Jump to content

Talk:Asian Universities Debating Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names of Debaters

[edit]

Don't the debaters' names (Champions and Finalists) deserve to be mentioned here? Anyway, in case someone comes across this post and thinks so, here are their names (I don't know how to format it for wikipedia):

2005 Finalists: Ankit Agarwala, Ajay, Sushil Sriram (NTU A) Champions: Jess Lopez, Sharmila Parmanand, Charisse Borromeo (ADM A) Finals Best Speaker: Sushil Sriram

2006 Finalists: Roland Glenn Tuazon, Miko Biscocho, Mahar Mangahas (ADM B) Champions: Sharmila Parmanand, Leloy Claudio, Charisse Borromeo (ADM A) Finals Best Speaker: Miko Biscocho

2007 Finalists: Alexander Yeo, Mark John Cordiner, Vishal Harnal (NUS B) Champions: Sharmila Parmanand, Leloy Claudio, Roland Glenn Tuazon (ADM A) Finals Best Speaker: Leloy Claudio

It might also be important to note that debaters who attend the All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships normally do not attend the Asian Universities Debating Championship, since they have been scheduled either simultaneously or very close to each other for the past three AUDCs. 58.69.80.161 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material added to the 'Controversy' section

[edit]

New material has continually been added to the ‘Controversy’ section over the last few days by JJJ999 and 122.148.218.27 (if you compare the two contribution histories, it seems fairly clear that these are both the same person). I have reverted the material every time (they have accused me of violating WP:3RR, but that’s not the case because my reverts have been spread out over more than 24 hours).

The material they’ve been adding in refers to the “the nepotism and corruption of the All-Asians tournament”, and the “singling out adjudicators from All-Asians like Praba Ganesan as biased, incompetent cheats”. The source provided is an e-mail from the All-Asians mailing list.

The source provided does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability. If you look at WP:SOURCE, it clearly falls into the category of a ‘Questionable Source’. Questionable sources, according to WP:SOURCE, “rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions”, and are therefore unacceptable. Wikipedia policy clearly states that “articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources”, and clearly no reliable sources have also published these specific claims.

In an edit summary, 122.148.218.27 claims that me saying this is an unacceptable source is “akin to a suggestion that the letters of Hitler would not be a source for his actions”. But this misses the point. A letter from Hitler would be acceptable only if reputable historians had first analysed it and published writing about it. If a Wikipedian suddenly discovered a new letter of Hitler’s, it would not be an acceptable source and basing factual claims on it’s content here would violate Wikipedia’s policy of No Original Research.

JJJ999/122.148.218.27 seems to have some sort of personal grudge against Praba Ganesan. They’ve previously vandalised the List of debaters page with claims about this person (see here and here - in the second instance, the vandalism seems to have been done in a hurry because they actually placed the claims next to the name of another person, even though the talk page comment makes it clear that Praba Ganesan was the intended target). But a personal grudge cannot justify adding material to a Wikipedia page that does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability.

Singopo (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let me start by saying I am certainly JJJ999, however the IP I sometimes use when I am too lazy to sign in is a shared one, and the vandalism is the work of a rather overzealous friend of mine. I apologise for their inappropriate remarks, they are not familiar with wikipedia policy.

Now, as to the substance of the issue. The source and the comments are both valid. I know you have a vested interest here, and I am sorry you feel the remarks will be inappropriate or damaging, but to suggest that what I have written is not accurate or sourced really is absurd. Firstly, there is a distinction between me saying "Praba is a nepotistic fraud" and me posting "one of the reasons given for this split were accusations Praba was a nepotistic fraud". Now you haven't disputed that claims of that nature were among the key reasons for the split, so unless you're going to that stands.

Secondly, I don't need a "historian" to tell me what the letter says, and here is why. Because the letter is on the official All-Asians mailing list where they announced the split, and has been made by the committee members of the first AUDC council. To suggest this is somehow unsourced or unreliable is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. It does meet source standards, because it is accessible as the NYtimes, and you have never once drawn into question the veracity of what it says. Not "that Praba is a fraud, etc" but that one of the reasons given for the split was "we think Praba is a fraud". They are two distinct claims. If the controversey is notable, then it stands to reason that the reasons for it are notable. I would like to hear the reason why you think the controversy itself is notable, and not full of "contentious, unprovable material" but that the reasons for it, taken verbatim from the first AUDC committee, are not. They share the exact same level of sourcing, and are equally contentious, especially as the AUDC has constantly claimed it is not a rival tournament and so on. JJJ999 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not notability, it's verifiability. I have no vested interest here. While I have been involved in debating within my own country (Singapore) in the past and have a general interest in it, I have never been involved the AUDC or AAIDC in any way whatsoever, and until this content dispute arose 3 days ago I had never heard of Praba Ganesan. My only concern here is the quality of this Wikipedia article. The source cited here quite clearly meets WP:SOURCE's definition of a 'Questionable Source', and therefore it's very clear in Wikipedia policy that "articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources". That's the reason why I believe this sentence has to go (and possibly one or two other sentences in the article should also be revised). I'm in no position to agree or disagree with any of the claims in the sources because I have no additional knowledge of the background of the situation. The reason I've become involved in this was becuase I came across an obviously contentious claim that was not backed up by sources that are acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Singopo (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk about verifiability. The entire article only uses 1 source, and that very source is the exact same one which I have used. To call it questionable means the entire article is questionable, especially the "controversey" section. It is not a "contentious claim" because it is their stated reason for being disatisfied with the AUDC. Whether the claim is accurate is unclear (though it would likewise draw into question the whole article, if this source is "questionable", which it is not), but there is no doubt that it was the reason they provided for the split in question, that they believed it to be true. Look, you are either notable or you are not, and if this page is notable then the people involved are to some degree public figures. You don't get to cry for privacy when you are in public. If the article section on the controversey is valid, then the reason for the split also seems valid, and whether the reasons are true, there is no doubt that the only source which has ever supported this page backs up the verifiability of those claims, even if not the truth of them (which is moot). If WUDC council minutes were used to back up a claim, for example about the Zargeb bid failing because of no faith in the adjudication team, I doubt you could object. Nor do I believe you do not have a vested interest. Just to be clear. If you don't think that the official mailing list, minutes, etc of the AUDC and All-Asians is a "reliable source" then how can you justify this article existing, or any of the content. It's telling that you have never challenged the veracity of what I've said, so until you have consensus on this issue, the remarks should stay, and they will stay.JJJ999 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems very familar. This is not the first time that JJJ999 has used a Wikipedia article to make personal attacks against people he has a negative personal opinion of while claiming his comments are justified becuase of sources that don't meet Wikipedia's standards. (And this time he's apparently getting some help from an overzealous friend who uses the same IP.) JJJ's right about one thing, though. The article does need some more referencing in general. But that doesn't justify adding in new contentious text and saying it must be ok because the only other source currently in the article is similar. The source is not an independent third-party reputable source, which means it's a questionable source according to Wikipedia policy. It's true that many short articles on Wikipedia lack good third-party sources, and they can get often away with this if there's nothing very contentious in the article and the sources are at least good enough to prove that the whole subject's not a hoax. But, as Singopo has noted, Wikpedia is very clear that contentious claims a questionable source has made about third parties that come from must not be repeated (yes, WP:SOURCE says "not repeat", and not just "repeat but note that someone else said it first"). It's there in black and white. There's no question that it's an agreed Wikipedia policy. Noting in broad terms that the event was created due to unhappiness with another event is not that contentious, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. But specific claims about corruption and naming an individual can only be included if there's a reputable third-party published source. So I'm 100% behind Singopo here. Purple Watermelon (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what else is familiar? You being on the losing end of the outcome, because you're making partisan decisions not based on wikirules. You've opposed I think 5 of my debating related AfDs, and every single time you were shot down. This will be no different if you force it, because you don't base a single thing you do on "wikirules", rather on your personal debating predeliction. I note the comment on one of your recent posts to the effect that you removed "unsourced content". Surely you must be confused, because under your argument the whole article is "unsourced". There is nothing contentious about the claim, except that it would annoy certain debaters. The claim being completely accurate, and in a rival competitions official mailing list (and Paul Tan's blog) I have to wonder if you know what independent 3rd party sourcing means. What you've really conceded is that the tournament is not notable, because no independent source covers this IV, and much less the entire controversey section. I personally think it's notable enough to be worthy of having a page, but if this is the way you want to play it I will nominate it for an AfD if you persist. And you know what, you are going to lose. Failing that I'm tagging it for lack of notability among other things. To suggest a single word in the "Controversey" section is backed up by any source you would consider credible is a bad joke. If the official mailing list and minutes of these organisations is not notable, that says more about the IV than about the source. Further, you just violated the principle of "consensus" by running off and asking 2 of your friends to back you up on their talk pages, both of whom have been partisans in the past. Looks like I'll be going the AfD route then. JJJ999 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put it up for deletion, go for it. You haven't helped yourself by stating in back and white just about that you don't think it should be deleted and would only be nominating it in order to play games as part of a content dispute. Purple Watermelon (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said at all. I personally don't think it should be deleted, because it is a useful article. But there can be no doubt it fails WP: Source or notability and verification requirements. So, if that's the logic you're going to pull out to prevent adding information to it, we may as well kill the article since it won't function properly.JJJ999 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the disputed material has comments about a living person, BLP applies. BLP requires reliable sources; Yahoo Groups clearly fails that, as it is not verifiable. This content, as presently sourced, is clearly a violation of BLP and has no place on WIkipedia. V-train (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy unexplained

[edit]

The section does a real bad job at explaining what the controversy is about. Why did the split occur? __earth (Talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asian Universities Debating Championship. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian Universities Debating Championship. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Universities_Debating_Championship&oldid=1252052202"