Jump to content

Talk:International Human Rights Arts Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typo

[edit]

Just a brief explanation for a typo. In an edit of 23 March 2024, my explanation states "Removing template - no longer relevant, given multiple choices and internet". This should read "Removing template - no longer relevant, given multiple sources for references and referencing now rectified". My thanks also to other editors who over the past month or so have made suggestions and provided guidance with this article. If, of course, you believe the template is still applicable, please reinstate. Research17 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Just a brief comment on notability (and I should declare an interest here in that, as you may gather, I am the WP Editor who created this particular WP article). I think it is a fair point that most of the sources which are referenced only make a brief mention of the IHRAM. There are, however, two referenced sources which I think most people would agree give reasonably detailed information, namely, the paragraph entry in Austlit and the article in The Brooklyn Rail. I'd be interested in what other Editors might think. Research17 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooklyn Rail would count. The Austlit page would absolutely not; it’s not SIGCOV (just a paragraph) and it’s not independent (since the sole paragraph is supplied by IHRAM). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think you’ve rightly identified two issues with the Austlit reference, namely, significance, sometimes called substance, and independence. Herewith follows my reading of the Wikipedia suggestions, under Notability (organizations and companies) Guideline WP:ORG. 1. Regarding significance/substance, the above Guideline suggests that the mention of the organization or company cannot be trivial or incidental. A number of examples are given. Conversely, the Guidelines gives examples of a substantial mention of the organization or company. The listing of examples in the Guideline is not exhaustive, and includes, as examples, a passage in a book or an encyclopedia article. I think the Austlit entry could be considered equivalent to both of these, and thus does qualify as being significant/substantial. I don’t think the Austlit entry could reasonably be described as trivial or incidental. 2. Regarding independence, the Wikipedia article for Austlit itself explains that this is an ongoing Australian research project, jointly funded by Australian universities and the Australian Research Council. There is no connection between the International Human Rights Arts Movement (IHRAM), which is based in the USA, and Austlit, which is currently based with the University of Queensland, Australia. Further, the wording used in the Austlit entry isn’t actually found on the IHRAM website. The Austlit entry does have a link to the IHRAM website, but if one looks in general at Wikipedia articles on organizations, such links are common - it doesn’t necessarily mean there is some organizational relationship. Now, I may be missing something with the above. Let me know what you think. Research17 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]