Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 September 2011/Sri Lanka

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleSri Lanka
StatusClosed
Request date14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Requesting partyDistributor108 (talk)
Parties involvedDistributor108 (talk · contribs)

Astronomyinertia (talk · contribs)

Ravensfire (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)Micheal faraday (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDistributor108 blocked for one month. If these issues re-arise I suggest AN/I.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Appropriate sourcing of information. main article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka#.2F.2A_Demographics_.2A.2F_outdated_stats.2F_Invalid Dispute resolution : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lanka


Who is involved?

Acceptance of Mediation

Do all parties involved in this case agree for Micheal faraday to mediate the dispute? Indicate your acceptance or rejection below by deleting the unwanted choice and signing your name.

What is the dispute?

Main article sri lanka, claims certain figures for sri lanka's religious make up which contradicts department of census figures and establishes are source for the census of 1993; to a book written by David crystal called factfinder. My question what is Mr Davids jurisdiction for this 1993 census to assess weather this claim is true. It is important to note that neither of the users involved have access to or referenced the book in question.

here is what i need answered.

DoS 2001 census

  • Buddhism: 76.7%
  • Hindu: 7.75%
  • Islam: 8.48%
  • Roman Catholic: 6.11%
  • Other Christian: 0.88%
  • Other: 0.04%

Break down of figures ((12 986.6 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 312.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 435.9 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((1 035.7 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((150.2 / 16 929.7) * 100) + ((8.4 / 16 929.7) * 100) = 100

Reference
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-13.pdf
Source
Department of Census and Statistics

Jurisdiction of DoS

Purview

Legal authority for a census is required for fixing administrative responsibilities on public officers, placing legal obligation upon the public to give correct answers and for maintaining confidentiality of the individual information.

The DoS has taken steps to amend the Census Ordinance and the Cabinet of Ministers has given approval to do the amendments as required. The amendments were sent to the Legal Draftmans Department for drafting the new bill which will then be submitted to the Parliament.

Selected ordinances

  • Census Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd_No5_1868&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
  • Census Ordinance No. 9 of 1900 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd_No9_1900&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
  • Census (Amendment) Act, No.16 of 1981 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenAmeAct_No16_1981&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
  • Census (Amendment) Act, No. 55 of 2000 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenAmeAct_No55_2000&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
  • Census (Amendment) Act, No. 26 of 2011 Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=CenOrd2011_E&gp=CensusOrdinance&tpl=3
Assessing validity of DoS 2001 census

Is it compulsory to provide my information to the census enumerator? Yes, The Census Ordinance provides legal authority to the Department of Census and Statistics to carry out the census while the same ordinance obligates every person to answer census questions to the best of his/her knowledge and ability. During census enumeration, a representative from each and every household is asked to answer the questions on the Census form. If you do not answer the questions, the Director General of Census and Statistics as the Census Superintendent has the power to direct you to provide the information. If you fail to provide such information this, you have a legal obligation to comply.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q3

Is my information going to be provided to the others?

No! The DoS under the Census Ordinance is legally bound to protect the confidentiality of the information collected on individuals/household at the census. Neither a government agency nor any other organization will be given data about an individual person or a household.

Reference: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=FAQ#Q4

Also see: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/databases/data%20dissemination/DataDissaPolicy_2007Oct26.pdf regarding Data Dissemination policy

Micro-data Dissemination policy of the Department of Census and Statistics (DCS)

Under the Statistical ordinance, micro data cannot be released with identifications for public use. Procedures are in place to ensure that information relating to any particular individual person, household or undertaking will be kept strictly confidential and will not be divulged to external parties. Information on individual or individual household/establishment will not be divulged or published in such a form that will facilitate the identification of any particular person or establishment as the data have been collected under the Census/Statistical ordinance, according to which the information at individual level cannot be divulged and such information is strictly confidential. Therefore, all direct identifiers will be removed (name, address, ID number, business name, reference number, telephone number etc.) before the release of the data file. The following rules apply to micro data released by the Department of Census and Statistics.


David 1993 census

  • Buddhism: 69%
  • Hindu: 15%
  • Islam: 8%
  • Christianity: 8%

Raw figures unable to retrieve as nobody has a copy of the book; furthermore this figures has clearly been altered to add to 100. These types of % are almost impossible.

Reference

Crystal, David, ed (1993). "Sri Lanka". The Cambridge Factfinder (4th South Asian 2001 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 331. ISBN 0521794358.

Source
Unable to establish as nobody has a copy of the book.

Jurisdiction of David's factfinder

Please fill me in - Thank you

Assessing validity of David's 1993 census

Is it compulsory to provide my information to the census enumerator?

Please fill me in - Thank you


Is my information going to be provided to the others?

Please fill me in - Thank you

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lanka

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The places marked fill me in above.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Establish the more reliable source.

Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

The filer of this case, Distributor108 (talk · contribs), was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise for one month for "persistent disruptive editing" on the 20th September 2011. (block log) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As a neutral at DRN, I have no personal interest in the outcome of this matter. I stand by the positions I took there and will be happy to respond to any inquiries made by any mediator who accepts this case, but will not be otherwise involved and should not be considered to be an interested party. Just for the record: Though I sometimes work here at MedCab as a mediator or clerk I, of course, consider myself to be disqualified to act in either such role in this case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why are you listed as neutral at DRN? I believe i am also a neutral, i have no interest in pertaining a certain outcome with disregard to pro and cons, I believe in assessing the situation and providing the best outcome i see fit. I under this basis, I am listing myself as a neutral. However I would like to say I do not see you as a neutral, because you seem to conjure irrational illogical judgement, without any substantiating support for your decision. Therefore i believe you have higher order objectives and goals. And rebuff your listing as neutral party, however for your sake I will not alter your listing I will leave it for mediator to decide.Distributor108 (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to understand what TransporterMan means by the "neutral" label if we instead rephrase it to "uninvolved". Neither I, TransporterMan, or Ravensfire had any involvement in editing content on the Sri Lanka page before it came to WP:DRN, at least to my knowledge. I know that TransporterMan acted as clerk for a previous dispute about the article, but that does not in my opinion change his status as an uninvolved outsider. By this definition of neutral, I hope you can see that as the filer of this dispute, listing yourself as neutral is an error. (I am sure, though, that you are committed to following the neutral point of view policy, which is a different meaning of "neutral" and not the one that is under discussion here.) While I am commenting here, I should note that I have no personal preference over the content of this article as long as it conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as such I will be removing myself from the list of involved editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I was previously uninvolved in this until it was brought to the DRN. I'm one of the volunteers there that tries to work with everyone involved to keep discussion going and productive. For that case, discussion was active, especially at DRN, but some on the talk page. As noted in my summary, multiple editors have disagreed with Distributor108's view with clear, policy based explanations. From everything I can see, there is a strong concensus about which figures to use and why. These explanations have been rejected out of hand. His post here does not include or cover any of the opposing views. Ravensfire (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As noted in my summary, multiple editors have disagreed with Distributor108's view with clear, policy based explanations. " - Please do tell me the policy based explanation, I'd like to hear it Distributor108 (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read my summary, plus the posts of others about this. To give you a short, short version, the 2001 data is incomplete. That makes it unreliable for the country as a whole. For the provinces that were surveyed, it is reliable. You have consistently been told that. You have consistently ignored that. You are comfortably beyond WP:IDHT territory at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate to me which WP guidelines gives you the authority to assess the validity of a published consensus? Distributor108 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Mr. Stradivarius, I am removing myself from the list of involved editors for the reasons he and I stated, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/16_September_2011/Sri_Lanka&oldid=1084307681"