Talk:Anuradhapura massacre

Untitled

Hi Sebastian

The Wikipedia policy does seem to provide for dupliction among some of these categories such as "War Crimes" and "Civilian Massacres". This article belongs to those categories as well as the terrorsit incident categories. As for the other categories I have re-added, this article does belong to those categories as well. Dutugemunu 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's please stop both with our edits until we find an agreement. Thank you. — Sebastian 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be specific? Which part of the policy are you referring to? How does it apply specifically to each of the categories you are adding? — Sebastian 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, did you read Category talk:War crimes in Sri Lanka? I don't see any reason why you removed my comment that specifically asked to read it. — Sebastian 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which pages was the comment on. I will revert to it if you let me know. Sorry of I have made such a mistakeDutugemunu 10:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. It was here on this article (and possibly a few others, I don't remember now) in your last edit [1]. Maybe when I wrote "before adding this", it wasn't clear enough? I meant "before adding it to that category by taking it out of the comment." — Sebastian 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the comment, but I thought we resolved the issueDutugemunu 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source

Gassbeek, fails to meet a WP:RS due to it been a PhD theses that has not been "scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles" since these are "preferable to the original thesis as sources", which Gassbeek's work represents. Cossde (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Preferable" to have scholarly monographs or peer-reviewed articles, but does this actually disqualify Gasbeek's work? SinhalaLion (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship They are allowed to be used. That line refers to if the thesis subsequently gets published as a book, then the book is preferable:

Full quote - "Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources."

But gaasbeek thesis was not published as a book, so that line does not apply to this situation. stop selectively quoting and twisting the RS policy. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, there is a strong reason why scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles are preferred over unpublished theses. The latter lacks credibility the former has. Under normal circumstances I would be agreeable to accept Gassbeek as a RS, however not in this case. This is a very controversial topic and very serious accusations have been made that need a high degree of credibility. An unpublished theses is not such and WP:RS clearly indicates it. Cossde (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lol it has more credibility than the 'newspapers' from SL that you regard as reliable sources and continuously use to reference multiple articles. Newspapers which lie and claim the massacre of civilians was the massacre of rebels. Poor fact checking, pro state media etc. Gaasbeek is an academic with a PhD from a well respected university, not a tin pot university from a tin pot country. He has FAR more credibility than your favourite SL newspaper references.

WP:RS does not indicate none of the stuff that you are claiming. You just distorted the words of the policy in plain sight for all to see. Oz346 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, what do you mean by tin pot university? a tin pot country? Cossde (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about low quality 'universities' which are not known for academic rigour and are usually corrupt. Not talking about any country or university in particular, but talking in general terms. The point being Gaasbeek phd is from an internationally respected institution and does not fit the criteria for low 'credibility' as you claim. Oz346 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, may remind you calling a country a tin pot country or university a tin pot university is very degrading. Its not WP:CIVIL. As for Gassbeek, he is not an academic as you claimed, he is a NGO administrator at the time of presenting this theses for its viva defense in 2010. If you had taken the time to review this document, you may have seen that it is a theses prepared for viva defense, hence not the final product (viva defense may recommend changes), thus making this a still in progress and is not vetted since it has not stood for viva defense, hence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it is not a RS since "Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule." Cossde (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

He is an academic and has a doctorate, and the PhD was successfully peer reviewed and defended (with distinction I may add). And it is this version which is the final version which was published on the unversity website and proquest following this:

https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/bridging-troubled-waters-everyday-inter-ethnic-interaction-in-a-c

https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e4011a139cd073122045216575da7e0/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y

It has also been cited MULTIPLE times by other RS. It is a clear RS. Oz346 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, then why is both documents have "Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University by the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. Dr. M.J. Kropff, in the presence of the Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board to be defended in public on Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 4 p.m. in the Aula" on page 5 of the PDF in both URLs you presented? Cossde (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Because that's the generic template put in place of every PhD thesis in that university before submission. After peer review and successful defence, it is not necessary to change that. The link I have shared from the university itself, confirms it was successfully defended and earned a distinction, and it is this document which is explicitly linked in that later webpage. Oz346 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that your opinion or is that the policy of this university? Cossde (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Its the policy of the university, here is another successfully defended PhD which was awarded a doctorate. Again a similar template is used. This is standard policy in many universities.

https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/even-fish-have-an-ethnicity-livelihoods-and-identities-of-men-and

Your argument that this version of Gaasbeek PhD was not peer reviewed or successfully defended is FALSE.

Otherwise it would not have been linked or published in the university website itself under the qualification of distinction with a confirmed award date. Oz346 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please share the policy document to confirm what you just said. Cossde (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not a student at this university, so I don't have access to the document, but you can clearly see yourself that all of their PhDs have this common template: https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/?nofollow=true&format=&type=%2Fdk%2Fatira%2Fpure%2Fresearchoutput%2Fresearchoutputtypes%2Fthesis%2Finternwu Oz346 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately that does not prove what you said. I am not saying it, but for the sake of argument you could have made up all that about how this university publish completed PhD thesis. Therefore, without confirmation from the university that this is the process they publish completed PhD thesis, we can only take this document as a "dissertations in progress", hence its not a reliable source. This is exactly why we use scholarly monographs and peer reviewed articles since these come with the seal of approval from the issuing organization and carries its credibility. If you are not happy with my assessment you are free to get a third opinion. Cossde (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Simple, it's directly linked in an article saying it earned a distinction and award. Meaning it has been vetted. and not only that, every single other PhD published on the university website also has the same template.

There is a easy way to get an answer for this, and that is to contact the university directly.

But I don't think that's necessary, it's obvious it's been vetted. Oz346 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's not vetted as you bogusly claim it is, why has it been uploaded in the a page saying it has been published, awarded and given a distinction?

And the same question applies to the thousands of other PhD theses published on this website which also have the same template. Oz346 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, if what you say is true and I agree with you then this source became mostly a WP:Primary source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Cossde (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Its not a primary source, it clearly a secondary source. Oz346 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not me that said it. Its WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Cossde (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No what it's saying is that many PhDs are mainly or significantly primary source material. It doesn't say all are. But this particular segment of this PhD has no evidence of being primary source material. Oz346 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You do have a point there.Cossde (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)