Talk:Stephen Peter Rosen

Removal of Sourcewatch link

Can you spell out how WP:EL requires removal of the link to Sourcewatch? It's a valuable resource that can often be used to find citations for various factual claims. The articles are mostly critical of course, and not all the material is well enough sourced to meet WP:BLP , but I don't see anything in WP:EL that requires that.JQ 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If the material in it has value, it should be put into Wikipedia, and sourced to the original sources Sourcwatch used. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion "If the material in it has value, it should be put into Wikipedia, and sourced to the original sources Sourcewatch used.", but I would prefer to do this first, then remove the external link. I note that the interpretation of this particular element of WP:EL seems to be pretty controversial, judging by the discussion there.JQ 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, what little material is of value is almost never integrated into the article, and meanwhile the link remains for months or years. Deleting the link both satisfies WP:EL and gives the concerned editor an incentive to start integrating. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a concerned editor. The only reason this was on my watchlist was because I just reverted a bunch of deletions by a sockpuppet account User:142.150.205.36, and was surprised to find some of them being redone. Maybe you're right in general. But in this example, and the other one I looked at, the Sourcewatch article had useful material that wasn't in the Wikipedia article or the remaining external links. I've added it in this case, but I don't plan to spend a lot more time doing this. JQ 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards the criterion "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." the one-para Harvard bio fails this much more clearly than does the Sourcewatch article. Leaving aside the question of whether any external link could pass this test, why did you delete one and not the other? JQ 11:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Peter Rosen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020923154604/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf to http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)