![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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)
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:
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)
<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'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)
Going from least disruptive to most disruptive:
How not to restore an article redirected for being unsourced:
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)
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)
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)
These should be reliable:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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)
<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'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)
Going from least disruptive to most disruptive:
How not to restore an article redirected for being unsourced:
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)
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)
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)
These should be reliable:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)