67:
49:
786:“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
503:) and I was curious about it. As a user of Knowledge I find short articles about things that may only require short articles, with maybe a couple of links, often very helpful. Donna Edwards was co-founder of this organization and has just won the Democratic primary to run to be a Representative in the U.S. Congress. I have no connection to either her, or NNEDV but think both are notable enough to be included in Knowledge.--
137:
418:
796:
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.--
22:
704:
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.
684:
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. --
565:
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
Knowledge. I hope one day to be part of the group welcoming the world to edit by giving out "warnings." That's my big dream. --
750:
problem in life, not just in
Knowledge, 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.
727:
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?
821:
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,
730:
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
Knowledge, expertise requires precise and accurate communication, not back knowledge of hidden meanings. What else on Knowledge means something else rather than
851:
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
749:
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
683:
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
612:
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
548:
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
587:
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
564:
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
Knowledge's policy on notability and have
795:
Despite what the Knowledge “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
771:
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 Knowledge, this tag is a distraction and might lead some to dismiss the information as unimportant or unreliable. Are you
726:
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
703:
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
817:
An organization with 2,000 member organizations, etc. should have had significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Remember in Knowledge, the standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". It may be true that it is a very noteworthy organization, but is that
436:
661:
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 Knowledge. In fact, just delete it.
822:
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.
526:: 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.
722:
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
772:
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
82:
aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Knowledge. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
210:
313:
926:
160:
108:
542:
390:
235:
185:
941:
476:
354:
613:
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. --
114:
482:
931:
946:
921:
156:
936:
452:
529:
To oversimplify, Knowledge judges the importance of a subject by the number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines. So the way to
203:
84:
74:
54:
588:
from NNEDV itself. The Notability guideline "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including ... press releases."
732:
663:
614:
566:
443:
423:
228:
299:
217:
898:
I have removed the tag. Sorry, but this discussion is absurd. Notability has clearly been established. Come on, folks, get real!
264:
707:
I am restoring the notability tag. If you want other editors to help improve this article, please leave the tag in place.
340:
306:
149:
29:
825:
Again, I am NOT disputing that NNEDV is notable. I am merely citing WP policies and guidelines that notability must be
192:
281:
884:
857:
801:
689:
508:
295:
178:
499:
I am a frequent reader of Knowledge and created this page because the NNEDV was mentioned in another article (
736:
667:
618:
570:
372:
907:
888:
861:
838:
805:
759:
740:
716:
693:
671:
644:
622:
597:
574:
558:
512:
549:
deleted. But that is not likely to be soon. In the meantime, the more references you can add, the better.
635:"Warning" may not be the best word. It is more to request and encourage editors to go find good sources.
347:
79:
35:
523:
253:
880:
853:
797:
685:
504:
326:
320:
451:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
834:
755:
712:
640:
593:
554:
522:
In Knowledge, "notability" has a specific meaning, more than the ordinary usage of the word. Per
903:
242:
167:
291:
275:
361:
814:
I have experimentally changed the wording of the message box. Let me know what you think.
879:
I have added some external links some of which could be used as ref. in further text.--
333:
136:
915:
830:
751:
708:
636:
589:
550:
534:
448:
286:
66:
48:
899:
538:
826:
530:
435:
417:
378:
731:
what it says? How can I know? I can't. I've lost my interest. --
500:
15:
788:
arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias
447:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
790:
favoring larger organizations.” (emphasis is added)
28:This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge's
543:Knowledge:Notability (organizations_and_companies)
481:This article has not yet received a rating on the
113:This article has not yet received a rating on the
314:Knowledge requested photographs of gender studies
782:From the Knowledge Guidelines for Notability:
8:
927:Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
412:
161:Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
144:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
122:
43:
21:
19:
391:Gender studies articles needing attention
236:Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
942:Unknown-importance organization articles
414:
45:
501:http://en.wikipedia.org/Donna_Edwards
7:
441:This article is within the scope of
93:Knowledge:WikiProject Gender studies
932:WikiProject Gender studies articles
829:by references to reliable sources.
461:Knowledge:WikiProject Organizations
96:Template:WikiProject Gender studies
34:It is of interest to the following
947:WikiProject Organizations articles
922:Unassessed Gender studies articles
464:Template:WikiProject Organizations
157:Unassessed Gender studies articles
14:
541:. I also recommend that you read
300:Women's education in Saudi Arabia
937:Unassessed organization articles
434:
416:
135:
65:
47:
20:
852:above. I added some emphasis.--
1:
889:13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
862:12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
839:12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
806:11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
760:00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
741:22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
717:14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
694:10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
672:06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
645:01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
623:01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
598:01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
575:00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
559:00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
513:22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
455:and see a list of open tasks.
776:in 50 states is not notable?
963:
483:project's importance scale
115:project's importance scale
75:WikiProject Gender studies
908:20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
533:notability is to provide
480:
444:WikiProject Organizations
429:
282:Brannon Masculinity Scale
121:
112:
60:
42:
875:Links to be used in text
296:Michael Kaufman (author)
72:This article is part of
99:Gender studies articles
467:organization articles
211:/Sexuality and gender
87:for more information.
774:member organizations
341:Gender studies stubs
699:The reason for tags
327:History of feminism
30:content assessment
497:
496:
493:
492:
489:
488:
411:
410:
407:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
954:
539:reliable sources
469:
468:
465:
462:
459:
438:
431:
430:
420:
413:
292:Media and gender
204:Deletion sorting
139:
132:
131:
123:
101:
100:
97:
94:
91:
69:
62:
61:
51:
44:
25:
24:
23:
16:
962:
961:
957:
956:
955:
953:
952:
951:
912:
911:
896:
877:
701:
520:
466:
463:
460:
457:
456:
395:
385:Needs attention
98:
95:
92:
89:
88:
12:
11:
5:
960:
958:
950:
949:
944:
939:
934:
929:
924:
914:
913:
895:
894:Removal of tag
892:
881:Another-sailor
876:
873:
871:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
854:Another-sailor
844:
843:
842:
841:
823:
819:
815:
809:
808:
798:Another-sailor
792:
791:
784:
778:
777:
767:
765:
764:
763:
762:
744:
743:
728:
724:
700:
697:
686:Another-sailor
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
628:
627:
626:
625:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
578:
577:
519:
516:
505:Another-sailor
495:
494:
491:
490:
487:
486:
479:
473:
472:
470:
453:the discussion
439:
427:
426:
421:
409:
408:
405:
404:
401:
400:
397:
396:
394:
393:
381:
368:
357:
343:
329:
316:
302:
271:
260:
249:
238:
224:
213:
199:
188:
186:/Collaboration
174:
163:
143:
141:
140:
128:
127:
119:
118:
111:
105:
104:
102:
90:Gender studies
70:
58:
57:
55:Gender studies
52:
40:
39:
33:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
959:
948:
945:
943:
940:
938:
935:
933:
930:
928:
925:
923:
920:
919:
917:
910:
909:
905:
901:
893:
891:
890:
886:
882:
874:
872:
863:
859:
855:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
789:
785:
783:
780:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
761:
757:
753:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
733:69.225.10.208
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
705:
698:
696:
695:
691:
687:
673:
669:
665:
664:69.225.10.208
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
624:
620:
616:
615:69.225.10.208
611:
610:
609:
608:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:69.225.10.208
563:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
546:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
525:
524:WP:notability
517:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
484:
478:
475:
474:
471:
458:Organizations
454:
450:
449:Organizations
446:
445:
440:
437:
433:
432:
428:
425:
424:Organizations
422:
419:
415:
392:
388:
386:
382:
380:
377:
375:
374:
369:
366:
364:
363:
358:
356:
352:
350:
349:
344:
342:
338:
336:
335:
330:
328:
325:
323:
322:
317:
315:
311:
309:
308:
303:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:Holy Virility
283:
280:
278:
277:
272:
269:
267:
266:
261:
258:
256:
255:
250:
247:
245:
244:
239:
237:
233:
231:
230:
225:
222:
220:
219:
214:
212:
208:
206:
205:
200:
197:
195:
194:
189:
187:
183:
181:
180:
175:
172:
170:
169:
164:
162:
158:
154:
152:
151:
146:
145:
142:
138:
134:
133:
130:
129:
125:
124:
120:
116:
110:
107:
106:
103:
86:
81:
77:
76:
71:
68:
64:
63:
59:
56:
53:
50:
46:
41:
37:
31:
27:
18:
17:
897:
878:
870:
787:
781:
773:
766:
706:
702:
682:
547:
528:
521:
498:
442:
384:
383:
371:
370:
360:
359:
355:/translation
346:
345:
332:
331:
319:
318:
305:
304:
285:
274:
273:
263:
262:
252:
251:
241:
240:
227:
226:
216:
215:
202:
201:
191:
190:
177:
176:
166:
165:
148:
147:
85:project page
73:
36:WikiProjects
818:verifiable?
367:edit to see
270:edit to see
259:edit to see
248:edit to see
223:edit to see
198:edit to see
179:Collaborate
173:edit to see
126:To-do list:
80:WikiProject
916:Categories
535:references
518:Notability
379:Riot grrrl
254:Notability
348:Translate
831:Sbowers3
827:verified
752:Sbowers3
723:deleted.
709:Sbowers3
637:Sbowers3
590:Sbowers3
551:Sbowers3
193:Copyedit
78:. This
900:Cleo123
276:Orphans
229:Infobox
168:Cleanup
531:verify
373:Verify
362:Update
218:Expand
150:Assess
32:scale.
334:Stubs
321:Split
307:Photo
243:Merge
904:talk
885:talk
858:talk
835:talk
802:talk
756:talk
737:talk
713:talk
690:talk
668:talk
641:talk
619:talk
594:talk
571:talk
555:talk
509:talk
389:see
353:see
339:see
312:see
265:NPOV
234:see
209:see
184:see
159:and
155:see
537:to
477:???
109:???
918::
906:)
887:)
860:)
837:)
804:)
758:)
739:)
715:)
692:)
670:)
662:--
643:)
621:)
596:)
573:)
557:)
545:.
511:)
298:·
294:·
290:·
284:·
902:(
883:(
856:(
833:(
800:(
754:(
735:(
711:(
688:(
666:(
639:(
617:(
592:(
569:(
553:(
507:(
485:.
387::
376::
365::
351::
337::
324::
310::
279::
268::
257::
246::
232::
221::
207::
196::
182::
171::
153::
117:.
38::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
