User talk:24.31.114.168

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vigilante article and plagiarized text

Please attribute your quoted material. Under Wikipedia:Non-free content see Acceptable_use_of_text... check those sections out regarding policy. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have been providing links to material. Any quoted material without specific references is inadvertent.24.31.114.168 16:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Your links, more often than not, do not support what you are adding to the article. "Vigilantism can be described as extreme communal distress," for example is attributed to an article that uses the term "communal distress" once:
"This, more than anything else, remains the most contentious political issue in Sri Lanka, mirroring the crisis abut the unitary nature of the state that has fueled Sri Lanka's communal distress for years." (p. 231)
The author is not describing vigilantism, and in fact only uses the word vigilante once in the entire article:
"Murder and mayhem continued unabated, with new anti-JVP vigilante-style gangs entering the fray."(p. 233)
This is worse than plagiarism or not attributing claims in the article because you are deliberately misrepresenting the sources you do use; it's not "inadvertent" and is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. And to what ends? Your additions are a disjointed collection of original research that dissolves the concept of vigilantism into a soup of unrelated concepts like crimes against humanity, moral panic, hate crimes, peadophilia, etcetera. The general psychoanalysis that underlines your additions needs attribution. Is there a psychohistory or sociopsychological analysis specifically dealing with vigilantism that you can find and attribute? If not, this doesn't belong in the article. bobanny 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"...dissolves the concept of vigilantism into a soup of unrelated concepts like crimes against humanity, moral panic, hate crimes, peadophilia, etcetera..."

Vigilantes are in a 'stew' of sorts.11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

feel free to discuss these issues on the article's talk page. The general rule of thumb is to try and reach some sort of consensus there for major changes to an article if they are likely to be contentious or disputed. bobanny 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)