Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 3 April 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation

Archive 1

Deletes of POV

Style comments are unnecessary and are based on one point of view. The credibility is based on Sambanandan which is also clearly one point of view only. Comments such as "99.9% credible" and "who what when where" of reporting is unnecessary as there are plenty of opinions that suggest otherwise. Academic Perspectives are all sourced from Whittaker who is only point of view. If sourcing academic perspectives, please rewrite in such a way that it does not reflect one point of view only. Please post government POV on Murder of Editor, Murder of Reporter and Government Threats, they only express one point of view ("allegedly"). Comments on censorship laws of the government clearly state only one point of view. I know its difficult, but lets try to keep this article POV free. I'm leaving the NPOV tag as there are still a couple of things that need work. Thanks Mod222 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First no sockpuppetry, i.e. experienced editors should not take new user profiles just to edit controversial topics. It violates WP:SOCK. See also WP:SPA

What makes you think I'm an experienced editor? I'm flattered but please explain your reasoning or retract this statement if this is mere speculation.

Second state the WP policies the sections removed violate or removing sections that have been cited per WP:RS is equivalent to WP:VAND.

This is easy. Read WP:NPOV under "Bias". Claims that Tamilnet's style is "who-what-when-where" with the absence of political rhetoric itself has bias towards Tamilnet. Lets keep the article encyclopedia like and not express opinions about Tamilnet (especially biased ones) away from the article. Words such as "neutral", "credible" are all opinions of Tamilnets reporting than defining what Tamilnet is. Misplaced Pages is not a stage for individual political opinions WP:NPOV.

Second state the WP policies the sections removed violate or removing sections that have been cited per WP:RS is equivalent to WP:VAND.

Likewise each section that was removed "Style", "Academic Perspective" clearly have political bias and violate WP:NPOV for political bias.

Please demonstrate why style and academic perspective are NPOV because the way I read makes Academic perspetive balances its view by some in the media that it is a LTTE proxy only. If we have WP:RS sources that argue otherwise it should be given equal footing. ThanksRaveenS

Third the article reads WP:NPOV upto government threats section. Hence I agree with the NPOV tag. Concerned editors should find the citations to make it neutral in that section. ThanksRaveenS

Raveen, I respect your opinions and I agree with you on most of the article. However, we need to keep this article POV free according to Misplaced Pages policy, and I appreciate your help in doing that. Thanks!Mod222

Looks like we know each other for a long time :-) yes let's discuss more before deletingRaveenS

Removal of citations

Removing WP:RS sources is considered WP:Vand so please refrain from it. Thanks RaveenS 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What self published articles, it is published by Anthropological review, it is peer reviewed article RaveenS 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a letter published to the Anthropological Quarterly. It is NOT peer reviewed. His intro says,

In this essay I argue that Tamilnet.com, an Internet news agency put together by a group of Sri Lankan Tamils to address the Tamil diaspora and influence English-speaking elites, subverted international news coverage during Sri Lanka's civil war by making "ironic" use of the discursive styles of journalism and anthropology. I also claim that this constituted a particular form of autoethnographic popular anthropology that challenged professional anthropology, and in some ways sought to replace it. In the first two sections of this essay, I dismantle the concept of "the popular" by showing that when anthropologists and social theorists use the term they are often referring to connected but distinct aspects of popularity which should be distinguished: Baudrillardian market popularity on the one hand, and Habermasian identity-resistance popularity on the other. I then show how the Internet, given its technology and software, is best seen as market popular in form but identity-resistance popular in content. In the remaining four sections I illustrate, ethnographically, how the creators of Tamilnet.com, while deeply embedded in civil war and a world-wide diaspora, recognized this aspect of the Internet and used it—again, "ironically"—to construct a site that advances their own nationalist interests.

He has provided citations for everything EXCEPT his extraordinary claims about Tamilnet. For them, there are absolutely no sources.

Simply, this is a self published article in a scholarly magazine and is not a reliable source. If you dispute that take it to the admins noticeboard and see what the community has to say. --snowolfD4 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Which I did,

“Mark, Whittaker (2006-08-31). "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet". Anthropological Quarterly’’. archive of article

Anthropological quarterly is peer reviewed journal not a self published magazine. The author Mark Whitaker. Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of South Carolina.

It is not a letter, it is peer reviewed article of over 400 pages. Thanks RaveenS 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Raveen anna, I suggest you look at the official website(http://aq.gwu.edu/about_aq.html)

it says, "AQ is a publication of the George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. The content of AQ does not necessarily represent the views of the editors, the Institute for Ethnographic Research, or the George Washington University. Authors are solely responsible for their opinions and for the accuracy of the information contained in their publications."

it make very clear, ". Authors are solely responsible for their opinions and for the accuracy of the information contained"

So it's not RS, Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru Ayye/Malli (?), I also suggest you look at When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications that is from WP:SPS#Self-published_sources. Ciao RaveenS 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru_k, you seem to misunderstand what "self-published" means in[REDACTED] terms. an article (not a letter) in a peer-reviewed journal is not considered "self-published" even though legally the author remains responsible for the opnions included. Such an article nornmally considered a reliable source. If you can cite published responses to or refutations of the article involvd, those could also be included, or if you can give god reasons why this particular article is not appropriate, they might be considered. But in general properly attributed satements published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic are not supposed to be removed just because one disagrees with the content. DES 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DES, you say "an article (not a letter) in a peer-reviewed journal is not considered "self-published"". Like I said before, AQ is not peer reviewed. There is no confusion over the term self-published.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.

Straight from the horses mouth, AQ acknowledges that they do not guarantee the accuracy of the articles and have not reviewed the material. The author, Mark P Whittaker, is not notable, and is certainly not an expert in the field. He has just 76 google hits to his name . No other reliable text has quoted from his work on TamilNet and he does not cite any sources where he got his facts about TamilNet from.

All fact considered, this is not a reliable source, by any stretch of the definition, and should not be included as a source. --snowolfD4 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark P Whittaker is an American Professor, in an accredited American University such as University of South Carolina one does not become a professor without publishing number of peer reviewed journal articles and his research subject includes Tamilnet and its murdered Editor Taraki. To remove his research from this very important internet phenomenon will be loss to Misplaced Pages indeed RaveenS 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So becoming a professor automatically makes you notable and all you're works correct? That's ridiculous. And if that policy is followed everywhere on Misplaced Pages, unenclycolpedia will end up being more accurate than Misplaced Pages.

Go over the Misplaced Pages policies again. Just because you agree with what he has written doesn't mean his work can be used a reliable source.

The fact is AQ acknowledges that they are in what is published may not be correct and their articles are not peer reviewed. Under these circumstances the is no way this can be used as a reliable source. --snowolfD4 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL in your comments to your fellow editors also do read WP:NPA By using the words Just because you agree with what he has written doesn't mean his work can be used a reliable source. and That's ridiculous indicate you may have not read those policies well. I urge you to show respect to all Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks RaveenS 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Anthropological Quarterly

According to http://aq.gwu.edu/manuscripts.html, essays published in AQ are "peer reviewed". According to http://aq.gwu.edu/mission.html So while we will continue to publish first-rate peer-reviewed articles, AQ will also publish one additional peer-reviewed section of essays on theoretically informed development anthropology, "Development in Theory," and two additional non-peer-reviewed sections of public intellectual thought and commentary, "Social Thought and Commentary" and "Media." I cannot tell without further checking what section the essay in question was published in. Note that the formal statement that authors are responsible for the opinions stated in their own work appears in most scholarly journals, and is not in any way to be equated with being 'self-published'. Nor are only "peer-reviewed" publications considered reliable sources. For example, major newspapers are pretty much invariably considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes, but they are not close to being peer-reviewed in the academic sense. In general, any publication that has an editorial process that makes a serious attempt to screen out unsupported allegations will be considered a reliable source on wikipedia. The policy includes the statements that Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's analysis of a traffic accident, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. and A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.. Since AQ has an editorial board that reviews all submissions and decides which to publish, it is not self-published in the Misplaced Pages sense. (see http://aq.gwu.edu/editorial_board.html). Since some of the statements in the essay in question are expressions of opinion, any quotes from it that express an opinion should be indicated as such. No source, however "reliable" can safely be assumed to always be accurate. That is why multiple sources should be used, particularly in disputed or controversial matters. But that does not mean that reliable sources should be deleted. if there is another reliable source with a contrary view, by all means include a citation to that source as well. DES 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, it is always possible to get confused with these policies and we end of making the wrong decisions especially when some articles have political ramifications. Mark Whittakers research makes the Misplaced Pages article on this obscure subject matter neutral. Without it we will be presenting only one side of the argument. RaveenS 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that the author of a work considered a "reliable source" need not himself (or herself) be notable in the sense that an article about the author would be justified, although of course often such an author is notable. For example, many newspaper reporters would not themselves be considered notable, but their works are still considered reliable sources for many purposes on Misplaced Pages. DES 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned the article is written by a prof who has done a lot of research on the area specially Tamilnet. All the informations are fully cited and has allready been peer reviewed. Also seeing that he does not have any bias towards Tamilnet or the two sideds in the conflict this source would be great for[REDACTED] editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok a lot of things. First can anyone see any citations for his extraordinary claims about TamilNet. He has cited a number of facts related to the conflict, but regarding TamilNet, everything papers to be his own ideas on the matter.

And with the citations you provide, the first one says

Peer-reviewed essays should not exceed 35 pages in length.

In regard to publications in the magazine. Does that mean AQ peer reviews every article? NO.

The second citations says a lot. This article is NOT related to anthropology, so it most likely does fall under the

and two additional non-peer-reviewed sections of public intellectual thought and commentary

category. Assuming it comes under the "first-rate peer-reviewed articles" is just not good enough to be used as a source for Misplaced Pages.

Your next argument hit the nail on the head. Major newspapers are considered reliable sources. This is an article by a non-notable author. In order for it to be considered reliable, his work should have been quoted elsewhere buy other reliable sources. Has that happened? Can anyone provide any citations where his work on Sri Lanka has been quoted elsewhere? Quoting from policy, the exceptions to WP:SPS are

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.

74 google hits means he is NOT well known, his work doesn't appear to be republished anywhere, and no other reliable source backs up his claims.

The next citation is just the editors of the anthropological magazine who review sections related . That does not mean they reviewed this article for accuracy.

And DES did you actually go over the subject matter here? Here we have a website which practically every news organization label as pro-LTTE, some even going as far as calling it the official LTTE website, and Mr. Whittaker says its "double sourced, "double checked" and attributes a comment to someone saying it "100% accurate". Do you know any news organization that is said to be 100% accurate in its reporting. Such claims merely help prove the inaccuracy of the article. Who do you think is correct? The regional correspondents for Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, Xinhua, PTI etc. etc. or a Associate Professor with 74 google hits to his name?

He also writes stuff like

Tamilnet had fired a sub- editor, once he became an activist for the LTTE

Tamilnet has faced complaints and 'extreme displeasure' from both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE

Members of the Sri Lankan government allegedly twice threatened reporters of Tamilnet with arrest for “treason,” and once hinted, "that “uncontrolled” Sinhalese extremists might be inspired to perform some extra-judicial killing".

Are there any neutral citations for any of these claims? Given the interest shown in how the government deals with the media by organizations like RSF an others, they would almost certainly have reported such incidents. Where are the neutral citations?

Ultimately, you base your entire argument on the assumptions that this article has been peer reviewed, when in all probability, it hasn't, and in the fact that his work is reliable, which there clearly is no proof of. --snowolfD4 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So the whole argument is based on probablities, may be we need the help of a mediator and take this to mediation and see what yet another neutral wikipedian may think about this citation. Thanks RaveenS 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some responses. User:snowolfd4 says above:

• "In order for it to be considered reliable, his work should have been quoted elsewhere buy other reliable sources." That is simply not the case. In general any publication in a source that has an editorial or fact-checking process in place, whether the author is well known or not, and whether the publication is cited elsewhere or not, is considered reliable on Misplaced Pages. You seem to be misunderstanding the WP:RS policy, and trying to set a much higher bar than that policy in fact sets.
• User:snowolfd4 quotes the exceptional case under which self-published sources may be used. This is irrelevant, because an article (whether called as "essay" or not) published in a scholarly journal with an editorial board and an acceptance process involving editorial review is not considered "self-published" whether it is peer-reviewed or not. My point above about newspapers is that they are never "peer-reviewed" but are still not considered self-published. As long as there is an editorial process that stands between the author and publication, providing a degree of checking or supervision, the content is not considered self-published, so the exception need not apply. This is simply not a "blog (or self-published equivalent)".
• "74 google hits means he is NOT well known" Google hits are a very poor way to measure notability or academic reputation, and in any case a person writing in a recognized academic journal need not be "well known" for the writing to be considered a reliable source.
• "no other reliable source backs up his claims" If true, this is relevant, but how exhaustive a search has been done for such sources. Are the reliable sources that cite and dispute his claims, or that, when not mentioning him, state facts and views inconsistent with his? If there are, it is best to cite both the Whittiker article and any refutations or inconsistent reliable sources, so that the reader can judge the relative accuracy of the various sources. Note that saying that a publication is a reliable source does not imply that it is accurate in any given case. It should still be cited unless there is clearly established and widely accepted proof of the inaccuracy -- in cases of disputes between reliable sources, it is best to cite both (or all) sides.
• "Ultimately, you base your entire argument on the assumptions that this article has been peer reviewed." Not so. i said "Nor are only "peer-reviewed" publications considered reliable sources." Let me be more specific. It is my view that Misplaced Pages policy clearly implies that any article published in a recognized scholarly journal that has an editorial board and an application and editorial process is presumptively a reliable source, regardless of whether it was formally peer-reviewed or not, and whether the author is "well-known" or "notable" or not. Only if specific reasons can be shown to consider the publication or article unreliable should it be excluded. Such reasons might include: A clear and wide-spread consensus among other reliable sources that the article or its author is unreliable (shown by explicit evidence, not merely an absence of citations); explicit and well-founded evidence that the author or publication is "extremist" on the issue at hand, based on more than the specific article at issue; or other problems of similar magnitude, established with similarly clear evidence.
• "And DES did you actually go over the subject matter .... Who do you think is correct? The regional correspondents for Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, Xinhua, PTI etc. etc. or a Associate Professor..." I did review the Whittiker article and the Misplaced Pages article, briefly. i don't claim to be an expert or even well informed on the details of this conflict. I do claim to know Misplaced Pages policy fairly well. I don't know who is correct and who is not, on the specifics -- how could I? The proper way for a Misplaced Pages article to handle such a case is to cite multiple reliable sources, preferably ones that are representative of all significant views (or as many views as possible) and point out where they conflict or contradict each other, so that the reader is in a position to judge what view to credit, or to to further research in the matter. In general it is better to cite more sources, of more differing views, rather than fewer, provided that all sources cited meet the minimum standards for reliability, and a Misplaced Pages article should not state or imply that one source or viewpoint is accurate and another is not. That is what the neutral point of view requires.

For all of the above reasons, i think that the Whittiker article should be cited here. The article should also point out where and when other reliable sources have said things inconsistent with that article, and should be clear when Whittiker is making an alleged statement of fact, and when he is stating an opinion. If any reliable source has written in specific refutation of the Whittiker article, that source should certainly be cited. I hope that this is helpful. 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued deletion

In this edit with the edit summery "rv - no reply" the citations to the Mark Whittiker essay from AQ were again removed. Given the discussion above, is there any valid reason why this content should not be restored to the article? DES 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By no reply I meant that you didn't reply to what I wrote above at the time I reverted. Apologies if the edit summery wasn't that clear. --snowolfD4 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics