Talk:Sam Bloch

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Self-sourcing

I just deleted chunks sourced to Bloch talking about himself, both because this is insufficient source for claims that make Bloch look good (such as developing strategies grounded in dignity) and because the lack of a third-party source means we don't have a basis for saying that that content is due. (See WP:ABOUTSELF for more.) If folks wish to add material, please lean on reliable, independent, third-party sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here—I had not seen it here.

I appreciate this and don’t want this page to be biased in any way. But you have also removed 1) a second picture of Bloch 2) facts about involvement in grassroots efforts like women’s groups and burners without borders. These exemplify what those self endorsements say. I think it adds colour to this wiki page and is part to helping readers understand what the real people in humanitarian aid do and think and believe.

Would you be willing to help rewrite what you removed? 2601:645:E7D:4650:1CA4:EA70:CF76:D478 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I am in a hectic time and do not have the sources of hand to write a better version. The sourcing is the key problem.

• If Lex Luthor says "I like cheese, I'm the best at taking care of puppies, and ElectLex is a grassroots campaign," we really can't include any of those statements in Wikipedia's voice, because while we can assume the cheese statement is accurate, we have nothing to show it's important; the puppy statement is boastful and thus we cannot assume it's true; and the same is true for the ElectLex statement, as "grassroots" is a descriptor that many self-apply falsely (see Astroturfing).
• If the Daily Planet prints "Lex Luthor says 'I like cheese, I'm the best at taking care of puppies, and ElectLex is a grassroots campaign,'" we can report in Wikipedia's voice that Lex Luthor likes cheese, because its inclusion in the Planet shows that it's of import. We still can't say that "Lex Luthor is the best at puppies and ElectLex is grassroots", because the Daily Planet doesn't actually say that... but we can say that "Lex said..." those things. (Note, this is all assuming that the Daily Planet neither is owned by nor employs Mr. Luthor, and is thus independent.)
• If the Daily Planet prints "Lex Luthor likes cheese, is the best at puppies, and his ElectLex effort is a grassroots campaign", we can still say Lex likes cheese, but we cannot say he;'s the best at puppies because that is an undefined value judgment (in contrast to, say, "has the most puppies"); we can say "the Daily Planet called him the best at puppies". There would be enough argument over whether "grassroots" is more objective or subjective, and thus whether we could put it in Wikipedia's voice... although if we can also show that the Daily Star and the Metropolis Red Sun called it grassroots, it's likely to be accepted to say in Wikipedia's voice.

The sources we had for this were the subject himself and an organization he was tied to, so it's weak for any of what it was used for.

The photo itself was not a problem, just part of a section being disappeared... but at the article's current length, I'm not sure it supports a second photo. The rights on it look appropriate, so it should be fine to re-add if the article length is increased. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you are having trouble understanding the word grassroots. Please see grassroots--i am not sure it has a subjective definition. Achirpingbird (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It can be seen as having subjective application -- what portion of an effort needs to be grassrooty to qualify the whole effort as grassroots. However, more important to the inclusion based on non-independent statements is that the descriptor can see seen as promotional; indeed, the very existence of astroturfing points to the idea that some will try to be identified as grassroots when they are not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This page is about disaster relief. Organizing local volunteers to rebuild their communities after a catastrophe is grassroots—not subjective in this case. The term astroturfing does not apply here. Also, the sources have been changed to be more primary rather than a self-proclaimed summary to avoid misrepresentation. Achirpingbird (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Humanitarian Star not notable

The Humanitarian Star award given by a local Rotary branch appears not to be notable. The sources being used (a youtube channel and the award website) are not third-party sources. A search of newspapers.com for "humanitarian star" and "rotary" shows zero relevant results... and given that the awards were given in four not-quite-consecutive years, the last being five years ago (going by the award website), it seems unlikely that they will be gaining additional notability. It should be removed from the article as insignificant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)