This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Many of the sources for this article seems to have problems with verifiability. With the user Oz346 adding new information from sources that have not been verified as reliable. Sources like TamilNet and Tamils against Genocide are questionable sources. It does not seem that these sources have not been deemed reliable enough to conform a incident taking place, especially when they are the only source available. Amrithsvar (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Tamilnet is per rebel RS and can be used as a can be used with the qualification 'according to the pro-rebel Tamilnet as prior discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Does that work for verifying and establishing that an incident took place? Shouldn't that need to be a RS ? If TamilNet can be used for that, shouldn't it be more obvious that the only source for a particular incident is TamilNet. For example, highlighting the row. And lot of the incidents from TamilNet does not explicitly mention Sri Lankan armed forces relating to the attacks. How come these were decided to related the Sri Lankan armed forces?. Eg: (Disappearance and murders of Ilankovan Kandeepan....., Vavuniya disappearances and murders and it seems like a lot more.) Amrithsvar (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the rows which do not explicitly mention the govt forces, they were rows which initially were referenced by TAG which did explicitly mention govt culpability (but now TAG has not been deemed a reliable source to solely reference a row at present). There are other sources which do blame the govt forces for these killings, but I will have to dig them up later to corroborate. For example, I have added a corroborating reference for Rasanayagam Jagan from UTHR. Also http://www.tchr.net/press_rel_urg_act_app_tchr-2007.htm? Oz346 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Tamilnet is classed as a reliable source, but one which needs qualification:
The reliability of TamilNet is not as clear as you mention, especially when conforming whether an incident taking place. If the only source is TamilNet for a particular attack it should explicitly display that the information comes from a single source. It is not clear in this table since what exactly "according to TamilNet" means is not clear at first. My suggestion is, The rows should be colored or explicitly displayed that "according to TamilNet" means that an incident taking place. And What about the reliability of many of other sources? What about "Tamils Against Genocide"? It seems like a very unreliable source since it seems to be connected with TGTE and the LTTE. Amrithsvar (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It is clear, it is in the reference column. Reference column clearly means the source of the row. Anyone reading the row and in particular the important columns on death toll and perpetrator will see it. Colouring is not appropriate, as there is actually no evidence that Tamilnet has any poor fact checking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TamilNet#Criticism_and_Counter-Criticism
Like other news websites it has it's biases, but it was run by professional journalists. Blueing it is excessive.
I have made it even more clear now, by explicitly changing the 'refs' column to 'references claiming attack'. That's incredibly clear now.
As for TAG, it's not used alone to cite any row, the main source is still tamilnet (besides there is no evidence it is tgte/LTTE related, that is a baseless accusation). Oz346 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it? It is somewhat ambiguous to me it could also mean that the death toll or the some other information is "according to the TamilNet". It should be more specific that the information does not come from a reliable source. As I've mentioned before highlighting rows would suffice according the consensus by the SLR project. Also when looking at previous discussions about TamilNet, It is not even clear whether it has been established that TamilNet can be used for verification of incidents like in this table, since It was not deemed a RS by SLR project. TamilNet is clearly a questionable source.
TAG is used to establish a connection between the government forces and the particular attacks mentioned in TamilNet in a lot of incidents. If TAG is not a RS can it be used as such?. Fein Bruce and the TAG has been accused of being funded by the LTTE by several sources [1][2][3].
And shouldn't this list only specific attack that have been confirmed? Or the name should changed to "List of alleged attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces", since many of the attacks are not verifiable.
And what of the source named Tamil Times. It has not been deemed a reliable source. And many of the Tamil Times sources are not even available to verify. It also seems Tamil Times is a biased and unreliable source. [4]Amrithsvar (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
using the Army website as if it is reliable source to make libelous and slanderous claims against TAG, is like asking the accused criminal murderer and rapist for his opinion on the accuser. It cannot be take as a reliable source at all for this. I have already addressed these slanderous claims in an older discussion above in this discussion board, check it out. In any case, to save this pointless argument I will remove all TAG references when I get to a computer, I'm currently on a phone.
The column title clearly says 'reference claiming ATTACK" not just isolated death toll. It is really not ambiguous.
We are going around in circles with Tamilnet, it HAS been classed as a reliable sources that needs attribution.
'alleged' suggests no basis for the report, which is not the case, if that's the case we should also add the alleged to the list of attacks attributed to ltte. What criteria determines whether a reported attack should be described as alleged or not. Sinhala run Sri Lankan newspapers are notorious for their bias and censoring of crimes against Tamils but it does not mean they should be censored off Wikipedia or smeared with 'alleged'.
Tamil Times can be found online the whole set, and the weblink you cite contradicts your claim of it being unreliable itself, I quote:
"The Tamil Times which reflected independence throughout its existence was systematically targeted and pressurised to abandon publication. But the paper is still going on despite the LTTE onslaught." Oz346 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
we wouldnt use alleged to described biased sources like 'the island'. unless there is clear evidence of poor fact checking not expected of a news site and standard journalism (which tamilnet does not have, in fact it has reliable sources describing it as being very good at fact checking, irrespective of its bias), then using alleged for only tamilnet is just slanderous and an attempt to smear. Oz346 (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
in addition, majority of Tamilnet reports are also independently corroborated by Tamil Times, so I will add them when time permits. you need to provide more evidence that these reports are fabricated, otherwise it's an inappropriate attempt to smear a Wikipedia recognised reliable source and professional news site. Oz346 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
To further add, Tamil Times is actually less biased then most mainstream Sinhala run Sri Lankan news papers and sites, because unlike those, Tamil Times mentions the attacks committed by all sides of the conflict, whereas the Sri Lankan national papers have a policy of censoring crimes against Tamils. Oz346 (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There are several sources for that not just the army website. As I said before TamilNet only seem to have been regarded as reliable sources when writing about or describing something. There is no mention of it being used a the only source to verify a incident taking place as fact. This should be discussed further.
You are breaking WP:NPOV. There is no relevance to other sources. I am questioning the verifiability of sources in this table. If only a questionable source like (TamilNet, Tamil Times) mention the incident it is fair to regard it as alleged. Unless a secondary reliable source confirms it.
The source I mentioned is from 2007 and it does not seem to help to establish Tamil Times as a unreliable source as I thought. But it simply mentions that it was targeted. Being targeted by the LTTE doesn't make it a reliable source.
Can you point me to the website of Tamil Times? None of the citations can be found on the internet.
The Island is a well established news paper. It is seen as a reliable source. however TamilNet and Tamil Times is not. The reliability of TamilNet has been questioned multiple times. TamilNet regard as a pro-LTTE the BBC too.
You can't add questionable sources and say to me to disprove them. All the incidents without any reliable evidence should be removed unless there is evidence to prove it otherwise. That is how wikipedia work not like you explains. TamilNet is not " Wikipedia recognised reliable source". It has only been used as a Qualified Source in the SLR project for describing things.
The bias of other sources have no relevance to this conversation. This is not a contest of "who is the most biased". Amrithsvar (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Well we have reached an impasse. Tamil Times is uploaded on the noolaham website. As far as I am concerned they are both reliable sources manned by professional journalists, and importantly the only reliable English medium sources which were able to circumvent the brutal and deadly Sri Lankan government's censorship which even resulted in the murders of many of their journalists and their senior editor:
Only by sending their news reports internationally were they able to avoid the racist censorship of the Sri Lankan government. It seems that censorship process continues even now. Oz346 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
TamilNet has long been accepted as a RS provided you add a qualifier. It can be used as long as the references to government culprits are explicit. I don't see why Tamil Times should be excluded? It has not been deemed unreliable but apparently in its early days it had pro-rebel sympathies, like most Tamils in general did in the aftermath of the Black July. Editorial bias in favour of either side is unavoidable in Sri Lanka. Notable national newspapers that have been deemed RS have a pro-government bias. Petextrodon (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
TamilNet has been accepted as aPro-rebal QS. Which mean it only tell one side of the story and hence always be used with explicit attribution. Therefore, Amrithsvar has a point that claims that are exclusively attributed to pro-rebal sources need to be differentiate from the ones that have been attributed other RS. Tamil Times has not been established as a RS and therefore should not be used at all, until such time it has been established as a RS or QS. Cossde (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
well Tamilnet has already been explicitly attributed and differentiated. And you have done the same for Tamil Times for the early 80s which I have accepted (although for consistency the Sri Lankan newspapers like The Island should be called pro govt by the same standard). However, this claim that Tamil Times a published news magazine of over 25 years comprised of professional journalists and an editorial board needs to be vetted by a formal process before use, I disagree with (Same argument we had regarding the use of the un report). Oz346 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
As I've said before since there is a problem with TamilNet's reliability and it is not clear enough about that in the list. The Island is a reputable source that hasn't been questioned. All sources are biased but sources like Tamil Nation and TamilNet has a verifiability problem, those sources should be corroborated with additional sources when making factual statement. Just having professional journalists doesn't make it automatically a reliable source. UN report is a reputable source which is quite different from magazines that have been accused of being biased by institutions like the BBC. The ideal solution would be that rows with only TamilNet to back the incident taking place should be highlighted. And incidents that have only have Tamil Times as its only source should be deleted unless there is secondary evidence to back it up because as Cossde mentioned it hasn't been regarded as RS in this particular scenario. Amrithsvar (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Cossde is making his own rule up. There is no Wikipedia policy saying that all sources need to go through a formal process, especially when they already fit the criteria for a reliable source (well published news magazine with editorial board and a maxim that facts are sacred). Besides, Tamil Times is no where near as controversial as Tamilnet, and if Tamilnet has been deemed suitable for use, than Tamil Times is also clearly suitable. We have even explicitly attributed Tamil Times even though it has not been deemed a questionable reliable source. Oz346 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
And all this talk of bias, every source on Sri Lankan conflict has bias, just as most news sources do (even BBC has bias towards the British government). But bias is not a reason to exclude a source from being reliable and citable. Oz346 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Sinhalese run 'national' news agencies in the south being greatly biased in their war reporting:
Newspapers like the Island which had a policy of censoring every atrocity committed against Tamils in the warzone are questionable as well. They are certainly not as trustworthy as other reliable sources like the BBC. Oz346 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
'The Island' (along with the sun newspaper) have been noted by scholars for lying and falsely claiming that massacres of Tamil civilians were killing of Tamil terrorists in the 1980s:
It has a poor record of fact checking. They have also been described as a pro-government and pro-Sinhala nationalist newspaper by scholarly secondary sources:
It is more unreliable than Tamilnet which has never stooped to such low level of racist distortion, yet it is farcically allowed to be referenced with no attribution as a so called 'reliable source'. Oz346 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
"Tamil Times has not been established as a RS and therefore should not be used at all, until such time it has been established as a RS or QS."
Last time you said the same about an obviously RS Asian Human Rights Commission. Once again, I suggest you refrain from making up your own arbitrary rules. The burden of proof is on you to show why a magazine with its own ISSN, which was notable enough to be cited in reliably published books and covered by national Sri Lankan newspapers is not a RS enough for you? -- Petextrodon (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Now its you who is making your own rules and Oz346 who is making his/her own claims to define what is RS. Clearly both of you are wrong. As Pharaoh of the Wizards mentioned Tamilnet was qualified as a QS for the use in Sri Lankan Civil War related topics way back during the war. This list contains the sources that have been qualified as RS, QS and Non-RS since this very same disscussion was there back then. That's why Pharaoh of the Wizards said there is no need to question or qualify Tamilnet since it has already been done so and I agree. That said Tamil Times and the Asian Human Rights Commission needs to be qualified to be used in Sri Lankan Civil War topics given the highly controversial and sensitive nature of these topics. These accusations that are leveled against the Sri Lankan Government are very serious. Finally as per WP:BURDENThe burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Cossde (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says this:
"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
This has been done, it does not mean you need to put every reliable source under a formal discussion. Oz346 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Tamil Times is a not a reliable source. It has been noted to be biased and unreliable by multiple sources. And since it's reliability is questioned by several wikipedians it's only natural that's incident that used Tamil Times as a primary source is backed by secondary sources. If a source is questioned by a wikipedian, it must be verified by secondary sources. Amrithsvar (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Tamil Times has NOT been noted to be 'unreliable' by multiple sources. You are not a 'source'. In fact, there is compelling evidence that you are the same Amrithsvarya who was already noted by others to be white washing and censoring any mentions of anti Tamil atrocities from this page and others in the past (see previous discussion above on this notice board). Hardly a neutral observer, let alone a neutral 'source'. And Tamil Times is not a primary source, it's a news magazine. Oz346 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
It's ironic you use the government-owned Daily News to question the reliability of Tamil Times. The same Daily News whose editorials openly backed the government's military offensive which resulted in widespread human rights violations against Tamil civilians. The Hindu despite its openly pro-GoSL editorial policy for which its editor was awarded Sri Lanka Rathna is still allowed to be cited on Sri Lankan conflict, even without the qualifier "pro-government". -- Petextrodon (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
And the same Daily News approved Tamil Times as having "reflected independence throughout its existence".
Yes, they are accepted doesn't mean their editorial policies aren't pro-government. The Hindu editor N. Ram is well-known for his pro-government policy and was awarded Sri Lanka Rathna by the government. - Petextrodon (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
If Tamil Times is not a reliable source, could you explain why academics, including Sinhalese ones, have cited it in their books? Go to google books and search "Tamil Times". -- Petextrodon (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So are you saying that Tamil Times, which is known to have pro-rebal bias can be considered an RS since its cited by third parties? Cossde (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
From where did you get the idea that Tamil Times was pro-rebel? I think you got it from its Wikipedia page which states: "In its early years the magazine supported Sri Lankan Tamil militantism but following the takeover by Kandiah (publisher) and Rajanayagam (editor) in December 1987 the magazine took a moderate editorial stance."
However, the cited sources don't say that at all. They say just the opposite! -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
But you're also disputing its reliability, therefore you also have burden to demonstrate why it is not reliable. You have yet to show the Wikipedia rule which says we should not cite a published newsmagazine that's been cited by scholars and journalists unless it's been deemed RS by a noticeboard.-- Petextrodon (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You first need to provide reliable evidence that Tamil Times was pro-rebel as you alleged because other reliable sources say just the opposite. It's a notable published newsmagazine. It meets all the criteria of a RS. Since you and the other user are the ones disputing its reliability against mainstream acceptance of it by journalists and scholars, you need to substantiate your fringe stance.
"The articles published came from various sources and were reflective of the various shades of opinion of different political divides. The Tamil Times was subscribed to and widely read by thousands of people from different countries including Sri Lanka, India, USA, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and the African countries. The contents of this publication were such that even the High Commissions from some of these countries subscribed to it."
I could cite more such sources confirming its reliability. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure if Sri Lanka Guardian is a RS. The Tamil Times page it self claims that is had been pro-rebel part in early stages. Oh and I just realized you compared it's circulation which this source claims thousands to the Daily News and the The Hind which has a slightly larger circulation of what was it? Oh yes 88,000 and 1,415,792. That's a clear difference between mainstream and fringe for your information. Cossde (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
and you conveniently ignored what the pro-government Daily News stated which I had replied to you twice:
"The Tamil Times which reflected independence throughout its existence was systematically targeted and pressurised to abandon publication. But the paper is still going on despite the LTTE onslaught."
I could cite more if that's not enough. Now, you need to demonstrate your share of burden since you're the one who alleged that it was pro-rebel. Please provide reliable sources that states Tamil Times had a pro-rebel editorial policy. Until then I will have to remove your unverified allegation. -- Petextrodon (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that was premature, since you have failed to establish the Tamil Times as a RS or a Pro-rebel QS like how the Tamilnet has been done. Furthermore, regarding my unverified allegation, it is well known that Tamil Times founder, first MD and editor Thamotheram was a known pro-rebel, who had been recognized as such by pro-rebel such as [5], [6] and Thamotheram was known to have openly advocated and lobbied for the LTTE, even writing against its ban in the UK [7] that is why Tamil Times had been known for its pro-rebel status in its early year. After all Thamotheram virtually ran it from its own house in those days. Sorry I missed your comments on the Daily News article. Its seems inconsistent since it also states that Thamotheram founding the International Tamil Foundation which is sympathetic towards the LTTE. Therefore I am reverting your changes. Cossde (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No, it is not inconsistent. The existence of short-lived diversity among editors in its early days doesn't warrant tarring the entire magazine for most of its history as having had a biased editorial policy in favour of one side. it's common for different contributors to any newspaper to have different perspectives. The anti-militancy perspective existed from the very beginning and it eventually took over for most of the newsmagazine's history. An affiliate of the UTHR(J), who is critical of militant Tamil nationalism, endorsed the Tamil Times by writing the following for The Island:
"In a few years, developments in Sri Lanka created a divergence of perspectives within the editorial group, where some supported militant Tamil nationalism unequivocally. Raja and others were perturbed by the intolerant nationalism, militarism, Tamil-on-Tamil violence and the crushing of dissent within the Tamil polity. Raja found the LTTE’s claim to be the sole representative of the Tamils abhorrent. By around 1987, the disagreement was settled in Raja’s favour, and he continued as the editor until January 2006. As Raja’s editorials became increasingly critical of armed violent actors, he was subjected to threats and intimidations. For a period, the Tamil Times was the only one of its kind, offering critical support to the Tamils in their quest for justice and democratic rights. It was read with interest for Raja’s editorials but not just by Tamils but also by various representatives of governments, members of the human rights fraternity, journalists and academics. The magazine was supported by subscriptions entirely and from across the globe."
Therefore, since I've provided more reliable sources endorsing Tamil Times as independent and you have yet to provide any RS on its editorial policy as a whole being described as pro-rebel, I will again remove unverified allegations. -- Petextrodon (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "No, it is not inconsistent."? Its clear that it is you who are inconsistant. Oz346 just calimed that The Island is an unreliable source, yet you use it to claim Tamil Times a reliable source. What is the consistancy in that?
These are very serious accusations. Accusations which technically speaking even Tamilnet has not been qualified to present as a WP:QS per its in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. Tamil Times has not been confirmed as a WP:RS in a WP:RSN. There is no concensus in this fourm for the use of Tamil Times as a RS. Therefore you need to get Tamil Times cleared by a RSN as a RS before using it here such a controvical matter. Once you get it you may use this source in this page. Cossde (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I said *It is more unreliable than Tamilnet* yet it is regarded as a RS, so by the same token Tamil Times is certainly a RS if the island is deemed one. Reliability lies on a spectrum. Oz346 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you bring the user Oz346 into a reply to my comment? I don't always have to agree with other users on everything. I can only speak for myself.
If Tamil Times is reliable enough to be cited by scholars and journalists and be endorsed by critics of militant Tamil nationalism, why would it require further vetting on Wikipedia? Could you cite a Wikipedia guideline which states every notable published source needs to be cleared by a RSN as a RS before using it? It would be appropriate when widespread controversy exists about a source's reliability, not when there's widespread approval of it from other reliable sources. You and the other user are the only ones disputing its reliability, on several occasions based on fabricated claims not supported by cited sources.
That WikiProject is now defunct and its list is not set in stone but can be revised since the criteria to qualify certain sources as "pro-rebel" isn’t consistently applied to the other side (pro-government). -- Petextrodon (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Reliability of a source is well defined in WP:RS, I don't believe that Tamil Times is an RS based on that criteria. However you Petextrodon and you Oz346 think its an RS based on inconsistent and contradicting rational. Amrithsvar feels its not. Hence Tamil Times is challenged as a RS here. Therefore it is best cleared out in a WP:RSN. I am open to hear alternative suggestions. Cossde (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please explain what criteria of a RS Tamil Times lacks? otherwise this assertion will be baseless. Merely saying its not a RS, is not enough.
Secondly, the pro-government 'The Island' and 'Daily News' are both regarded as RS, and both have overt bias towards the government. Yet you have no issue with their use as reliable sources. Please explain this discrepancy. Oz346 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
And if Tamilnet is a qualified source, that can be used with attribution on Wikipedia. What makes Tamil Times less reliable than Tamilnet in your eyes that it cannot be used at all? Oz346 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the correct template to use to question if something is RS, not the NPOV template. Oz346 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
NPOV template was used with a reason. Majority of these claims have been given with a single source that is clearly pro-rebel or anti- government. Tamilnet has been deemed a WP:QS that can be used to cite content related to it and not that is accusing the government. Tamil Times will also fall into the same category due to its Pro-Tamil and anti- government rhetoric. Cossde (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
And your baseless accusation of anti government, please provide a reliable source for that regarding Tamil Times, there are more RS indicating the opposite, that Tamil Times was more critical of the Tigers, especially after 1987. Oz346 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Tamilnet has been deemed a QUALIFIED SOURCE, not a questionable source. you are confusing the two. Qualified sources are a class of reliable sources which need explicit attribution. Oz346 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes a Qualified sources, which means "These fulfill WP:RS, but only tell one side of the story (see also WP:NPOV#bias). They can therefore always be used with explicit attribution." Cossde (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
According to Gordon Weiss book 'The Cage' a RS secondary source:
"In a country that proven incapable of investigating the crimes of its own law enforcement and military officers, it is unlikely that the true scope of the government-sanctioned killing of Tamil civilians by a plethora of security forces will ever be known. In contrast Tigers atrocities against Sinhalese were carefully counted, scrutinised and repeatedly decried by the government."
The government had a policy of censorship where no reports of attacks due to govt forces was to be reported, hence the paucity of sources apart from Tamil Times and Tamilnet in the English medium which escaped censorship by publishing abroad. So there is a perfectly reasonable reason why many of these attacks have only one source. Thats not a reason to censor and whitewash. Oz346 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding rampant Media censorship by government of Sri Lanka:
"In July1983, the first Tamil Tiger attack on the Sri Lankan military was followed by days of island-wide anti-Tamil ethnic violence. President Jayewardene’s handling of the crisis was heavily criticised by Jaffna based Sinhala journalist and editor of The Saturday Review, Gamini Navaratne. In retaliation, the Jayewardene government banned The Review with immediate effect. Although the ban was later lifted, Navaratne was required to present all of his copy to the government censor before publication (Senadhira, 1996)." Oz346 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you accusing me a of censor and whitewash? Cossde (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Not you specifically, but anyone who has been trying to cover up these crimes and remove them from the public domain including on Wikipedia with no valid reason. You have not wholesale deleted any of these details to fit that criteria, but the other user who first raised issues on this source has been engaging in this behaviour in the past as can been seen from his editing history:
"I don't believe that Tamil Times is an RS based on that criteria."
Please go ahead and list all the criteria that Tamil Times doesn't meet. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Given that it was published in the owner/editors own house doesn't really make the Tamil Times a mainstream publication. Cossde (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I dont see anything on the RS wikipedia page which says that excludes a source from being reliable. They were a small organisation true consisting of volunteers, but that does not preclude reliability. Oz346 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Given that its a small organisation consisting of volunteers, there is no reliability that is there in a mainstream publication. Cossde (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
define 'mainstream'.
Do you mean like "The island" and "The Sun" of Sri Lanka which actively lie and have described massacres of Tamils civilians as killings of terrorists?
Actually, the size of a organisation is not directly correlated with its reliability as can be seen from the above. Oz346 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Refer WP:SOURCE, relaiablity depands on mainstream publications. The Island is a mainstream newspaper in Sri Lanka, not a owner operated operation. Cossde (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I have and it says this which Tamil Times fulfils:
"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form."
On the first issue of Tamil Times, it states explicitly:
"Although we appear under the title TAMIL TIMES, we are determined to ensure that news, views and informa- tion that we publish are of general interest to all Sri Lankans be they Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and Bur- ghers. While we will not hesitate to comment on political questions we are resolved to remain unaffiliated to any political party.
While we would endeavour to give as wide a coverage as possible to news and information, we are determined to make the TAMIL TIMES the standard bearer for the defence of democracy and human rights and a forum for serious discussion of political, social, economic and cultural matters concer- ning our mother country and host countries.
We are dedicated to the much cherished maxim: 'Facts are sacred, comment is free'. Oz346 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems you haven't. Any publication is by default not considered reliable. Especially one that's published in the owners house. Its contents are clearly WP:NPOV. Cossde (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
'The Island' is a racist paper with a proven history of lying and covering up of massacres of innocent Tamil civilians (as proven by reliable secondary sources) by claiming the victims were terrorists. But the fact you have no issue with that and what it means for its RELIABILITY speaks volumes. Oz346 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you calling one of the leading English dailies in Sri Lanka a racist paper ? Cossde (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes 100% its a racist disgusting paper. If this happened in the developed world (falsely calling civilian massacre victims as terrorists), the editors of the paper would be in jail for libel. Oz346 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a very serious accusation. Cossde (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Not as serious as claiming 100s of massacred civilians were terrorists as 'the Island' have done. Oz346 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
How can you say that? Besides are we talking about the Island here or Tamil Times. Cossde (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I dispute the reliability of state-affiliated Sri Lankan newspapers. They should at least be used with a "pro-government" tag if we are to be consistent. I think the now defunct WikiProject list should be re-opened and revised. Oz346 has already made a request. Let's wait and see. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand what you and Oz346 are doing here. This whole discussion is on the verifiability of the sources used in this article. Tamil Times is questioned here as a WP:RS, you simply need to do a WP:RSN and get it qualified. However you are bringing sources that are not part of this discussion and wants to get them revised. What is the objective of all that? Cossde (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Consistent application of criteria to avoid one-sided bias. Also you were the one who brought up the WikiProject list. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That was to confirm what Pharaoh of the Wizards said on the status of Tamil Net as a Pro-rebel RS. You and Oz346 is bring in every possible source in to this discussion without validating Tamil Times as a RS. Cossde (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It has been validated repeatedly with citations to multiple reliable sources. You refusing to accept the mainstream consensus and refusing to meet your share of burden is your own problem. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
If you are pushing this owner operated home made magazine as a RS, its your baby not mine. Cossde (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In contrast to Tamil Times, UTHR(J) was published by the exiled Rajan Hoole from the underground, without any official headquarter. Yet that didn't prevent UTHR(J) from being accepted as a RS. Should we not revise the status of UTHR(J) going by your own standard?
As for Tamil Times, here's yet another reliable source, a Sri Lankan newspaper, confirming its reliability:
"The Tamil Times under the enlightened editorship of Rajanayagam was committed to the fundamental journalistic principle – ‘facts are sacred and opinions are free’."
Your perspective is in the fringe, going against the mainstream consensus of other reliable sources, so yes you definitely have a bigger burden to fulfil. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Then you would have no problem taking it to WP:RSN. Cossde (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It's better to be approved by the WikiProject list once and for all since editors seem to bring that up frequently. -- Petextrodon (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I prefer that the same moderator who vetted Sri Lankan newspapers should use the same criteria to judge Tamil Times. --- Petextrodon (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
"Given that its a small organisation consisting of volunteers, there is no reliability that is there in a mainstream publication."
That applies to the UTHR(J) as well (in fact, a lot more), which was primarily associated with one editor, Rajan Hoole, yet it's accepted as a reliable source. This seems arbitrary. -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can we please stay in on point here, we are talking about Tamil Times here? Cossde (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but if the criteria were to be applied consistently, then the status of Sri Lankan national newspapers with government affiliations or pro-government editorials should likewise be revised or vetted. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That is not the point here. Cossde (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
We need to be consistent. Why should different standards apply to different sides? That nullifies Wikipedia policy of neutrality. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That is beyond this topic. Can we please stick to this one. Cossde (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Amrithsvar : "It also seems Tamil Times is a biased and unreliable source."
Read your own sources before citing them to support your arguments. The pro-government Daily News says just the opposite of what you're saying:
"The Tamil Times which reflected independence throughout its existence was systematically targeted and pressurised to abandon publication. But the paper is still going on despite the LTTE onslaught." -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. After reading though the discussion. I now believe that Time Times is a reliable source. Amrithsvar (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, Tamil Times needs RSN to confirm as a RS and at best could it be considered a Qualified Source like the TamilNet and therefore should not be used as the sole reference. Therefore, Tamil Times and TamilNet should not be used as the sole reference in accusations against the government to maintain WP:WEIGHT. Look at the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Cossde (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, why does Petextrodon and Oz346 keep reverting and removing my NPOV tag on this page. There is an active dissuasion going on here and no conclusion reached. If we it is removed I will have to report it. Cossde (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Read the reason given for the revert. You have yet to give a single good reason on why Tamil Times' neutrality is disputed. You jumped from one thing to another and keep changing the goalpost. First it was pro-rebel allegation, and then it was about a house being used as an office. It's not clear what we are arguing here. That's your burden. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
What have been unclear about? My stance remain unchanged. I say that Tamil Times' neutrality is questionable under C. J. T. Thamotheram and that Tamil Times does not meet RS standards since its not a mainstream magazine. Its neither a volunteer organization recognized by established international organizations as one nor does it have the platform to be considered a mainstream magazine. Per WP:BURDEN, "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Therefore appreciate you not passing your burden. Cossde (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
"I say that Tamil Times' neutrality is questionable under C. J. T. Thamotheram"
Please provide reliable sources disputing Tamil Times neutrality on that basis. We've provided enough reliable sources affirming its reliability and independence.
"and that Tamil Times does not meet RS standards since its not a mainstream magazine"
Please define what you mean by "mainstream"?
You're now the ONLY person disputing its reliability against mainstream RS publications and the opinions of all other concerned users here, including Sinhalese ones, who deem it a RS. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no issue being the minority here. TT is not a mainstream magazine and therefore until such time its proven to be one by RSN I am not convinced.Cossde (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Fringe views based on original research of an editor aren't equal to mainstream views backed by multiple reliable sources. You should know this since you had cited a wiki guideline on this yesterday on another discussion. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There a perfectly reasonable reason why many of these attacks only have one source as I have already proven beyond doubt earlier in this discussion. There was a brutal crackdown on local press who reported crimes committed by the government as part of the government's policy of media censorship. Many journalists have in fact been assassinated for attempting to report on these crimes including the chief editor of Tamilnet. As the existing reliable sources confirm, both Tamil Times and Tamilnet were based internationally to circumvent this censorship. Besides it is already well known from other established reliable sources that the government forces have been responsible for countless attacks on civilians. Attacks on civilians with impunity by the government is not an exceptional claim in the body of established RS literature. Oz346 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
For example, the Saturday Review based in Jaffna which has a Sinhala editor was unable to report on these crimes in the 80s due to the government policy of censorship. Only Tamil Times could publish this information. The Sri Lankan government was so worried about this, that it created a competitor Sri Lankan Times to counter Tamil Times. Oz346 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Technically what you say is WP:OR. Besides censorship didn't apply for international organizations that latter documented the HR violations on both sides.Cossde (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Chandrika government provided more space than the previous and subsequent governments but even under her rule there was press censorship on military matters. Not every single massacre of Tamil civilians in little-known villages of the north-east was reported by these international NGOs. They needed government approval to visit these conflict zones which wasn't always granted, whereas Tamil Times (and TamilNet) had local correspondents on the ground. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
there are many cases of international journalists being deported in the 1980s for reporting on these government war crimes, so the claim there was no restrictions or censorship of international journalists is false. Oz346 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
If what Petextrodon and Oz346, claim is correct. How did Tamil Times get its information? Cossde (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
From local journalists. It is not easy for international journalists to avoid the government's radar, whereas local journalists can retain their anonymity more easily, and pass on their reports discretely. Whereas international journalists stand out from the general population and are almost always being watched. Oz346 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
They have journalists working for them. This is how news agencies work. News agencies are a recognised category of reliable sources on wikipedia. For example, an example of a local journalist is Mylvaganam Nimalrajan who was killed by pro-government forces, he used to report for Tamilnet: TamilNet#Threats and murders. Oz346 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Cossde Your discussion seems very unhelpful for the betterment of this article. I think there are enough evidence to consider that Tamil Times is a good enough source. Just having the credibility from UTHR is enough to consider it a reliable source. Amrithsvar (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, as I see it Tamil Times has not been established correctly as a RS. Newspapers and magazines can be used as RS in Wikipedia per WP:RS if these are mainstream publications. There has been no mention about the circulation (number) of this magazine. Even if we can take it as a RS, its clearly is a bias RS given the fact its initial set of directors had been force to leave Sri Lanka and one can say has an axe to grind. The TamilNet has been cleared as a QS, however it has been used in this list as a single source, which is incorrect since it has been confirmed to be bias. Therefore, such citations need to be back by another. All the references of RS that have cited TT seems to have done so as a primary source and in fact the Noolaham Foundation that digitized the TT editions states It provides valuable documentation and analysis of the Tamil struggle and Sri Lankan and International politics during this crucial period. Cossde (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
A source being biased doesn't mean it can't be used. Biased sourced can be a RS. Just put it in the same category as TamilNet then, as a QS that requires a explicit mention like 'according to Tamil Times'. Amrithsvar (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
What does that have to do with TT?Cossde (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
