Talk:National Network to End Domestic Violence

Notability

In Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, more than the ordinary usage of the word. Per WP:notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability requires objective evidence, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.

To oversimplify, Wikipedia judges the importance of a subject by the number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines. So the way to verify notability is to provide references to reliable sources. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies).

But don't worry about the Notability message on the article. At this stage it is just a warning. There is nothing underway that would lead to the article being deleted. There may come a point when, if the article does not have references to demonstrate notability, an editor will recommend that it be deleted. But that is not likely to be soon. In the meantime, the more references you can add, the better. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself "warned" then. Please post a link to an article that shows how to judge notability by providing the number of mentions of the subject in a newspaper or magazine or a link to the policy that says that Fox News is not notable. I have read Wikipedia's policy on notability and have not noticed anywhere a count of the "number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines" in an article or that Fox News is not considered a reliable source. I do consider myself "warned" of everything every time I am on Wikipedia. I hope one day to be part of the group welcoming the world to edit by giving out "warnings." That's my big dream. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I did try a warning, but it was not near as much fun as noticing on a user's page what nice work they had done. I realize this is not the Wiki way, so maybe I won't be editing here. I will give "warnings" another try though, as they seem to be important. I'm not worried about the article being deleted. I am concerned about how little information there was and how poorly written it was. I assume the other writers were appropriately warned away, though. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Warning" may not be the best word. It is more to request and encourage editors to go find good sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find them yourself, I'm feeling threatened that the article may be "considered for redirection, merging or ultimately deletion," and still warned by the tag and my failure to do well contributing to Wikipedia. In fact, just delete it. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say "to oversimplify". What the guideline says is: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." FOX News is a reliable source but in this case it was repeating a press release from NNEDV itself. The Notability guideline "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including ... press releases." Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous person who made the above comments and did not remove the “notability” tag. I had read the guidelines but appreciate your explanation Sbowers3. The anonymous user’s comments are argumentative to the point where I wonder if it wasn’t just an attempt to stir up trouble, but I do wonder if insisting that all articles be confined to things being discussed in “secondary sources” should be applied in the same way to short articles as it is to long ones. They are after all “guidelines”. Maybe there should be an article on "Advocate Groups for Violence against Women", and NNEDV could be a couple of paragraphs. Until then I think it is a useful page. --Another-sailor (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for tags

I said above that the notability tag was a warning, then said it was more to request and encourage editors to find references. There is more to it. A tag, in this case a notability tag, is a broadcast for assistance. The tag puts the article in the category of "Articles with topics of unclear notability". There are editors who go around improving articles. They look in a category to find articles to work on. Some people like to "wikify" articles. Others like to improve the writing style. Some find references for articles. Editors go to a category and pick an article to improve. Putting a tag on an article makes it more likely that someone will improve the article.

I am restoring the notability tag. If you want other editors to help improve this article, please leave the tag in place. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the tag says, so sorry for thinking it means what it says, but I can't know that it categorizes it as a broadcast for assistance when what it says is, in essence, that it's a threat that the article can and will be deleted.

It's very difficult to communicate with you when you put up a tag for one reason (what you state here), but the tag clearly states something else, something you didn't state when putting up the tag, and something that isn't said on the tag. In fact, your edit summary seems more in line with the closing warning on the tag that deletion is imminent. In fact, why not just have a tag that says, "this article has been categorized as in need of more sources so other editors interested in sourcing articles can find this one and do so?" Why not just have a category to this effect without the threat of deletion tag?

Argumentative? Annoyed as all get out to be communicated with in a secretive manner that I'm not privy to. This is why experts don't edit Wikipedia, expertise requires precise and accurate communication, not back knowledge of hidden meanings. What else on Wikipedia means something else rather than what it says? How can I know? I can't. I've lost my interest. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made a valid point that the wording of the tag does not communicate a relevant fact - that it puts the article in a useful category. I didn't write the message box itself; I merely used its name knowing what it meant, but not even thinking about what the resultant wording said. It is a common problem in life, not just in Wikipedia, that writers take for granted that their readers understand some important fact that all the other writers and experienced readers understand, not realizing that many others in their audience don't understand what is not stated. Your comment may lead to a widespread rewriting of many similar message boxes. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I’ve been looking around at other articles with flags and think there must be a better way to call attention to this one. Looking at this from the point of view of a reader of Wikipedia, this tag is a distraction and might lead some to dismiss the information as unimportant or unreliable. Are you saying that you think an organization that has been called to testify before congress, has been evaluated by the U.S. Better Business Bureau (not just a local branch), raises over two million dollars a year and has 2,000 member organizations in 50 states is not notable?

From the Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability:

“Notable means ‘worthy of being noted’ or ‘attracting notice.’ It is not synonymous with ‘fame’ or ‘importance.’ Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, …science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.” (emphasis is added)

Despite what the Wikipedia “Notability Guidelines” say, once a press release, other publication or document is re-published by a significant third party, it does in many cases, become a secondary source. If the NNEDV can get Fox News to publish their press release, that shows notability just like when someone has their speech quoted in the N.Y. Times. If it were just a self-congratulatory statement about what the organization is doing, that might be different, but this is a comment intended to point out the error of the President’s position and influence national policy. When a news organization publishes it, it is like reporting what the President said in his news conference.--Another-sailor (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have experimentally changed the wording of the message box. Let me know what you think.

An organization with 2,000 member organizations, etc. should have had significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Remember in Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". It may be true that it is a very noteworthy organization, but is that verifiable?

Testifying before Congress means only that some congressman liked the words the group published, thought their name gave them extra stature, and used them to make a point. The press release in FOX similarly means little. There are individuals who give themselves a grandiose label, print a letterhead, and fax something to a thousand newspapers, and get something published. It does happen. And no, I am NOT saying that NNEDV is like that; I am merely saying that a reprinted press release does not verify that the author of the release is notable.

Again, I am NOT disputing that NNEDV is notable. I am merely citing WP policies and guidelines that notability must be verified by references to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of references in publications should not be over emphasized. NNEDV involvement in a national debate in Congress and influencing legislation is enough to show Notability. When they have member organizations in all 50 states (and DC) that would be enough in itself. Please re-read my comment above. I added some emphasis.--Another-sailor (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to be used in text

I have added some external links some of which could be used as ref. in further text.--Another-sailor (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tag

I have removed the tag. Sorry, but this discussion is absurd. Notability has clearly been established. Come on, folks, get real! Cleo123 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)