mic_none

Talk:Jewish Virtual Library Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Virtual_Library

seriously?

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a promotion tool. The person who wrote this page about the propaganda website that is the Jewish Virtual Library should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.46.114.182 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I agree. Throw the jerk out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.23.165 (talk) [reply]

Reliable source?

[edit]

I don't think that JVL conforms to the WP:RS guidelines. Many of their entries cite Wikipedia as a source. This should cast serious doubt about the other entries that list other sources. Cf. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Notmyrealname 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Notmyrealname: It's not uncommon for resources to cite each other especially on the web where there is a lot of overlap of information. JVL has been used as a resource in many Wiki discussions and articles over the years. Anti-Israel advocates don't like it because it is a pro-Israel site. IZAK (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete true wiki notices or templates. Do the work of providing WP:RS references, including ones that show why article is notable enough to be on wikipedia. From this article, for all we know it's an antisemitic front group. We can't take anonymous people's word for it that it is what it says it is. Many articles like this have been deleted in the past. Carol Moore 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The fact that many Wikipedia articles cite this site does not make it any more or less of a reliable source. Any site that uses Wikipedia articles as their primary source (as shown by the examples I listed above) should be viewed with extreme suspicion (in terms of its reliability). There is no indication of any editorial oversight or fact-checking. Notmyrealname (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But 4 things DO make it a reliable source:
1. The author's PhD & other uni studies (@ USA's top-ranking uni's, at that) are pertinent to the subject matter he expounds upon: [5] combined with...
2. Recognition as a notable expert from BOTH the political right (see last link) AND the left (Huff Post).
3. Accolades or recognition about the JewishVirtualLibrary.com site from: Assoc of College & Research Libraries, as well as PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Fox, LATimes, Bloomberg, BBC, BusinessWeek, USA Today, & CBS... AND Britannica & Study Web... AND King's College, London, MSU, & other uni's.
4. Most of his material, and especially the controversial items, DO cite sources that qualify rather than Wikipedia, and whilst anything JVL cites from Wikipedia is fair game for deletion, their info which does have credible citations is not.

72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I feel obliged to say that JVL is VERY partisan, and therefore not suitable as a source for Wikipedia at all. The particular example I discovered is their article about the King David Hotel Bombing (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html) - an area in which I have expertise. The article states as an outright fact that the famous "We don't take orders from the Jews." statement was actually said. In fact, this is strongly denied by most of the British people there. A reliable source would make it very clear that the claim is disputed. Also, the significance of the hearsay evidence given to Parliament in 1979 that a warning of the attack was given is conspicuously exaggerated. If the quality of this article is representative of the whole of the JVL, then it would certainly be accurate to label it as a partisan source. New Thought (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:RS section 4.7 specifically makes provision for biased sources to be cited, so long as when they're making contentious/opinionated claims, the source IS duly noted by the Wikipedian as having potential bias.
Secondly, as for your accusation that a historically disputed statement was something JVL "states as an outright fact," which part of "SUPPOSEDLY" do you not comprehend when JVL wrote: "...who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: 'We don't take orders from the Jews.' " and thus JVL did note that the statement is disputed, contrary to your false allegation against JVL. Might I suggest you put on your reading glasses before making more ridiculous accusations against JVL? (you've only proven your SELF to not be a "reliable source" with that nonsense.)

72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, you guys are very likely beating on dead horse. I previously noticed claims concerning JVL, so just now when I found reverent info there which pertains to an old treaty, I checked the Reliable sources Noticeboard, to make sure I am allowed to use it. As far as I could see there was a lot of heated air, but it is a WP:RS. Personally, I would avoid using if I have an alternative, and if in doubt ask for secondary source. But other than that there is nothing todo.--PLNR (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A project of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, recommended (the AICE) by Benjamin Netanyahu. JVL, About. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am sorry for the work you have done to source information with JVL but even if it is often right, JVL doesn't comply at all with WP:RS. It is a website managed by a pro-Israeli think thank. Personnaly, I remove this source each time that I see this used and when this refers to the I-P conflict, I remove the information as well. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The JVL by all means is a reliable source, and regarding what PLNR said (by the way why did you reply to this discussion from 2 years ago?), I think we should refrain from using it as a souce only in the I/P area. Pluto2012, you remove content you don't like from Wikipedia articles on a regular basis, that's well known. You have to understand that just because Al Jazeera for example has some "pro-Arab" views, does not entitle me to remove their sources "each time I see [them] used" as long as they are reliable and provide factual information. -Shalom11111 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JewishVirtualLibrary.org fails WP:RS

[edit]

This website fail WP:RS, there fore it not to be use in any article as source. --Ani medjool (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to make that decision. Breein1007 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who does have such authority? 68.83.233.82 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Logic has the authority, specifically a logical comparison of WP:RS to the credentials of JVL.com's author, the way each Wikipedian cites JVL.com, and the veracity of each of JVL's cited sources -- with final authority being the logic as exercised by some of Wikipedia's most-recognized editors (see the topic on this page that's above this topic).

72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing problems

[edit]
  • [6] Karen Evans, not the ALA is the author of the article.
  • [7] The ALA did not pronounce itself on the JVL, and "praise" is a (personal) interpretation of what Karen Evans wrote. (Typos have been corrected later on.)
  • [8] "and many others" is original research.
  • [9] Reporting Google is hits is original research as well.
  • [10] Clarification that MSUL did not write the text itself.

  Cs32en Talk to me  16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • On your first point - I think you are mistaken about Evans, since the review is copyrighted ALA she is speaking as its representative. Only the owner of the words can copyright material. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright has nothing to do with endorsing a particular viewpoint. It can be sold or simply transferred. I don't have a source indicating that Evans would represent ALA.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the word "praise" is [not] objective, but what she did say (in her own words) was: "This is a comprehensive Web site on Israel, Jews and Jewish culture; no attempt is made to shy away from uncomfortable subjects within the history or current events of Jewish life. If you are looking for easily accessible, balanced information this site is well worth a visit." In her own words (and that of the ALA by virtue of copyright) she is saying it is a comprehensive site, accessible and balanced. By merely publishing "worth a visit" standing alone, it seems an attempt to minimize what in fact she does say. I think I worded it in a neutral way. Stellarkid (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "subjective", not "objective". Of course, there are various ways to paraphrase the article. Note, however, that statements of opinion generally need to be sourced to independent secondary sources. If they are not, notability of the respective viewpoint is not established, even if the viewpoint is published in a reliable source.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Others" or "many" is not relevant here. The whole sentence is original research, as it's not based on an independent secondary source, but on primary sources. Furthermore, there are no primary sources for "others" as of this moment.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Karen Evans, the bottom of the letter that she wrote at the Internet Reviews Archive says clearly: "© American Library Association. This document may be reproduced or reprinted for educational, non-commercial use, in whole or part, without permission as long as the above copyright statement and source are clearly acknowledged. Neither this document nor any reproductions may be sold. " We cannot use it without acknowledgement that it comes from the ALA. Once again, the ALA is here acknowledging that it is the owner of those words and that Ms Evans speaks for the ALA. They did not disown it in any way. Also, to insist on "worth a visit" is minimizing the source. It is an expression that the author used, but she says it is comprehensive, easily accessible and balanced. " None of this can be ascertained from your wording, and it is certainly not WP:UNDUE as you suggest in your edit summary. (Oh yes I did mean to say "not objective") Stellarkid (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyright notice, not any kind of endorsement. As for paraphrasing the article, there are of course a number of possibilities.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, if you believe that the JVL is not notable, take it to an AfD with that as your justification. I am not sure why we have an section on "notability" . It should be "reception" or "praise and criticism." As to notability, Google hits is appropriate for that. Stellarkid (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that JVL would not be notable. The question is whether a given opinion or expression of opinion about JVL is notable. Wikipedia is primarily based on secondary sources, and opinion pieces are not secondary sources, but primary sources for the opinions that are expressed in them. I agree that the section should not be named "Notability".  Cs32en Talk to me  20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

[edit]

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/11/credentials-and.html http://www.academia.org/bias-on-bias-alleged/ OR analysis is also pretty interesting, see their Cast Lead article and note that their 'background' starts much later than most RS would recognize, 0 mention of the near zero pre nov 4 rocket attacks. Unomi (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like everything else JVL has its critics. You are certainly welcome to include valid RS criticism into the article. Of course "Failed Meshiah" does not qualify and I am not sure about your article by Kevin Mink, a freelance journalist. The Mink article is mainly about another writer, with a passing reference to something in JVL. I would remind you that the talk pages are not a forum [11] or a soapbox but a means for improving articles. Stellarkid (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Apart from John Jaeger and Karen Evans, the only sources about JVL that are included in the article are either primary sources or they only contain trivial information about JVL. Thus, the current version of the article does not establish sufficient notability of the website, per the notability guideline.  Cs32en Talk to me  08:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that, you should take the article to an AfD and make your concerns known to the community. Stellarkid (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that says we cannot use primary sources, just need to be careful of them. PBS is not a primary source Not sure the universities' web pages are primary sources really though. I can't see that. If a number of universities and library links point to the JVL, it would seem to me to be notable enough, but as I say if you want to debate that, maybe you should take it to an AfD. Or if there is an appropriate noticeboard? Stellarkid (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would be inclined to think of the Universities' links to research sites more as a tertiary source, equivalent to an encyclopedia. Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are tertiary sources with regard to information that is contained in books located at the libraries that they include. However, with regard to the information that they reference JVL, they are, of course, primary sources. The "source level" depends on the information that is being sourced.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have real problems with the attempt to strip off the authority of these people writing reviews. Evans, writing material copyrighted by the ALA (ie they "own" the words) is reduced to any college instructor as opposed to a university person whose review was published by the ALA. The ALA doesn't necessarily endorse every word they publish, but it is significant that they published it. If someone publishes material in the the American Medical Journal, for example, it is generally considered of interest and worthy by the the American Medical Association. Please carry the analogy out. Ms Evans' review has been archived (as worthy of interest) by the Internet Reviews Archive at Bowdoin College. [12] The Internet Reviews Archive itself is a branch of the Association of College and Research Libraries,(C&RL) a division of the ALA. That means her opinions in this case are more worthy than some instructor a the local college, as your editing would suggest. The same is true of Mr Jaeger, who has been reduced to a virtual nobody. He wrote a review in the the Journal of the Association of College and Research Libraries , a piece also copyrighted by the ALA. His work was endorsed by the Journal when he published it. It had oversight and peer review. If they did not think it worthy they would not have published it. Therefore, by editing out these associations and reducing the authorship to Mr & Ms Anybody, you are, fact, altering the status and validity of the source. The associations need to stay. To do otherwise is misleading at best. Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the author would have published the text on his or her website, we would not include the text at all as a source, under most circumstances. Someone who has published in Nature still remains, e.g., a university professor, and does not become a representative of the scientific community at large due to the publication. If a text is published by a reliable journal, this implies that there is some review process. The relevant information about the sources is given in the footnotes, not in the text, unless there is a specific reason to include an inline citation, e.g. if the source is an advocacy journal carrying a specific viewpoint. Copyright does not imply endorsement. At the same time, a text may be thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by an editorial board, with the copyright remaining with the author nonetheless. Therefore, the copyright situation of a text is undue, unless there is a very specific reason to include the information, e.g. if there are independent reports in reliable sources that explicitly refer to the copyright.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note about this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Referring to copyright in the article text.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content based on primary sources

[edit]

The following content of the article is solely based on primary sources. It does not add information about the article's subject, but promotes the subject by increasing its apparant notability. This, in my view, is a misuse of primary sources.

The Jewish Virtual Library is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University,[1] Michigan State University,[2] University of Washington,[3] King's College, London,[4] and the University of Delaware.[5]
It has been cited by CNN,[6] CBS News,[7] Fox News,[8][9] The Los Angeles Times,[10] USA Today,[11] Business Week,[12][13] and Bloomberg,[13] among others.

  1. ^ "Holocaust and Jewish Studies". Libraries.psu.edu. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  2. ^ "Connect to "Jewish Virtual Library"". Er.lib.msu.edu. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  3. ^ "Middle East History Web Sites, University of Washington Libraries". Lib.washington.edu. January 13, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  4. ^ "Database List, King's College London". Metalib.kcl.ac.uk. August 20, 1996. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  5. ^ "Internet Resources for Jewish Studies". .lib.udel.edu. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  6. ^ "CNN.com - Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister - Oct. 31, 2002". Archives.cnn.com. October 31, 2002. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  7. ^ Montopoli, Brian (December 11, 2009). "White House Hanukkah Party Spawns Anger - Political Hotsheet". CBS News. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  8. ^ "What is a Tefillin? | Phylacteries". Google.com. January 21, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  9. ^ "What is a Tefillin? | Phylacteries". Myfoxchattanooga.com. January 21, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  10. ^ "Commentary; Wiesenthal Appeal for Funds Descends Into Exaggeration and Divisiveness". Google.com. November 9, 2003. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  11. ^ "'Britannica' makes search a rich trip". Google.com. October 10, 2001. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  12. ^ "Egypt Scraps Synagogue Ceremony After Dancing and Drinking". BusinessWeek. March 14, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  13. ^ "Hungary Approves Law Making Holocaust Denial a Criminal Offense". BusinessWeek. February 23, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  • I think you misunderstand the purpose and use of primary sources. Primary sources are of course generally quite good, and in fact better evidence of the the matter asserted than a secondary source. You might also consider for the purposes of "promotional" the difference between JVL saying x (is that a primary source?), and USA Today saying "x"), and which in fact is the more "promotional". As requested previously, kindly point me to a Wikipedia guidance that supports your position. Either I haven't understood your position, or it lacks support in Wiki guidance and in common sense. Reflecting how absurd a contrary result would be -- consider this. Major league baseball announces the MVP is Person Y. Your thinking would mean that I would not be able to reflect that fact, with a citation to the MLB.com website. The contrary is true, of course -- we are encouraged to use the "primary" source of MLB.com, as it is the most authoritative.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your example deals with a situation in which the content has value as information for the reader, while in the case of this article, the content that is being based on primary sources is promoting the subject of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for a third time -- kindly point me to a wp guidance that mandates that these sources not be used. In addition, your position is absurd. First, it conflates anything "positive" with "promotion". Second, it acts as though there is a product being sold here -- not the case; though it would be the case with a ballplayer winning an MVP. Third, it ignores centuries of jurisprudence leading to a modern world where primary sources are considered evidence superior to secondary sources. Fourth, this isn't even -- and that would be acceptable as well -- the subject of the article saying that such coverage, etc., exists -- it is evidence of it existing. Fifth, what makes you presume that the fact that the publication is used as a source has no value to me as a reader -- it has great value, as it allows me to better judge the value of reliability that I wish to accord it. This is absurd, quite frankly.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Evans bit

[edit]

I had deleted it as unsourced, but I have found a new source now, [14]. Though I have not re-added the bit as I question the notability of an associate librarian. I think it is quite safe to say her notability is less than Richard Silverstein's at least, and I have not included him either. Sepsis II (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way. I would think inclusion is OK -- a matter of judgment. The notability criteria for such a mention is far lower than the criteria for writing an article on a person. But I would not--in contrast--include a person on a list of notable people if they were not notable enough for a wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JVL's Myth & Fact section

[edit]

This article needs to mention the JVL's Myth & Fact section, which appears to be opinion pieces arguing for or against various disputed issues regarding Israel, such as the legally and morality of the Gaza blockage or the effect of the settlements on the peace process. They present many alleged "myths" then attempt to present "facts" they argue support their myth claim. But from my cursory examination several of these articles, I noted many of the issues they address, there is less of a consensus among respected historians, legal scholars, etc. then they claim, at least on some aspects of the various "myths" they discuss. The articles seem clearly to be pushing a POV and not simply encyclopedic articles. Thus this article should make it clear that some aspects of the JVL (especially the Myth & Fact" articles, push POV, rather simply provide facts or archived copies historical Jewish related materials.--50.152.139.176 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources needed; non RS

[edit]

The article cites many statements to JVL, including self-serving and wp:peacock language. I removed some (please see this diff and tagged the article appropriately.

My understanding is that JVL is not WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia, as it's a tertiary source and frequently uses Wikipedia as a source. Any good info they have usually come from USHMM or other sites where the information can be sourced directly. This should be reflected in the article. More secondary, WP:RS sources would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jewish Virtual Library. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Virtual Library. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I recovered a few sources and added new ones. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Judaica articles

[edit]

Should the article mention that the JVL republishes many Encyclopaedia Judaica articles, sometimes without indicating its source? Mcljlm (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes mentioning the source but adding extra text without notice. But I think a secondary source is needed. Zerotalk 12:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

I don't see the Edit tab or any edit buttons today (I don't remember if I saw them in January). If this is general when did they disappear? Mcljlm (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable according to Wikipedia

[edit]

Wikipedia's own list of reliable sources states that the Jewish Virtual Library is "mostly unreliable, especially in it's [sic] "Myths & Facts" section". This should be mentioned in the article. 104.192.232.105 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot occur unless it is mentioned in reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, any pertinent reliable sources that are mentioned in the RSN discussion could be added to the article. Jlevi (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this. I also removed the synth part of the reception section which was commented on at the RSN discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super, thanks. 104.192.233.45 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can a link to the list of reliable sources, or some similar mention, appear at the end under a heading such as "see also"? 104.192.232.105 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

[edit]

The last reference of the lead is broken because it is missing the <ref> tag. Please fix this. Thank you! 93.42.64.228 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

number of articles

[edit]

it is 25 000 not 60 000 [15] Hüttentom (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myths & Facts reviews

[edit]

I wonder Cawhee if your edit summary "Wright's review is irrelevant to the work of the JVL." also applies to Neff's review. BTW Though you can't change your edit summary I'm not sure "the work of" is the most appropriate phrase. Mcljlm (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing blue lock icon

[edit]

Hello, I saw that this article is extended-protected but it is missing its icon on the top right. Please insert it to inform other editors, thanks. HarukaAmaranth (話) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]