Talk:Una Voce

Redirect and sourcing

You have deleted the pages Una Voce and Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, setting a redirect, apparently, due to thinking that Una Voce (FIUV) is not notable enough. However, FIUV is currently the largest lay association of Catholics who support the traditional liturgy, with member organizations in about 30 countries worldwide, and Una Voce America (a FIUV member) is present in dozens if not hundreds of places in the US. FIUV leaders have been received in the Vatican more than once. And the first two FIUV presidents, Eric de Saventhem and Michael Davies, are well-known enough, and there are Wikipedia articles about them. There also is a half-dozen of interwiki links from that page. So Una Voce is notable. If the decision to remove this article has been arbitrary, please reconsider; if, however, there has been some voting or 'official' Wikipedia decision, please inform me, and I shall act according to the usual procedures in that case. Thank you in advance. Hithlin (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So - several dozens of web sites that belong to different national oranizations that form the Una Voce Federation are not good enough because they are not 'third-party'? Hithlin (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By "several dozens of web sites" you appear to mean three. Has no third party reliable source published an account of this mysterious international organisation no-one else seems to have noticed? . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. If you use Google and simply type "Una Voce", you will find - dozens of links. If they are not all mentioned in the original article, that does not mean that they do not exist. And how about this:

List of potential sources

http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/unavoce.html (Not independent)

http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=460977 (Not RS)

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/061116 (Not RS)

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=114&CFID=14353545&CFTOKEN=49176568

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/05/prweb381421.htm (Not independent)

http://www.cathud.com/LINKS/pages_GL/liturgy_&_music.htm (Not RS)

http://www.answers.com/topic/una-voce (Not RS)

http://catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=2853 (Not independent)

http://news.bigg.net/n18991-Dunnigan_Named_Chairman_of_Una_Voce_America.html (Not independent)

http://qien.free.fr/2009/200901/20090124_unavoce.statement.htm (Not independent)

http://www.juventutem.org/pages/en/events/2007.php (Not independent)

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/appendix.htm (Not independent)

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/11/emw480285.htm (Not independent)

http://religion.lohudblogs.com/2007/02/23/may-the-latin-mass-return/ (Not RS -- reader comments)

http://www.saintaustin.org/autoframeset.html?fortesc.html (quote not about Una Voce)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2325089/Una-Voce-Press-Release-18MAR2008 (Not independent)

http://catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=214 (Not independent)

http://www.oriensjournal.com/15devotion.htm (Not independent)

http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=334&loc=US (Not independent)

http://www.est.is/~kvam/choirlink/rel.htm (Bare mention)

http://www.constantinianorder.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&Itemid=82 (Bare mention)

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2007/01/british-declaration-in-support-of.html (Bare mention & most probably not independent)

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/donanobispacem/go/comments/view?num=10&pg=5 (Not RS -- reader comments)

http://www.saint-gregory.org/recordings-publications/?product_id=15 (Bare mention & most probably not independent)

http://users.pipeline.com.au/~rossj/defence_6.html (Not independent)

http://mag.christis.org.uk/issues/81/the_right_liturgy.html

http://www.musicasacra.com/2005/11/una-voce-in-hungary.html (Not RS)

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/08/01/news/religion/doc4893de2a108a7525688016.txt (Announcement)

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/08/world/fg-latin8 (quote not about Una Voce)

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2005/10/02/interview.html (quote not about Una Voce)

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_516111.html (quote not about Una Voce)

http://www.schuyesmans.be/gregoriaans/EN/ENnet.htm (Bare mention)

http://www.musicalolympus.ru/eng/fund/express_full.shtml?id=31 (Irrelevant use of the phrase)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WHITHER.htm (Bare mention)

http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/04/ (Bare mention)

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0870003968 (Not RS)

http://torontoseeker.com/torontomass.htm (Bare mention)

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/nov2000p4_89.html (Not independent)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithlin (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of these sources aren't RS. The issue is finding sources that are:

1. Reliable, per WP:RS (note that blogs, etc are rarely RS, reader comments on blogs/news stories/amazon listings,/etc never are)
2. Third party (i.e. not Una Voce or associated groups)
3. That collectively amount to "significant coverage" (bare mentions, quotes from UV officeholders on other matters, etc, don't count)

It's possible that there are sources in there that amount to that, but there's a great deal of unreliable fluff in there (I've striken the ones that are obvious just from looking at the URLs). I'd suggest you start with mainstream news sources & see how much you can put together with them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and made a more thorough striking of material that does not meet the criteria. I don't think the remaining hits amounts to "significant coverage". I would also note that you do not appear to have made any attempt yourself to winnow out unreliable material, trivial bare-mentions, or in one case an unrelated use of the phrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Not independent" = sources that have something to do with traditional Catholicism, right? (Because you have stroke out www.ad2000.com.au which is not Una Voce, and even dici.org which, in fact, 'is' a mainstream news source. Your actions cannot be motivated with the good of Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. Hithlin (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTE#cite note-4: "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large." "The world at large" is not equivalent to 'the world of Traditional Catholicism', so notice from outside the latter is needed. The dici.org piece was "the most important extracts" from "the president of the Federation Una Voce International"'s "account of his visit" -- not in the least bit independent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For confirmation that proponents of a viewpoint are not considered to be "independent sources", see WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, an article about Darwinism should not be based on sources that belong to biologists and evolution experts because the world at large is not equivalent to the world of science, right? Hithlin (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on Darwinism should, and as far as I know does, rely on experts on the history of science, rather than being purely based upon the writings of Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, and the like. Likewise, an article on 'Una Voce' would ideally be based upon the work of academics in the area of religious studies, not purely on the writings of its members and fellow-travellers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to request arbitration for this matter. You will be informed as soon as I file the actual request with the Arbitration Committee. Hithlin (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here. Hithlin (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are enough reliably sourced mentions of and descriptions of Una Voce in the mainstream media and in books to establish notability for an article: Boston Globe, USA today; The Gazette; Seattle Times; [The Times], and many others, as a google news search will show. [1] There are also references in this book [2] and this one [3] [4][5](and there are more too but this is surely sufficient.) --Slp1 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are mentions, but generally only brief & in passing. I don't think that, by any stretch, this could be considered "significant coverage" (as required by WP:NOTE & WP:V). String their (generally repetitive) contents together and what do they say about the topic? Not much more than a single sentence on Una Voce, I suspect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I disagree; some of the articles have significant chunks about the movement, their goals, organization etc. Including this one [6] from the Buffalo News, hosted on the una voce website, but a faithful copy of the original. In any case, multiple mentions (my very narrow search gives 70+ on googlenews search, and there are more available on Lexis Nexis and Factiva), even if they are shortish, in multiple mainstream books and newspapers establish notability in my view. --Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> It rather depends on what you mean by "the movement". 'Una Voce' (the topic of this article), or Traditional Catholicism more generally. The Buffalo News article is the first RS presented here that gives Una Voce more than passing-mention-whilst-discussing-the-wider-movement. Stop counting hits -- they are utterly meaningless! It is the amount that RSes have to say about a topic that forms the potential basis for a meaningful article, NOT the number of sources that merely mention it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm afraid, and to be honest am somewhat disconcerted by the tone used towards an independent editor, who is simply trying to help here. But not to worry. WP:CORP says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." We have multiple independent sources from highly regarded national and international newspapers. We have multiple references to the movement and its history in books, including those published by academic publishers. While some of the mentions may be short, many are not, and the leaders of the group are frequently quoted in articles as representing a particular view of Catholicism. It's likely unfortunate that many of the articles about the organization are only available in full via Lexis-Nexis or Factiva, which I have access to, but you may not. In any case, it is my good faith opinion that these references are sufficient to establish notability, and it is probably still your good faith opinion that they do not. That's fine. It's perfectly alright for us to disagree, and I certainly appreciate that given the numerous unreliable sources in the list of references offered (in good faith) by Hithlin, it was a reasonable decision in keeping with WP:BOLD, to make the redirects. After all, the articles had been tagged for sourcing for a while.

I have a suggestion to make to move us forward. How about I rewrite the articles so that they are fully cited to reliable sources? If you look at my contributions, you will see that I am not bad at this sort of thing, and hopefully others can help out too. If after a week or so you still have doubts about the notability of the group then you can nominate the articles for deletion, suggesting redirection, and we can get some community involvement in the decision about the notability issue. That seems to me to be the best way forward given that we seem to interpret the notability guidelines somewhat differently. How does that sound? --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." -- the vast majority of sources posted here have been "trivial or incidental coverage".
2. We do not have presented on this talkpage "multiple references to the movement and its history in books, including those published by academic publishers." We have a mass of unsubstantiated assertion, and only one decent source to date -- the Buffalo News article.
3. I would point out that the redirect was made before Hithlin's long list of sources, and that at the time that I redirected the article was wholly unsourced.
4. Hithlin may have presented his list in good faith, but he did so in very poor judgement -- and should expect a degree of irritation for having forced me to trawl through a large number of very poor quality sources.
5. I have not stated that I would object to a recreation of this article based upon significant coverage in reliable third party sources -- I have merely commented on the relative dearth of such sources presented to date -- as prior to your offer there was nothing else on the table.

I'm not omniscient. I can therefore only comment on the sources that I've seen. The sources that I saw when I redirected the article were none whatsoever. The sources that I saw from Hithlin were not even close to significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If better quality sources exist and are brought to light (like the Buffalo News article), then my opinion will necessarily change. Likewise I am not omnipotent. I quite simply do not have the power to stop a well-sourced article on this topic from being created -- and would point out that I have not attempted to do so. All I have done is redirect an unsourced article, and comment negatively on bad sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure the point of this, since I clearly agreed with your points 3 and 4 in my posting above, and explicitly said that your redirecting was reasonable in the circumstances. As regards points 1 and 2, there appears to be a missing element in them: to whit... "In my opinion....". You obviously define "trivial and incidental" differently to me, but actually neither one of us is the guardian of the Almighty Truth in this matter. As regards, point 5, I know perfectly well that you don't have the power to stop an article from being created, but was hoping that we could resolve the situation more peaceably by getting your consent to a plan to resolve the disagreement. Which I guess you have given, for which I thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How to restore an article redirected for being unsourced

Going from least disruptive to most disruptive:

1. Present the core of a well-sourced article demonstrating notability (either on article talk or on a sandbox).
2. Be WP:BOLD and simply create a well-sourced article demonstrating notability on mainspace.
3. Be a WP:DIK and WP:EDITWAR to restore the unsourced version (it'll eventually get you banned, but at least it's trying).

How not to restore an article redirected for being unsourced:

• Complain on the redirector's user talk, make unsubstantiated claims of notability, spam them with mainly useless sources, post to WP:ARBCOM -- but do nothing whatsoever towards creating a new & policy compliant article.

A redirect does not prevent an article being created on a topic.

To be blunt, I think that even ArbCom's suggestion of dispute resolution is premature -- as Hithlin hasn't even articulated a genuine dispute as yet -- all they have done is complain about the fact that no article on this topic currently exists. No alternative had been offered (at least until Slp1 came along), so no legitimate dispute existed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think this is most unnecessary and unhelpful commentary about an editor who only has 58 edits in total, and hope you will strike it per BITE. --Slp1 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

58 edits in total - in English Wikipedia. I mostly contribute to Ru-Wiki (Russian), where I have, let me see... How do you count them when there's more than thousands? Everyone's welcome to see: here they all are.

Hrafn, the problem is that I though you to be an En-Wiki admin or someone like that. Because I never thought usual wikipedians would just delete all the information from an article and not be blamed for vandalism. That is why I complained, and went to ArbCom, etc. You see, I don't spend much time in En-Wiki, and in Ru-Wiki things are often quite different.

So I shall follow your advise, be bold :-), and restore the article as it should be. Hithlin (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Slp1: no I will not strike it. To make a WP:BITE complaint about my reaction to an editor who has been (to extend the metaphor) 'been gnawing ineffectively on my leg for quite some time' (including attempting to drag me to ArbCom), rather than doing anything useful, is not particularly reasonable.
2. Hithlin: I am not, and never claimed to be, and Admin or anything similar. I am simply the editor who redirected a chronically and wholly unsourced article, and responded to your badly-formulated complaints about my having done so. The redirect was not done "apparently, due to thinking that Una Voce (FIUV) is not notable enough" -- but explicitly because the article was "unsourced".
3. Hithlin's efforts would have been regarded by me as an invitation to AfD the article. Slp1's efforts since have established the article as something worthy of survival.

In short, wikipedia is about writing well-sourced articles. Activity directed at such will not be obstructed by me. Activity not directed at this is likely to be treated more dismissively and, if it is continued, with increasing irritation for wasting my time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi Hithlin, and thanks for your work on this article in the last few hours. I'm not sure how things work on Russian WP (very differently, I'm sure, based on what you say), but here we need to use reliable sources as much as possible when we are writing articles. This means newspapers, books, magazines published by mainstream publishers. You can read more about it here WP:V and here WP:RS In the case of this article, using these kinds of sources will also help to prove that the Una Voce is a notable organization, and that WP needs an article on it. As I promised above, I am going to do my best in the next little while to help rewrite the article using reliable sources, and would be glad to work together with you on this project. My suggestion would be to avoid sources that are not reliable in WP's view: for example, this one [7] is not clearly a reliable source: It don't think that a newsletter of ARCC meets the required standards for reliability. Having said that the author, Ingrid H. Shafer, is a well-published academic in this field, and so therefore I suspect we could argue that this is a reliable source, per WP:SPS. We also can't overwhelm the article with material from Una Voce websites, per WP:SELFPUB. Just some tips as we go forward with this.--Slp1 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

These should be reliable:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=EW4FfK2XhWoC&pg=PA223&dq=%22Una+Voce%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=eR8weSA-f9gC&pg=PA72&dq=%22Una+Voce%22
• http://www.die-tagespost.de/Archiv/titel_anzeige.asp?ID=14325 (German)
• http://www.kre uz.net/article.1149.html (German) (space added to get around spam filter)

--Apoc2400 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Durufle book was an especially rich source. Can't manage the German I'm afraid, but there's a useful French one that I will tackle soon [8] --Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)