Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 11:44, 5 August 2007 (→Issue One). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Opening Statements

To kick off the mediation, I would like to ask each party to make an opening statement that addresses the issues to be mediated – whether each link and reference should be included in its respective article. Please include rationale for your position(s), but try to limit your statement to a couple paragraphs. Additionally, please refrain from posting rebuttals under the other party's section, although you are free to include counter-arguments in the course of your own opening statement in your own section. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33

My general attitude is to have the issues outlined on the project page included:

• I support the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).

The reasoning of this is:

• that the article is more than a summary of a conference, and provides valid and important analysis/opinions about the subject matter, along with links to full articles on various issuse that fall under the articles subject; thus it is useful to the wikipedia entry as to warrent a link in the external links section in the very least;
• that although a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia it can also go on the author's page as its sufficiently about the author as much as her work;
• that the review, while it may be an amateur work has gained notablity wihtin the press and academia, and thus is fine for the external links section; that is has a POV is good (one of the reasons we have an external links section).
• that Professor Gao, although is not directly quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry, is referenced in the article that is quoted, mentioning Prof. Gao's talk on the subject, making his reference in the article completely relevant and part of reporting exactly the the source we quotes says, in the same context. Further research revealed Prof. Gao is working on a new book with a whole chapter on the matter. Thus, mentiong Gao, just like he author of the source we quotes does, allows the reader this useful informatoin about Prof. Gao's interest and involvment with this subject matter.

Giovanni33 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's

My general attitude is to not have the issues outlined on the project page included:

• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).

The reasoning of this is:

• that the article is only a summary of a conference, also lacking detailed referencing of any opinions/analysis and thus is not significantly useful to the wikipedia entry;
• that a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia should not go on the author's page;
• that the review is an amateur work and highly POV in places/of mixed quality;
• that Professor Gao is not quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry and thus any reference to him in the article is largely irrelevant.

John Smith's 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue One

• Inclusion of this article in the external links section of the Cultural revolution page

The first issue in the mediation seems to relate to whether the analysis provided within the external article is valid and significant. I'd like to point to a paragraph that used to be in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (or Misplaced Pages:Verifiability -- one of the two):

Beware false authority. Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other.

Although this no longer resides in the aforementioned policy, I believe it's a good starting point for resolving the first issue. From the bottom of the external article, one can see the author's credentials:

Fred Magdoff is professor of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in Burlington. He is author of numerous scientific articles; coauthor, with Harold van Es, of Building Soils for Better Crops (Sustainable Agricultural Network, 2000); and coeditor, with John Bellamy Foster and Frederick H. Buttel, of Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment (Monthly Review Press, 2000).

Based on that information (or additional information about the author, if you have any), is he or is he not a pertinent source with expertise relevant to the subject of the article and, perhaps more importantly, the Misplaced Pages article Cultural Revolution? -- tariqabjotu 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that he is not a "pertinent source" as you describe given his qualifications. John Smith's 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel that way. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well on the question you asked, is he a pertinent source, I would say that his grounding in plant/soil science is not relevant to the area in discussion, which is history. That does damage his credibility as a source to express opinion, which he does do in the article. Thus that is one reason why I don't think it's appropriate. John Smith's 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy/guideline section you point to is not relevant. Please note this is not for any text in the body of the article, that its being used to support some claims being made. Rather its only a link presenting a political POV, in the external links section. Therefore to find the applicable and relavent policy that perstains to this please see the policy and guildelines on external links, and note the section on politics.Giovanni33 19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the discussion is over whether this link should be included in the External links section. However, my reason for quoting the piece from the policy was to provide a reason why relevance needs to be taken into consideration. Anyone can write a piece related to the Cultural Revolution (even I might be able to), so we need to have a standard by which we judge whether links should be included. Although that quote formerly resided in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, (the current version of) Misplaced Pages:External links demands a similar level of relevance from external links:

• What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
• Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

So, I'm querying each of you as to whether the link qualifies as "meaningful", "relevant", and/or "knowledgeable". The author's credentials are particularly important given the conflict between you and John over this link appears to be centered around the validity and importance of the analysis and opinions therein. However, looking at the author's credentials is only one possible metric; if you have other reasons to believe the link in question is significant regardless of the author's credentials, please make them known. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Notice the EL section has different standards. This is a review of an academic conference on the Cultural Revolution, discussing central issues, from a socialist perspective. Its published in a very respected academic Marxist journal, and the author, while he is a professor in another area of experties, shows he is knowlegable about the subject, and has written books that relate to the politics of food and social organization, again as a socialist. For example see here: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705magdoffs1.htm I'll also point out that this article, as a summary/reivew, links to many other articles for a more indepth discussion of each topic---all completely relevant, meaninful content to this article. This makes is valid, even if its not suitable for inclusion into the body of the article, and also even if the author is not considered a reliable source as per below:

• What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
• Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Moreover, this link does not violate any of the guildlines for inclusion. No one alleges that it is not accurate, misleading, etc. The author talks about the common western view, acknolweges the chaos, and dark side of those times, but brings us back to more balanced, nuanced understanding of the upsdide of the movemvent, and Mao's intention in launching it, in keeping with this school of thought. These are legitimate points, interesting commentary and review of an academic conference on the CR (who are China experts, and reports on their topics). Thus, it is completely germaine, meaningful, relevant content, with the source being knowlegable as is evidenced by this very published article (among others).Giovanni33 06:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the link in question - please don't bring up others, as that's a red-herring - I re-state my point that I don't see the author as being properly grounded in the field he is writing about. However, another issue is that really it's quite pointless to me. It reads like someone's travel diary. "Oh, and I saw this thing and this thing and this thing........" Really, that's not a valuable link in my opinion. If this was a link to the conference website that had detailed accounts of what was said, that might be better. But it isn't. Such brief summaries of what must have been very complex discussions are completely inappropriate. John Smith's 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You make two points. The first one is already addressed: your point about the author not being properly grounded in the field is noted but per policy on the external links section, this standard does not apply. The standard is that the content is relevant, meaningful, and/or the author is knowlegable. Your other point is that its not detailed enough, that the summary was too brief? But, I point out that it links to more detailed articles, and each section that he participated in is reviewed for its salient points. Not all links should be dense and complete. High over view summaries of the main issues presented in this conference on the CR are also appropriate. You say its "quite pointless." I disagree. He makes many important points that are central to understanding the CR. Here is one point he makes, that I feel is quite important, relevant, and meaningful as content to the article: "Mao's purpose for initiating the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was to mobilize and engage millions and millions from all sectors of society -- workers and peasants as well as students and intellectuals -- in a struggle against the forces within the Party that favored the restoration of capitalism. Among most intellectuals in China and the United States, the Cultural Revolution has been viewed as an era of inhumane chaos. It is true that the Cultural Revolution was chaotic, with various Red Guard factions (some were even sham Red Guards, possibly organized by those under attack to confuse the masses) and many instances of exaggerated and inhumane treatment of people, including killings. On the other hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive light -- an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside."

That may be pointless to you, but not to me. Its definitely makes a major point. It links to other articles that expand on this topic. Its a topic and issue that is very much at the heart of the debate of the CR, esp. important given how the West has demonized this rather multifaceted, overachring and profoundly tranformative period (for both bad and good). You may not like or agree with this perspective, but you can't deny its a central counter point to the dominant western pov, and has everything to do with the CR.

Again, if you feel this is too brief, not detailed enough, then, as I said before, I'm happy to replace this link with a better one that makes the same points, as above--a better report on this academic conference on the Cultural Revolution. Do you have one? Otherwise, it amounts to arguing that "nothing is better than something." But isnt' nothing even more breif, more shallow, and the most possibly uninformative of all, as its amounts to blanking what little (but interesting) information that is provided? What is most strange is that your argument rests on this very basis (that its not detailed enough), yet your solution is to make information about this conference and its important gone completely, to blank it. What can be less informative than nothing? No, that is not an acceptable line of argument, it is not logical, nor is it supported by policies on external links provided for above.Giovanni33 08:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more a case of "nothing is better than someone's travel journal that is vaguely related to the article in question". John Smith's 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article about "The Fortieth Anniversary: Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution" is not related to the Cultural Revoltion very directly, then nothing is! Last time I checked the article in question was called the "Cultural Revolution," yes? So unless that article's title changes to a different subject, saying this article about the CR is only 'vaguely related" is absurd.Giovanni33 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni seems to have raised some good points regarding the article's relevance despite the professor's expertise in a different area. Do you, John, contest the truthfulness of the link's information or have a better review (or other relevant piece)? -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a better link. I can't be sure about the link's "truthfulness" because there's nothing to back it up or put it in context - with such picking-and-choosing we don't know what was really said there (not to say the author was lying but that comments he may not have liked were ignored). As I said, it's just a travel diary with a bit of opinion. Also I'm not going to run around doing Giovanni's work for him. John Smith's 11:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)