Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources (or Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia article Cultural Revolution? -- tariqabjotu 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources, (the current version of) Wikipedia: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)[reply]