Talk:Burning of Jaffna library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to Final resolution, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
Peer review Burning of Jaffna library has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
List of Archived Talk Pages


[edit] Useful references

If some of the editors are interested in making this article better see some references

Have fun guys 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No takers only talkers :-)))) I had to do the dirty work again :-(((RaveenS 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I am completely rewriting this article, if any one has any suggestions more than welcomeRaveenS 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Tamilnet

Please explain why the addition of an article on Tamilnet was called spam and removed. Watchdogb (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was spamming over a video documentary which was created by someone and obviously a biased one or else it's not gonna get a separate page on pro-LTTE tamilnet. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says that you ? Who says that Video is a baised one. Arwe you citing review of it in any RS sources Taprobanus (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that Tamilnet is a qualified source and this link is only external link. Watchdogb (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Tamilnet is a notable source and is a qualified source. Thought it might be pro-rebel nothing it does not automatically mean that it cannot be added to EL. All that is needed is for the concerned party to add a anti-rebel EL to this and it would be perfectly balanced. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tamilnet is a credible source used by CNN, BBC, Reuters, Fox News, and AFP. Wiki Raja (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Taprobanus, If anyone here has got a review from a reliable source admiring this yet not released video documentary, then add it back. Watchdogb, Yes usually spam comes as external links and has to be taken much more care since this documentary is not released and this could be an obvious spam attempt. Wiki Raja, So what do you want me to do? Buy all crap that is posted on pro terrorist tamilnut? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to buy anything other than show civility towards other users, and refrain from your racial slurs against Tamils. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't see a racial slur here, I agree with the reminder for civilty. You won't improve Wikipedia by using foul language; you need to provide convincing reasons. --Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I? You might have crossed wires with Tamil people and Tamilnet which has always been considered a very notorious source among Sri Lankans due to it's scale of posting nonsenses. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from incivility. It looks like attack on media freedom has been exported from Sri Lanka to Wikipedia now. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So your only point is that this documentary is not published yet and has not been reviewed and therefore might be "spam". If the documentary is out, then we can add it back ? How about the use of Tamilnet on other External links ? You oppose this ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So far, there has been no reasonable objection to adding it back. --Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet I didn't pull out my objection. I would like to see a reasonable review from a reliable source for this documentary to confirm this video documentary is neutral and related to the topic. I wonder how can we rely over this unreleased video documentary. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, looks like the popular Sri Lankan paper called the Daily Mirror has reviewed it here. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's not really a review. It doesn's say anything about the trustworthiness or particular noteworthiness of the movie. (By "particular noteworthiness" I mean anything that goes beyond a short mention in the newspaper. Or else I would be noteworthy because my picture and name once appeared in a newspaper.) Also, Daily Mirror is not in our list of reliable sources WP:SLR#QS yet. If you feel it should be, please bring it up on WT:SLR. Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sebastian. So far, the only information with the most news coverage on Tamil news Northeast of Sri Lanka would be Tamil Net, since the government does not allow other media in there. Further, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have confirmed Sri Lanka's attack on media that does not fall in line with them. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So far, the most credible source for this film would be Tamil Net. Major news agencies use this site as the only reliable source of information on Tamils living Northeast of Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Here are some newspapers which use TamilNet:
CNN
BBC (London)
Reuters
Fox News
AFP
New York Times
Bloomberg
Washington Post
Times Online (London)
The Australian
El Mexicano
Cape Times (South Africa)
China Daily
BTW, I'm not much of a fan of Fox News. lol... Wiki Raja (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A little back to the point as to why a link to the documentary shouldn't be added, WP:LINKSPAM may be relevant in this case. Sri Lankan media will give coverage to new documentaries, movies and books etc. they hear about, but every such piece of media is not suitable to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. If it is actually reviewed by a major publication, and is accepted as a authoritative account of the library, then a link could be added to the page. But right now all that is present is advertisements for the documentary, and we have no info about it's neutrality and accuracy. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We should wait till the movie comes out and see what RS sources cover it (we already have 2 but it is prior to release) and incorporate it as part of the maina article at that point. Thanks Wikiraj for your excellent work on finding it in Daily Mirror which obviously is an RS source. Taprobanus (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Restored the External Link.Teasereds (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Teasereds, I have to remove the link since the arguments against it have not been refuted. I do realize that you are new, and you were making an effort to comply with the editing restrictions by reverting yourself. Please take a look at our classification of sources. If there is disagreement about that classification, please let's discuss it on WT:SLR. Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)