Talk:Sara Roy

message: The article has lots of sources, why was it tagged?
:Because blogs are not WP:RS and there is no evidence that Roy has been the subject of "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject" — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: The section begins asserting "Roy drew public attention(...)", however, the only source to back this claim is now a dead link (http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp.). This brings to question the notability of the event described in this section, and whether it should included in the encyclopedic article. This is especially salient since controversies should be especially well sourced to justify their inclusion. (talk) user:Al83tito  01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section: notability and sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sara Roy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051125215107/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/19860601fabook10977/meron-benvenisti/conflicts-and-contradictions.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19860601fabook10977/meron-benvenisti/conflicts-and-contradictions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sara Roy. 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/20120213113623/http://www.palestine-studies.org/print.aspx?id=9678&jid=1&href=fulltext to http://www.palestine-studies.org/print.aspx?id=9678&jid=1&href=fulltext
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614010359/http://palestine-studies.org/print.aspx?id=4672&jid=1&href=fulltext to http://palestine-studies.org/print.aspx?id=4672&jid=1&href=fulltext
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606191142/http://palestine-studies.org:80/journals.aspx?id=6525&jid=1&href=fulltext to http://palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=6525&jid=1&href=fulltext
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513132239/http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/1069.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/1069.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this being removed? WP:ABOUTSELF applies to what Roy writes about herself. nableezy - 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Incomprehensible, even policy-wise. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally doesn't apply in an edited published magazine, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally does apply, as has been explained to you repeatedly despite your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Kindly stop removing basic biographical details sourced to the subject. Thank you. nableezy - 16:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Fixed Chelmno source, added another for Auschwitz. nableezy - 19:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better. But why do we need CP (currently footnote 6) when we have two strong sources for this fact? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think Roy in CP is not a strong source for Roy's family history. nableezy - 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

text: If a distinguished scholar hasn't any of the obsessively distorted perceptions of CP evinced by an infinitesimally small number of wikipedians (how many of the 33 voting (sockpuppets included) rank among the 5,000 of 36,000,000 who have over 20,000 edits, meaning sustained commitment and competence), many with a low edit record, who deprecated CP, and she publishes on herself there, it's more than acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the the CP open letter that isn't in the academic journal article? Even if CP wasn't deprecated, surely it's always going to be better to use an autobiographical piece in a scholarly journal than an open letter in an opinion newsletter? The community's consensus, as it now stands, was to deprecate CP, whether editors here agree with that or not; while there may be exceptional reasons to use it, this isn't one, because we have solid sources to use instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking of her letter to Biden? Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "On Equating BDS With Anti-Semitism: a Letter to the Members of the German Government", currently footnote 6. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Deprecated does not mean cannot be cited, and ABOUTSELF links are reliable sources, full stop. nableezy - 15:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that close of the RFC is going to be challenged, given the large amount of socking and ineligible accounts involved. Regardless though, Roy is a reliable source for herself per WP:ABOUTSELF and it does not matter where her own work is published for that. nableezy - 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  parents as Holocaust survivors