sources. This is needed to help verify the facts therein and to establish that the group is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article in the first place. --Finngall talk 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am trying my best and hope to improve. Thanks for letting the page stay up. I also agree with the person who changed the reference to Hobgoblin as that is more detailed and also is NPOV as we would need a source to prove "moribund".Rmalhotr 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 04:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the technical skills to figure out how to change the Hobgoblin link. Obviously we need a page about the Hobgoblin journal in Britain eventually (I don't think even News and Letters Newspaper has a page yet) but right now, it's wrongly directing people to the mythical concept of hobgoblin. Does someone know how to create a page that will distinguish? I don't know how to do this.Rmalhotr 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just made many additions and some changes, partly explained in the edit summary. Some of the changes to existing material were made in order to make the piece more precise: for instance, I think support for "women's liberation" is somewhat more precise in this case than "pro-feminist," and opposition to heterosexism is somewhat more precise than the notion that the group supports "equality." The prior formulations didn't, IMO, adequately convey the non-reformist nature of the organization's positions. I'll be happy to discuss this and other things, though, if there's disagreement. andrew-the-k 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed an internal link to publication "News & Letters" as it just redirected back to this page. There is no point of a link to itself. (8 May 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Crisis in 'News & letters'
That is a link to a derogatory, defamatory, inaccurate statement about News and Letters Committees. It contains no information about the group that is meaningful but it does contain some 30 lies about it. See guideline WP:LINKSTOAVOID, esp. this under "Links normally to be avoided":
- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
No, I disagree on both counts. What I said is true, not "subjective." You propose to add something to the article when you do not know what the facts are and you have no reliable source. All organizations have "internal conflicts," but the source you give does not explain in any meaningful, honest way what this conflict is. Franklin Dmitryev (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what you were suggesting? I thought you had a good point. The LCC and/or Hobgoblin should have their own article(s), and a link to the Hobgoblin site would be appropriate there. (It is already linked from the Marxist Humanism article.) But it seems rather clear from the "External links" guideline cited above that the link does not belong here. Specifically, the guideline says:
"Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable....Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum."
And the Hobgoblin site meets these two criteria for "links to avoid" according to the guideline:
- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
- Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.
Why nothing on the split?
Just wondering why there isn't a section on the split in the organisation. I know of several, even more minor, organisations that have split in the past couple of years and yet both sides got a seperate page, let alone a section explaining what happened. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)