This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Debating B‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.todayonline.com/articles/257921.aspWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)