User talk:RS101

Welcome!

Hello, RS101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator. Nevertheless, my opinion doesn't carry any more weight than anybody else's. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason or "point of view" that caused you (follow up after another user by name "nableezy") and removed the following?

--

The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel. ^[1]

It's widely cited in books,^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]} even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book, highly critical of Israel, have quoted IsraelNationalNews.com.^[12]

Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, The Guardian, ^[13] The Washington Post,^[14] The Washington Times^[15][16][17] The Huffington Post, ^[18] and Foxnews.

^[19][20][21]

RS101 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary and on the article's Talk page, I reverted because it's original research. In order to write about how widely quoted Arutz 7 is, you need to cite secondary sources. Instead, you've cited ten books that quote Arutz 7, which are primary sources.

Who decides that ten books makes Arutz 7 "widely cited in books"? Why ten and not 25 or 250? That's why we rely on secondary sources, so we can attribute the opinion. "According to XXX, Arutz Sheva is highly regarded and widely cited."

I hope that makes sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said "highly regarded." Can you point to me that text? This sounds like the argument that previous user (N.) before you - made, exaggerating my words in order to discredit it? The only argument you might have is to alter the word "widely" into "many times" or the like. I hope you checked the text before following the other user's argumnent. I hope that clarifies things.RS101 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to discredit your argument. What we write in the article is based on what the sources say, and I was giving that as an example. If they say Arutz 7 is "highly regarded", that would be included. If not, we wouldn't write that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again, who said "highly regarded."???RS101 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RS101 and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your efforts to improve the Racism in the Palestinian territories article.

Some tips:

• In this edit you inserted the text

"From the Wall Street Journal: "Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main "root causes." It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel's creation.""

The problem here is that the text is an editorial, as it is written by an editorial writer : "Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.". According to policy, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed". Try this instead:

"In the view of the Wall Street Journal editorial writer Daniel Schwammenthal, "Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main "root causes." It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel's creation.""

• In this edit you inserted the text

"Since the Mufti forbade Muslims accused of selling land to Jews from being buried in a Muslim cemetery, al-Hawa was laid to rest in a makeshift cemetery on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho."

The source, Myths & Facts Online, credited to Mitchell G. Bard, is not reliable as it is a self-published source attributed to a non-expert (Bard is not a historian). The relevant part of the policy document says:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Please try to find a better source. Alternatively, you could explicitly attribute the text to Bard, like this:

"According to Mitchell G. Bard, Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, "Since the Mufti forbade Muslims accused of selling land to Jews from being buried in a Muslim cemetery, al-Hawa was laid to rest in a makeshift cemetery on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho."

I wish you a good time editing Wikipedia. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy! If you are trying to discredit JVL then How much crediblity -- do you think-- your POV holds? Now let's see what RS say, Shall we?

What does the PBS say?

The Jewish Americans . Resources | PBS A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the Jewish Virtual Library is a comprehensive online Jewish encyclopedia, covering everything... ^[1]

More from PBS relying on information from JVL. [2]

You might also want to say that the CNN, BBC, CBS news, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Foxnews, are all not RS since they rely on JVL... In other words none is in your POV.

From wiki:

The Jewish Virtual Library has been cited by CNN,^[2] New York Times,^[3] BBC,^[4] CBS News,^[5] Fox News,^[6][7] The Los Angeles Times,^[8] USA Today,^[9] Business Week,^[10][11] and Bloomberg,[3] among others. It is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University,^[12] Michigan State University,^[13] University of Washington,^[14] King's College, London,^[15] and the University of Delaware.^[16]

JVL received awards from Britannica Internet Guide Selection, USA Today Hot Site, and the Best of the Jewish Web from the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Academic Excellence Award from Study Web and others.^[17]

JVL is mainstream not at all 'right wing.' Incidently, Is there any right wing Israeli news source that in your "pov" is RS? Can you cite one for me.

Good luck on wikipedia and welcome. but please refrain from dictating your own POV on wikipedia.RS101 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]