Talk:Burning of Jaffna library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Sri Lanka may be able to help!

To-do list for Burning of Jaffna library:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Other: Picture of the burnt and rebuilt library, a seperate article on Jaffna Library not just redirect to burning of it

RaveenS 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Archived Talk Pages
Archive 1

[edit] Sources used in this articles

not just thi article. I see these nonsense source used for citations across all srilankan terrorists/terrorism related articles. Even some tamil related articles. It is high time we started cleaning up this mess. Does anybody know how to get a source blacklisted? We should push for getting all these Tamilnet etc., blacklisted from WP. Wikipedia is not some suicide bomber's mouthpiece. Sarvagnya 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral place and not some racist propoganda machine. Wiki Raja 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Tamilnet is used as a source in news agencies such as CNN, Reuters, AP, and many other newspapers. So, why would WP blacklist Tamilnet? This is a NPOV site, not a POV interest group. Wiki Raja 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear sarvagnya, you couldn't have said it better ! most of the citations in Sri Lanka relates issues come from those so called tamil-something sites,such as tamil-net,tamil-canadian,tamil-nation and blabla..These sites are not only absurd but also lower the quality of the Wikipedia with their nonsense..Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnation is patently a partisan source and unacceptable. So is Lankaweb on the Sinhalese side. They are clearly ethnic lobbying sites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And I think it will be fair and balanced if both sids were presented, or at least presented with their web sites in the external links section. Unlike some other users, I am not a hater of any ethnic group or persons. All I ask is that things be fair and balanced. It does not surprise me that Iwakiki posted a message on my talk page stating that Tamil sites should not be used to talk about the burning of the Jaffna library. Instead, he stated that Tamil sites be used to talk about terrorism. Now, how biased is that?? Wiki Raja 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only links to proper organisations etc, are permitted, per WP:EL. Otherwise some wiki articles would simply become a dumping ground of hundreds of blogs and propaganda sites for and against whatever the topic is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Blnguyen, Tamilnet, Tamilnation, Tamilcanadian and all similar sites on the pro-LTTE side, and Lankaweb, Lankathruth etc. from the anti LTTE side should not be used as sources in these articles. Especially since there are enough neutral news reports which can be used as sources.

And they should not be linked to either, unless they provide something useful, pictures for example. Like I have said before, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Articles shouldn't be like he said, she said. It should contain neutral, cited material only. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be only fair and balanced if both sides are presented. Otherwise, from which sources will you find to use, Turkey? Wiki Raja 06:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss as to why you brought up Turkey in this discussion. Do you mean the country or the bird? In either case, what does a country or a bird have to do with using reliable sources for these articles? Can you please explain that?

To reply to what I think you said, there are various reports filed about Sri Lanka by Reuters, CNN, AFP etc etc, and although I accept quite a few Sri Lanka newspapers are not reliable sources, I think a few like the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Times are reliable, and can be used as well. They may not be as detailed as some POV websites, but its better to have the truth in lesser words than to included falsities into these articles just for the sake of expanding them.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that there are no Tamil web sites which speak the truth? Wiki Raja 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with providing neutral sources. But see this. According to this Tamilnet can be used with a qualifier 'Pro-LTTE'. Anyways, I do not recommend using them. I also do not recommend using pro-singala crap sites such as Lankaweb, Lankatruth, island nation etc. Praveen 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is wrong! Wikiprojects and their members are not entitled to decide how much leeway they will give to which source. Wikipedia has a clear policy about reliable sources and most of the sources used on this article and related articles are anything but reliable. On the other hand, they are blatantly partisan. I recommend rewrite of all these articles from scratch taking special care to use only reliable sources. If, as a result, the article's size reduces to half or even less, then so be it. Quality of the article, anyway, does not depend on its length. Sarvagnya 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by rewrite these articles from scratch? Should these articles state that it never happened? Enough with your hate posts. Wiki Raja 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on what is a reliable source is known. But what the effect of applying those rules to a particular case to assess its reliability is something people can disagree on. You are convinced that Tamilnet is not reliable. Many others think it is reliable. How can you say you are right and the others are wrong? The others will say the same thing, that they are right and you are wrong. If everyone insists on their point of view you will have a revert war. When such disagreements happen, Wikipedia suggests going to mediation rather than engaging in a revert war. The mediator then helps to find a compromise. This is the only way forward, because Wikipedia does not have a court which can decide content disputes or whether a particular source is reliable. That WikiProject is the result of a mediation (by Sebastian Helm) which I think is still ongoing. Everybody here, participate there and help the reaching of a consensus which we can apply across all articles, otherwise we will just have edit wars spreading. -- Ponnampalam 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SLR

Exactly! Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is an ongoing mediation effort. It is bipartisan, including Sinhalese as well as Tamils. The classification of sources has been reached in consensus, which is quite an achievement for two factions who are so utterly at odds!

The classification "Qualified Sources" is a compromise between Reliable Sources and unreliable sources. This is necessary because it so happens that there are many borderline reliable sources in the Sri Lanka conflict, and discussions of whether they are RS or UnRS have not reached consensus in the past. ~~(Only one reliable news agency - BBC - sends reporters to Sri Lanka, and they can't be everywhere.)~~ Anybody who has a constructive idea how to solve this in a way that can be agreed by both Sinhalese and Tamils, please come forward. We'd love to hear your ideas. — Sebastian 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tags and edited with some work to be done tomorrow, let's edit boldly and leave aside political brikmanship. Just my advice. ThanskRaveenS 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that some Wikipedians try to call Tamilnet a reliable source, cos it blatantly is not, and pretty much the whole world accepts that. You want proof? Here are citations from the BBC [1], Reuters [2], AFP [3], AP [4] and Xinhua [5] all calling Tamilnet "pro-LTTE". That's pretty much case closed. No Wikiproject can override that.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, I am surprised you consider Reuters, Bloomberg, AP and similar news agencies unreliable. I'm really surprised in fact. And you have failed to mention news publications such as the Daily Mirror and Sunday Times, whose reports are, as a whole, less biased than even the BBC. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen should'nt we be moving this discussion to the appropriate place. I think the relevance of Tamilnet and Tamilnation or Sinhalanet (Hay I am going to copyright that:-) or Sinhalanation no longer applies to this article. It is an important discussion, nevertheless at the right place. Thanks RaveenS 12:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I propose to discuss this in WT:SLR. — Sebastian 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to close the open question on this page: Snowolfd4 has a point. I'm just looking through the references he provided and Reuters seem to have a correspondent in location covering the conflict. I'm therefore striking my wrong sentence. — Sebastian 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)