Talk:Jennifer Roback Morse

message: An editor removed a long-standing notability tag, which I have now restored. At this point, the article is sourced solely to sources close to the subject; these are not the sort that we consider to establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Morse. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability concern 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jennifer Morse. 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/20090917070318/http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/aboutRuth.html to http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/aboutRuth.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430000156/http://loveandfidelity.org/default.aspx?ID=11 to http://loveandfidelity.org/default.aspx?ID=11
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) 03:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Your recent well-intentioned addition has some problems with regards to the sourcing of the statement. This designation has been questioned by various sources, including the Ruth Institute uses the following sources:
#The Catholic News Agency source doesn't actually get around to questioning the descriptor (except for labeling the groups "mainstream", which is not actually in contrast to "hate".) It may read as a condemnation to CNA's audience, but that has more to do with the assumptions that the CNA readership is likely to come in with.
#In the Eurasia Review piece, the only person cited as addressing specifically the accusations against the Institute is Morse herself, so that shouldn't just be under various sources.
#In this piece from World, the primary questioning is specifically cited to a Megan McArdle piece from Bloomberg View. We might do better to find that piece and see what it actually says, as World (magazine) has a strong slant to it, before describing McArdle as actually questioning it, rather than perhaps noting a nitpick.
#The flip tone of the Ruth Institute's own piece makes it difficult to brand it simply as questioning the label. They question the SPLC, but they specifically say that they are honored by the label.
None of this is to suggest that we should not include any specific defense of the Institute or the view of the Institute itself. Toward that end, I am replacing this for the nonce with a quote from Morse, taken from the Eurasia Review piece (a third party source using a quote gives more indication of import than quoting a first party source like the Institute's own website.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC questioned 

message: The descriptor of the Ruth Institute in the lead had no sources and resembled their self descriptors. Self descriptors are poor sources; they tend to be how the person or group wishes to be viewed, rather than what they are. I have switched it to a sourced, if possibly dated, descriptor. The claim of being a "global interfaith" group seemed rather at odds with what they appear to be; their about page lists two main folks (up from the previous one), both of whom are American Catholics. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Ruth Institute is