Jump to content

Talk:Bibliography of the War in Darfur

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

Theses and dissertations

[edit]

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)[reply]

This page is meant to provide resources for a reader coming from Darfur conflict to learn more. First, the published books on this page, the only other items without an external link, are all easily accessible through the web and large libraries. If I wanted to read your thesis, how would I go about accessing it? Second, to be frank, MA theses are a dime a dozen and I've seen some truly awful ones. What makes this one special? Third, from your editing activity and user talk, you appear to either be the author or closely associated with the author. Addition of a source with which you have a personal stake is self-promotion and an infringement of Wikipedia:Spam. So in summary - it's a self-promoting source of indeterminable quality that nobody can access. You might be able to get away with one of those, but not all together. Have you thought of submitting your work to a peer reviewed journal? That would be welcome. BanyanTree 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It is beside the point whether you personally can find the thesis or not (I'm convinced that those who really want to find it, can do so). Even if it byond being found, the fact that there is a thesis on the politics of Darfur conflict is itself worthy of mentioning. Here we only report on existing things regardless of whether we personally find them satisfactory or not. Not every single listed work in Wikipedia must be readily available by a click of a mouse; most of them are not.
  • 2. That you personally consider MA theses as "truly awful" is holistically POV
  • 3. Please put your assumptions about who I am and what relation I have with the author of the thesis aside, it is totally beside the point. However, EVEN if I was the author of that thesis, you have absolutely no right to ignore my argument here, basically, because it has nothing to do with my personal identity, it is objective and impersonal. There is no self-promotion in here. (I have absolutely no relation with the author of the thesis) I'd like to point your attention here to the following WP pages: WP:assume good faith and WP:civil.
  • 4. Peer review is required only for asserted information and statements; it is not required for a listing of something that factually exists and that is highly relevant to a certain topic. If I do cite that thesis in the Darfur conflict article, you then, and only then, can question its validity and whether it is peer reviewed. Put if it is only listed in a page already dedicated for such listing (i.e. a bibliographical listing), of course, no peer review is required or even applicable here. Contributors are here allowed to list whatever is only relevant, EVEN if the information included in the thesis is highly controversial or not peer reviewed. I hope this is understood!
  • 5. This time, I will not report what I consider as a personal attack against my person, as you say: "You might be able to get away with one of those, but not all together." Also, note that your attack is also based on assuming bad faith in my contribution, and that I'm promoting myself, although you have absolutely no clue about whether this is true or false. Please restrict your argument with or against in correspondence only to what I also argue or state, not to what I personally might or might not be. Thank you, __Maysara 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed from the emotional post above that you were connected with the thesis. If this is the normal tone of your discussions, I apologize for my misreading of the situation. I obviously disagree with you, but rather than engage in a particularly lame edit war, I've asked users at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#MA dissertations in a bibliography to come here and comment. Regards, BanyanTree 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, there can be absolutely no justification in deleting that which is in no way harmfull to the "bibliography": The listing of the thesis does not bear any negativity to the bibliography. While it certainly is at least potentially useful; it could even be important to know that someone in the world has written an academic thesis on the topic of Darfur conflict. Anyway, never expect freindliness from others when you go on simply and easily undermining and deleting their contributions, and thus, directly ignoring their efforts and frustrating them, especially when you do this for absolutely no good reason. __Maysara 11:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  • Who was the primary thesis supervisor at AUC?
  • What does the supervisor think of it?
  • Has it been published, or is it being prepared for publication?
  • Is it available online?
  • What was it graded (quite important, I'm sure you know not all MA theses are brilliant)?
  • How would I get to consult it if I wanted? (I note that the AUC library lists it as a manuscript for 'LIB USE ONLY'.)
  • Why is it useful to add to this bibliography? — mark ✎ 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only link available. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • ehim, that was precisely the part I hoped for to be "understood": in bibliographical listing, no opinions are asserted, no "research" whatsoever, in order for you to ask me whether it is original or not. There is precisely no "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." These are different categories of providing information, please! Again: "Peer review is required only for asserted information and statements; it is not required for a listing of something that factually exists and that is highly relevant to a certain topic. If I do cite that thesis in the Darfur conflict article, you then, and only then, can question its validity and whether it is peer reviewed. Put if it is only listed in a page already dedicated for such listing (i.e. a bibliographical listing), of course, no peer review is required or even applicable here. Contributors are here allowed to list whatever is only relevant, EVEN if the information included in the thesis is highly controversial or not peer reviewed." I sincerely hope this is understood! As regards the questions, I wish you attempt to propose them for other contributors about other sources which they listed or referred to somewhere, wait for their responses and answers, and then come back here again with your spirit! No one have to answer such questions, or even have a clue about their answers, in order for them to list, cite, and refer to their sources (although here, the thesis is not even given as a reference or direct source of information, it is only listed in a potentially USEFUL bibliographical list). These questions could be asked about, or rather, against any reference or source that appears in all wikipedia and not only this doomed thesis! and I wonder, what sort of answers do you suggest would be objectively satisfactory in order for you to declare it a universally reliable source?!
  • Who was the primary thesis supervisor at AUC?
Someone, a name!
  • What does the supervisor think of it?
He thinks it's good, yammi: brilliantly tasty!
  • Has it been published, or is it being prepared for publication?
How the hick I know! Yes. No. So what!
  • Is it available online?
Help yourself: google.com -- What if it is not?!
  • What was it graded (quite important, I'm sure you know not all MA theses are brilliant)?
It was graded "truly awful", but so what? I haven't quoted it or used it as a reference in support of an information I'm adding to some article. I'm only reporting that it exists, for those who might want to look. How would I know that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD READING THIS PAGE would not be interested in it. What damage will it cause in being there, as I said said said earlier!
  • How would I get to consult it if I wanted? (I note that the AUC library lists it as a manuscript for 'LIB USE ONLY'.)
Please! Do you actually think you can "get to consult" all WP sources and references! and if not, those which YOU can't consult aught be eradicated!
  • Why is it useful to add to this bibliography?
It is in the very definition of a bibliography to be as much inclusive as possible. Simply, in what sense do you want to prevent others from "making their own" evaluation, not even about the value of the thesis itself, but about its doomed listing in here. What satisfying answer do you expect to get had the question been asked about any other listed entry?!
Tell you what: do as you please. Go. Go! Go for it!! Go on delete it. I won't be sad!!! __Maysara 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a Wikipedia page that defines the purpose of Wikipedia bibliographies? I think Maysara has a point about bibliographies in general --if someone published a bibliography on Darfur either as a monograph or in a peer-reviewed journal, M.A. theses would certainly be candidates for inclusion and usually included. Given the relative paucity of non-journalistic literature on this subject, an M.A. thesis almost certainly would be included if known. But is a Wikipedia bibliography meant to be like a professional / academic one? If it's not, what is it supposed to be? (Actually I think separate bibliographies would be quite unusual in a print encyclopedia -- is this page itself encyclopedic?) From another angle, what is the point of having a bibliography page separate from references at the main article? A source like this difficult to access from most places would be a bad candidate for main references, but a bibliography page would seem to be more extensive. How much more so? Should a Wikipedia bibliography be a tool for someone doing academic research? If so this should be included. If not, probably not . . . but then again, presumptions about accessibility may rest on a N. Am. or European POV -- Am U. in Cairo would be accessible to people in that rather large city & perhaps via library networks in the Middle East &/or North or Northeast Africa. Chris Lowe 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Few editors do it with the sufficient spirit! You come here with whatever contribution and you find others questioning the legitimacy of your actions. WP policy pages are meant to assist those who need assistance, not to give a set of fixed laws and rules whose application is guaranteed by the iron hand of some police whose force is, simply, other contributors who well know these policy pages. This is indeed a deteriorating condition. A wiki means not only free editing; it also, and perhaps primarily means, free organization: the police force are always the same, at all times in all places, they know not of the "freedom of change", they can not conceive that these policy pages themselves are the product of no authority whatsoever, apart from that of a current social agreement among contributors. These policy pages can change and DO change all the time. THIS, is a wiki: it is in the very nature of it to be chaotic and unstable, constantly transforming. These are the signs through which an indication of the life of a wiki become manifest. I am sorry, mark, but your criterion is simply an authoritative one: For a wiki of such size and purpose as Wikipedia is, you simply cannot know whether something is useful or not (of course, simply because what's useful for one may be useless for another: the entire world opens up at Wikipedia and there is no way, no reason, to impose the standards of some quality of intellect over another, as User:BanyanTree once did in respect to the intellectual quality of what he declared as "the average reader"). In most wikis, there is no reason to make such evaluations. Likewise, all aesthetic judgements about tone and the style of writing (sometimes passionately undertaken in WP) are unnecessary. This is so simply because they can never be really objective. As long as something is potentially useful, even if it will never be "useful to ME", not only should be allowed to take place, but also be encouraged and welcomed. Unlike the author of a book, an editor of an encyclopedia must do this. But in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", editors are forced to accept the most remote actions and interactions and to weigh in accordance to some general rules and principles, not to what his and her SELF dictates them to accept. These general rules and principles, one wishes them to be applied by all because one thinks them objective and useful to the well being and progress of the WIKI, the encyclopedia. I think one golden rule is to freely let go absolutely any relevant thing, as long as it is not evidently "harmful" and, by the assurance of observation and testing, is causing a considerable damage. So one should not always consult and return to the policy pages, rather, sometimes one should weigh in accordance to what appears to one as the objective general rules and principles of free editing and organization. Policy pages are usually created when a certain crisis or disagreement ensues among contributors and results in no natural (and indeed, cooperative and progressive) resolution. In that sense, policy pages are "supposed" to be meant with the more serious and profound disagreements and not just everything (wouldn't it be said by an alien who's watching us down here at Wikipedia, that we are more or less an elevated species, the more or less we need policy pages in order to be able to organize our social activities?!) How come it is so naturally tempting to volunteer for a police force? Even merely a conceptual one, where the indulgent fun of arms-play and game of collective physical oppression are entirely lacking?!!
  • 2. We, I myself, could erect whatever new policy page justifying the being of this bibliography page and setting the rules of what it should contain. But I would not do that. I found this page, already exists, I liked it and found it most helpful. I don't care whether anyone think it conforms to some WP policies or rules (you see we could always makes ones, and change others). The page is certainly helpful and, most significantly, potentially helpful for others, its being is causing no harm whatsoever (the same certainly applies to the doomed thesis!). So, it perfectly is corresponding to what I consider as the objective rules and principles of free editing (that is a characteristic of all Wikis). Only if serious and profound disagreement shows up here, we then should think of setting the rules. But rules should be avoided because they are restrictive. Restriction should always be applied ONLY in necessary circumstances. Because otherwise it might be working against some useful and progressive possibilities. ___ Regards, __Maysara 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a bibliography

[edit]

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)[reply]

WikiBibliography → Wikiversity.org. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • 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) 19:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • 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) 18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bibliography_of_the_War_in_Darfur&oldid=1199984057"