![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:BanyanTree: & who said that a "Bibliography of the Darfur conflict" is something that would be of interest to the "average reader", in the first place. I can absolutely find no reason in deleting an information that can be of no disadvantage to the article what so ever! More, your assumptions about what the "average" is, are simply beside the point. There is no way to argue that the listing of this thesis, and the opening of the "theses and dissertations" section in the article, allowing for MORE listings, is useless. While there is every way to argue that this is precisely USEFUL: the thesis simply is related to the Darfur conflict, and you can not prevent the entire world that opens up at Wikipedia to become acknowledged with it, merely because of your subjective and personal opinions, first about the quality of the "average reader", second about the necessity of committing the article to that particular sort of readers with the intellectual quality you impose upon them. RV! __ Maysara 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the criterium should not be whether it is harmful or not, but whether it is useful or not; and whether it qualifies as a reliable source. I must say I tend to agree with BanyanTree that MA theses in general are too minor (and the quality too questionable) to add to a general bibliography. Meeso/Maysara, can you tell me more about that MA thesis you are trying to add? A few questions:
I am afraid to note that "S. Sherifa, The politics of the conflict in Darfur, Thesis (M.A.), American University in Cairo, 2005" is part of Primary (original) research. That states the following:
Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ®
13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguments and accusations of arguments from authority aside, the gist of the matter seems to be a disagreement about the nature of this particular bibliography. Meeso is sure that any bibliography should be all-inclusive, and I can certainly see the sense in that; after all, many bibliographies as you find them in libraries do have the goal of inclusiveness. I agree with Chris Lowe that this thesis would have a place in such an inclusive bibliography, especially since the literature on this topic isn't as abundant as on some other topics.
However, it seems that BanyanTree, and possibly others, think of this particular bibliography as a more selective one. Now, there is certainly a place also for bibliographies that separate chaff from wheat. Maybe an encyclopedia is such a place; after all, we are not WikiBibliography (Does that exist already? It seems not; I think it would be a good Wikimedia project). The idea that wheat is separated from chaff in an encyclopedia (as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information) certainly makes sense.
So the question is, what do we want this particular bibliography to be? — mark ✎ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Along the same lines as the discussion above - This link: http://www.redress.org/reports/SudanICCGuideEnglish.pdf Accountability and Justice for International Crimes in Sudan: A Guide on the Role of the International Criminal Court (2007)
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our guidelines since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- SiobhanHansa 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bibliography of the War in Darfur. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bibliography of the War in Darfur. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:BanyanTree: & who said that a "Bibliography of the Darfur conflict" is something that would be of interest to the "average reader", in the first place. I can absolutely find no reason in deleting an information that can be of no disadvantage to the article what so ever! More, your assumptions about what the "average" is, are simply beside the point. There is no way to argue that the listing of this thesis, and the opening of the "theses and dissertations" section in the article, allowing for MORE listings, is useless. While there is every way to argue that this is precisely USEFUL: the thesis simply is related to the Darfur conflict, and you can not prevent the entire world that opens up at Wikipedia to become acknowledged with it, merely because of your subjective and personal opinions, first about the quality of the "average reader", second about the necessity of committing the article to that particular sort of readers with the intellectual quality you impose upon them. RV! __ Maysara 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the criterium should not be whether it is harmful or not, but whether it is useful or not; and whether it qualifies as a reliable source. I must say I tend to agree with BanyanTree that MA theses in general are too minor (and the quality too questionable) to add to a general bibliography. Meeso/Maysara, can you tell me more about that MA thesis you are trying to add? A few questions:
I am afraid to note that "S. Sherifa, The politics of the conflict in Darfur, Thesis (M.A.), American University in Cairo, 2005" is part of Primary (original) research. That states the following:
Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ®
13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguments and accusations of arguments from authority aside, the gist of the matter seems to be a disagreement about the nature of this particular bibliography. Meeso is sure that any bibliography should be all-inclusive, and I can certainly see the sense in that; after all, many bibliographies as you find them in libraries do have the goal of inclusiveness. I agree with Chris Lowe that this thesis would have a place in such an inclusive bibliography, especially since the literature on this topic isn't as abundant as on some other topics.
However, it seems that BanyanTree, and possibly others, think of this particular bibliography as a more selective one. Now, there is certainly a place also for bibliographies that separate chaff from wheat. Maybe an encyclopedia is such a place; after all, we are not WikiBibliography (Does that exist already? It seems not; I think it would be a good Wikimedia project). The idea that wheat is separated from chaff in an encyclopedia (as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information) certainly makes sense.
So the question is, what do we want this particular bibliography to be? — mark ✎ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Along the same lines as the discussion above - This link: http://www.redress.org/reports/SudanICCGuideEnglish.pdf Accountability and Justice for International Crimes in Sudan: A Guide on the Role of the International Criminal Court (2007)
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our guidelines since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- SiobhanHansa 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bibliography of the War in Darfur. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bibliography of the War in Darfur. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)